Loading...
2011 Hazard Mitigation Plani X . Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan For the Papio- Missouri Riper Natural Resources District 0'\L OLSSON A S S O C I AT E S ameO `o ,MISSO�R�,�� z F- 9� O � -- e lt L Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS PLANNING PROCESS ............................................................... ............................... 1.1 Introduction ................................................................ ............................... 1.2 Purpose ..................................................................... ............................... 1.3 Planning Process ....................................................... ............................... 1.3.1 Background .................................................... ............................... 1.3.2 Planning Team and Meetings ........................ ............................... 1.3.3 2006 All- Hazard Mitigation Plan Review and Update Methodology 1.3.4 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans .. ............................... 2 COMMUNITY PROFILES ............................ ............................... 2.1 Demographic Summary ............. ............................... 2.1.1 Burt County Demographic Summary ............ 2.1.2 Dakota County Demographic Summary ....... 2.1.3 Douglas County Demographic Summary ..... 2.1.4 Sarpy County Demographic Summary ......... 2.1.5 Thurston County Demographic Summary .... 2.1.6 Washington County Demographic Summary 2.2 Climate Summary ...................... ............................... 2.2.1 Burt County Climate Summary ..................... 2.2.2 Dakota County Climate Summary ................. 2.2.3 Douglas County Climate Summary ............... 2.2.4 Sarpy County Climate Summary ................... 2.2.5 Thurston County Climate Summary .............. 2.2.6 Washington County Climate Summary ......... 2.3 School District and College Profiles ......................... 2.3.1 Bellevue Public School District ..................... 2.3.2 Emerson - Hubbard Community School District 2.3.3 Omaha Public School District ....................... 2.3.4 Papillion -La Vista School District .................. 2.3.5 Tekamah- Herman Community School District 2.3.6 Metropolitan Community College .................. 2.3.7 University of Nebraska Medical Center ......... 3 RISK ASSESSMENT ................................ ............................... 3.1 Hazard Identification ................ ............................... 3.1.1 Review of Existing Mitigation Plans ............ 3.1.2 Review Disaster Declaration History ........... 3.1.3 Research Additional Sources ...................... 3.1.4 Hazards Identified ........ ............................... 3.1.5 Multi- Jurisdictional Risk Assessment .......... 3.2 Community Assets ................... ............................... 3.2.1 Total Exposure of Population and Structures 3.2.2 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ............. 3.2.3 Other Assets ................ ............................... 3.3 Hazard Profiles and Vulnerability ........................... 3.3.1 Agricultural Incidents - Animals /Livestock ..... 3.3.2 Agricultural Incidents - Plants /Crops ............. 3.3.3 Dam Failure .................. ............................... 3.3.4 Drought ........................ ............................... 1.1 1.1 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.14 1.15 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.7 2.10 2.13 2.16 2.19 2.22 2.25 2.27 2.29 2.31 2.33 2.35 2.37 2.37 2.42 2.42 2.51 2.52 2.53 2.61 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.9 3.16 3.16 3.19 3.27 3.32 3.35 3.39 3.47 3.80 Papio- l\Jiaaouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Juli 2011 3.3.5 Earthquakes ............................................................. ............................... 3.3.6 Flooding ................................................................... ............................... 3.3.7 Levee Failure ........................................................... ............................... 3.3.8 Severe Winter Storms /Ice Storms (also includes Extreme Cold) ........... 3.3.9 Thunderstorms /High Winds /Lightning /Hail (also includes Extreme Heat) 3.3.10 Tornadoes ................................................................ ............................... 3.3.11 Wildfires ................................................................... ............................... 3.4 Future Land Use and Development .................................... ............................... 3.5 Hazard Analysis Summaries ............................................... ............................... 4 MITIGATION STRATEGY ...... ............................... 4.1 Mitigation Goals ... ............................... 4.1.1 Mitigation Goals and Objectives 4.2 Mitigation Actions ............................... 5 PLAN MAINTENANCE ......................... ............................... 5.1 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1. Involvement in Planning Process ................................. ............................... Table 1.2. Participating Jurisdictions ............................................ ............................... Table 1.3. Non - Participating Jurisdictions .................................... ............................... Table 1.4. Summary of Planning Meetings ................................... ............................... Table 1.5. Review Process Summary ........................................... ............................... Table 1.6. Existing Plans, Studies, Reports, or Other Technical Information Summary Table 2.1. Age Characteristics of the P- MRNRD, July 2006 ........ ............................... Table 2.2. Housing Occupancy and Tenure of P- MRNRD, 2000 Census ................... Table 2.3. Age of Structures in P- MRNRD, 2000 Census ............ ............................... Table 2.4. Age Characteristics of Burt County, July 2006 ............ ............................... Table 2.5. Housing Occupancy and Tenure of Burt County, 2000 Census ................. Table 2.6. Age of Structures in Burt County, 2000 Census .......... ............................... Table 2.7. Age Characteristics of Dakota County, July 2006 ....... ............................... Table 2.8. Housing Occupancy and Tenure of Dakota County, 2000 Census ............ Table 2.9. Age of Structures in Dakota County, 2000 Census ..... ............................... Table 2.10. Age Characteristics of Douglas County, July 2006 ..... ............................... Table 2.11. Housing Occupancy and Tenure of Douglas County, 2000 Census .......... Table 2.12. Age of Structures in Douglas County, 2000 Census ... ............................... Table 2.13. Age Characteristics of Sarpy County, July 2006 ......... ............................... Table 2.14. Housing Occupancy and Tenure of Sarpy County, 2000 Census .............. Table 2.15. Age of Structures in Sarpy County, 2000 Census ....... ............................... Table 2.16. Age Characteristics of Thurston County, July 2006 .... ............................... Table 2.17. Housing Occupancy and Tenure of Thurston County, 2000 Census ......... Table 2.18. Age of Structures in Thurston County, 2000 Census .. ............................... Table 2.19. Age Characteristics of Washington County, July 2006 ............................... Table 2.20. Housing Occupancy and Tenure of Washington County, 2000 Census .... Table 2.21. Age of Structures in Washington County, 2000 Census ............................ Table 2.22. Bellevue Public School District Summary .................... ............................... Table 2.23. Emerson - Hubbard Community School District Summary ........................... Table 2.24. Omaha Public School District Summary ...................... ............................... Table 2.25. Papillion -La Vista School District Summary ................. ............................... Table 2.26. Tekamah- Herman Community School District Summary ........................... Table 2.27. Metropolitan Community College Summary ................ ............................... Table 2.28. University of Nebraska Medical Center Summary ....... ............................... Table 3.1. Hazards Included in State Plan and 2006 P -MRNRD Plan ........................ 3.91 3.106 3.227 3.247 3.260 3.280 3.294 3.299 3.304 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.5 5.1 5.4 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.11 1.14 1.15 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.37 2.42 2.42 2.51 2.53 2.53 2.62 3.2 Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Juli 2011 Table 3.2. FEMA Disaster Declaration History in the P- MRNRD, 1999 through April 2010 ........ 3.4 Table 3.3. Hazards Identified for All Jurisdictions ......................................... ............................... 3.8 Table 3.4. Maximum Population and Building Exposure by Jurisdiction ...... ............................... 3.16 Table 3.5. Building Counts by Usage Type .................................................. ............................... 3.17 Table 3.6. Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure by Jurisdiction .. ............................... 3.19 Table 3.7. Threatened and Endangered Species in P -MRNRD ................... ............................... 3.27 Table 3.8. P -MRNRD Properties on the National Register of Historic Places ............................. 3.28 Table 3.9. Value of Livestock and State Rank .............................................. ............................... 3.36 Table 3.10. Reportable Diseases in P -MRNRD Counties 2009 ..................... ............................... 3.36 Table 3.11. Worst -Case Scenario Animal /Livestock Losses .......................... ............................... 3.38 Table 3.12. Land in Farms and Value of Crops, 2007 .................................... ............................... 3.41 Table 3.13. Crop Insurance Payments for Crop Pests /Diseases 2000 to 2009 ............................ 3.41 Table 3.14. Estimated Crop Losses Resulting From Infestation .................... ............................... 3.45 Table 3.15. Worst -Case Scenario Crop Losses ............................................. ............................... 3.46 Table 3.16. Dam Hazard Classification Definitions ......................................... ............................... 3.47 Table 3.17. Upstream Missouri River Dams ................................................... ............................... 3.48 Table 3.18. Dams in P -MRNRD by County and Hazard Class ....................... ............................... 3.48 Table 3.19. High Hazard Dams in the P -MRNRD Planning Area ................... ............................... 3.49 Table 3.20. Critical Facilities in Available Dam Inundation Areas .................. ............................... 3.52 Table 3.21. Dam Failure Vulnerability Overview Table 3.22. Dam Failure Vulnerability Details for All Dams Sorted by Jurisdiction ....................... 3.63 Table 3.23. Potential Estimated Economic Losses Due to Failure of High Hazard Dams ............ 3.67 Table 3.24. Potential Estimated Impact to People Due to Failure of High Hazard Dams ............. 3.71 Table 3.25. Potential Estimated Numbers and Types of Exposed / Potentially Damaged Buildings ....................................................................................... ............................... 3.74 Table 3.26. Drought Impacts Reported to the National Drought Mitigation Center's Drought Impact Reporter (January 1950 to July 2010) ............................. ............................... 3.82 Table 3.27. Crop Insurance Claims Paid in P -MRNRD as a Result of Drought, 2000 to 2009 ..... 3.84 Table 3.28. Farmland in the P -MRNRD .......................................................... ............................... 3.89 Table 3.29. Estimated Crop Loss Resulting From Drought ............................ ............................... 3.90 Table 3.30. Estimated Building Losses - 2,500 -Year, 6.7 Magnitude Earthquake Event ................ 3.97 Table 3.31. Earthquake Loss Ratio - 2,500 -Year, 6.7 Magnitude Earthquake Event ................... 3.104 Table 3.32. Expected Building Damage by Building Type - 2,500 -Year 6.7 Magnitude EarthquakeEvent ........................................................................ ............................... 3.104 Table 3.33. Sarpy County Flooding Sources and Communities Affected ....... ............................... 3.133 Table 3.34. Crop Insurance Claims Paid in P -MRNRD as a Result of Excess Moisture and Flood ............................................................................................ ............................... 3.161 Table 3.35. Burt County Floods 1994 to 2009, NCDC .................................... ............................... 3.166 Table 3.36. Dakota County Floods 1994 to 2009, NCDC ............................... ............................... 3.168 Table 3.37. Flood History at North Bend Gage ............................................... ............................... 3.171 Table 3.38. Peak Discharges on Big Papillion Creek near "F" Street ............. ............................... 3.172 Table 3.39. Douglas County Floods 1994 to 2009, NCDC ............................. ............................... 3.175 Table 3.40. Sarpy County Floods 1994 to 2009, NCDC ................................. ............................... 3.184 Table 3.41. Thurston County Floods 1994 to 2009, NCDC ............................ ............................... 3.189 Table 3.42. Washington County Floods 1994 to 2009, NCDC ....................... ............................... 3.191 Table 3.43. NFIP Participation and Claims Summary .................................... ............................... 3.194 Table 3.44. P -MRNRD Repetitive Loss Properties ......................................... ............................... 3.196 Table 3.45. Douglas County Repetitive Loss Properties ................................ ............................... 3.196 Table 3.46. Sarpy County Repetitive Loss Properties .................................... ............................... 3.196 Table 3.47. Washington County Repetitive Loss Properties .......................... ............................... 3.196 Table 3.48. Flood Loss Estimates ................................................................... ............................... 3.198 Table 3.49. Displaced Populations Resulting from 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood .................... 3.200 Table 3.50. Counts and Types of Damaged Buildings (1 Percent Annual Chance Flood) ............ 3.207 Table 3.51. Economic Losses (1 Percent Annual Chance Flood) .................. ............................... 3.209 Table 3.52. Building Damage Loss Ratio (1 Percent Annual Chance Flood) . ............................... 3.211 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD in Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Table 3.53. Critical Facilities in the Floodplain in the P -MRNRD ................... ............................... 3.219 Table 3.54. Planning Area Levees Recorded in State Mitigation Plan ........... ............................... 3.230 Table 3.55. Levees Providing 1 Percent Annual Chance or Greater Protection ........................... 3.240 Table 3.56. Potential Estimated Economic Losses Resulting from Levee Failure ........................ 3.242 Table 3.57. Potential Estimated Impact to People Due to Levee Failure ....... ............................... 3.243 Table 3.58. Estimated Numbers and Types of Exposed / Potentially Damaged Buildings ........... 3.244 Table 3.59. Building Loss Ratios, Exposure = Levee Protected Area ............ ............................... 3.245 Table 3.60. Building Loss Ratios, Exposure = Entire Jurisdiction .................. ............................... 3.245 Table 3.61. Critical Facilities in Available Levee Protected Areas .................. ............................... 3.245 Table 3.62. 1994 -2009 Severe Winter Storms /Ice Storms in the P -MRNRD . ............................... 3.249 Table 3.63. 1994 -2009 Extreme Cold Events in the P -MRNRD ..................... ............................... 3.249 Table 3.64. Crop Insurance Claims Paid in P -MRNRD as a Result of Winter Storm and Cold Conditions .................................................................................... ............................... 3.254 Table 3.65. Loss of Use Estimates for Power Failure Associated with Severe Winter Storms ..... 3.257 Table 3.66. Number and Percent of Population Over Age 65 in P -MRNRD Counties .................. 3.258 Table 3.67. High Wind Events in Planning Area Counties 1950 to 2009 (greater than 58 mph (50 Knots)) ................................................................................... ............................... 3.264 Table 3.68. Hail Events in Planning Area Counties 1950 to 2009 (greater than 1 inch) ............... 3.266 Table 3.69. Lightning Events in Planning Area Counties 1995 to 2009 ......... ............................... 3.267 Table 3.70. Extreme Heat Events in Planning Area Counties 1994 to 2009 .. ............................... 3.268 Table 3.71. Crop Insurance Claims Paid in Planning Area as a Result of Severe Thunderstorm (Wind /Hail /Lightning) and Extreme Heat Conditions ................... ............................... 3.269 Table 3.72. Mobile Homes in Cities and Unincorporated County Areas ........ ............................... 3.275 Table 3.73. Loss of Use Estimates for Power Failure Associated with Severe Thunderstorms/ ExtremeHeat ............................................................................... ............................... 3.277 Table 3.74. Estimated Annualized Property Damages Resulting from Severe Thunderstorms (Wind /Hail /Lightning) .................................................................... ............................... 3.278 Table 3.75. Estimated Annualized Crop Damages Resulting from Severe Thunderstorms (Wind /Hail /Lightning /Heat) ........................................................... ............................... 3.279 Table 3.76. Enhanced F Scale for Tornado Damage ..................................... ............................... 3.280 Table 3.77. Enhanced F Scale Damage Indicators ........................................ ............................... 3.281 Table 3.78. Tornado Summary in P -MRNRD Planning Area (1950 to 2009) . ............................... 3.284 Table 3.79. Tornado Details in P -MRNRD ...................................................... ............................... 3.284 Table 3.80. 1975 Omaha Tornado Statists and Vulnerability Analysis Assumptions .................... 3.289 Table 3.81. Tornado Vulnerability Analysis .................................................... ............................... 3.291 Table 3.82. Wildfire Statistics 2005 to 2009 (All Reporting Fire Districts within the P- MRNRD) .... 3.295 Table 3.83. Wildfire Statistics 2005 to 2009 by County (All Reporting Fire Districts in NRD Boundary) .................................................................................... ............................... 3.295 Table 3.84. Wildfire Statistics 2005 to 2009 by County and Cause (All Reporting Fire Districts within the P- MRNRD) ................................................................... ............................... 3.296 Table 3.85. Average Annual Percent of Acres Burned as a Result of Wildfire .............................. 3.297 Table 3.86. Change in Population and Housing Units .................................... ............................... 3.299 Table 3.87. Planned Development Maps and Documentation ....................... ............................... 3.300 Table 3.88. Planning Area Hazard Summary ................................................. ............................... 3.306 Table 3.89. Dam Failure Hazard Summary .................................................... ............................... 3.308 Table 3.90. Earthquake Hazard Summary ..................................................... ............................... 3.309 Table 3.91. Flooding Hazard Summary .......................................................... ............................... 3.310 Table 3.92. Levee Failure Hazard Summary .................................................. ............................... 3.311 Table 3.93. Wildfire Hazard Summary ............................................................ ............................... 3.312 Table 3.94. Planning Significance of Identified Hazards by Jurisdictions ....... ............................... 3.314 Table 4.1. Mitigation Projects Completed in the P -MRNRD ......................... ............................... 4.1 Table 4.2. Mitigation Actions by Jurisdiction ................................................. ............................... 4.8 Table 5.1. Data Deficiencies Requiring Action ............................................. ............................... 5.2 Table 5.2. Five -Year Update Schedule ......................................................... ............................... 5.3 Table 5.3. Incorporation into Local Planning Mechanisms ........................... ............................... 5.5 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD iN Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Project Area ................................................................................. ............................... 1.7 Figure 2.1. P -MRNRD Population, 1880 to 2000 ........................................... ............................... 2.1 Figure 2.2. P -MRNRD Population Projection, 2005 to 2030 .......................... ............................... 2.2 Figure 2.3. Burt County Population, 1880 to 2000 ......................................... ............................... 2.4 Figure 2.4. Burt County Population Projection, 2005 to 2030 ........................ ............................... 2.5 Figure 2.5. Dakota County Population, 1870 to 2000 .................................... ............................... 2.7 Figure 2.6. Dakota County Population Projection, 2005 to 2030 ................... ............................... 2.8 Figure 2.7. Douglas County Population, 1870 to 2000 .................................. ............................... 2.10 Figure 2.8. Douglas County Population Projection, 2005 to 2030 ................. ............................... 2.11 Figure 2.9. Sarpy County Population, 1870 to 2000 ...................................... ............................... 2.13 Figure 2.10. Sarpy County Population Projection, 2005 to 2030 ..................... ............................... 2.14 Figure 2.11. Thurston County Population, 1870 to 2000 ................................. ............................... 2.16 Figure 2.12. Thurston County Population Projection, 2005 to 2030 ................ ............................... 2.17 Figure 2.13. Washington County Population, 1870 to 2000 ............................ ............................... 2.19 Figure 2.14. Washington County Population Projection, 2005 to 2030 ........... ............................... 2.20 Figure 2.15. P -MRNRD Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes .............. ............................... 2.23 Figure 2.16. P -MRNRD Daily Precipitation Averages and Extremes .............. ............................... 2.24 Figure 2.17. P -MRNRD Daily Snowfall Averages and Extremes ..................... ............................... 2.24 Figure 2.18. Burt County Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes ............ ............................... 2.25 Figure 2.19. Burt County Daily Precipitation Averages and Extremes ............ ............................... 2.26 Figure 2.20. Burt County Daily Snowfall Averages and Extremes ................... ............................... 2.26 Figure 2.21. Dakota County Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes ....... ............................... 2.27 Figure 2.22. Dakota County Daily Precipitation Averages and Extremes ........ ............................... 2.28 Figure 2.23. Dakota County Daily Snowfall Averages and Extremes .............. ............................... 2.28 Figure 2.24. Douglas County Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes ..... ............................... 2.29 Figure 2.25. Douglas County Daily Precipitation Averages and Extremes ...... ............................... 2.30 Figure 2.26. Douglas County Daily Snowfall Averages and Extremes ............ ............................... 2.30 Figure 2.27. Sarpy County Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes ......... ............................... 2.31 Figure 2.28. Sarpy County Daily Precipitation Averages and Extremes .......... ............................... 2.32 Figure 2.29. Sarpy County Daily Snowfall Averages and Extremes ................ ............................... 2.32 Figure 2.30. Thurston County Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes .... ............................... 2.33 Figure 2.31. Thurston County Daily Precipitation Averages and Extremes ..... ............................... 2.34 Figure 2.32. Thurston County Daily Snowfall Averages and Extremes ........... ............................... 2.34 Figure 2.33. Washington County Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes .............................. 2.35 Figure 2.34. Washington County Daily Precipitation Averages and Extremes ............................... 2.36 Figure 2.35. Washington County Daily Snowfall Averages and Extremes ...... ............................... 2.36 Figure 2.36. Bellevue Public School District Elementary School Attendance Area ........................ 2.39 Figure 2.37. Bellevue Public School District Middle School Attendance Area . ............................... 2.40 Figure 2.38. Bellevue Public School District High School Attendance Area .... ............................... 2.41 Figure 2.39. Omaha Public School District Building Location Map .................. ............................... 2.47 Figure 2.40. Omaha Public School District Elementary School Attendance Area .......................... 2.48 Figure 2.41. Omaha Public School District Middle School Attendance Area ... ............................... 2.49 Figure 2.42. Omaha Public School District High School Attendance Area ...... ............................... 2.50 Figure 2.43. Papillion- La Vista School District Map ........................................ ............................... 2.52 Figure 2.44. Metropolitan Community College Campus Location Map ........... ............................... 2.55 Figure 2.45. Applied Technology Center Campus Map ................................... ............................... 2.56 Figure 2.46. Elkhorn Valley Campus Map ........................................................ ............................... 2.57 Figure 2.47. Fort Omaha Campus Map ........................................................... ............................... 2.58 Figure 2.48. Fremont Center Campus Map ..................................................... ............................... 2.59 Figure 2.49. Sarpy Center Campus Map ......................................................... ............................... 2.60 Figure 2.50. South Omaha Campus Map ........................................................ ............................... 2.61 Figure 2.51. University of Nebraska Medical Center Campus Map ................. ............................... 2.63 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD N Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.1. School District Boundaries ........................................................... ............................... 3.10 Figure 3.2. Bellevue Public School District .................................................... ............................... 3.11 Figure 3.3. Emerson - Hubbard Community School District ............................ ............................... 3.12 Figure 3.4. Omaha Public School District ...................................................... ............................... 3.13 Figure 3.5. Papillion -La Vista Public School District ...................................... ............................... 3.14 Figure 3.6. Tekamah- Herman Community School District ............................. ............................... 3.15 Figure 3.7. Burt County Bridges ..................................................................... ............................... 3.21 Figure 3.8. Dakota County Bridges ................................................................ ............................... 3.22 Figure 3.9. Douglas County Bridges .............................................................. ............................... 3.23 Figure 3.10. Sarpy County Bridges .................................................................. ............................... 3.24 Figure 3.11. Thurston County Bridges ............................................................. ............................... 3.25 Figure 3.12. Washington County Bridges ........................................................ ............................... 3.26 Figure 3.13. Chronic Wasting Disease in Nebraska 2000 -2007 ...................... ............................... 3.37 Figure 3.14. Nebraska Grain Production Sales, 2004 (in US 1000s Dollars) .. ............................... 3.40 Figure 3.15. Dam Locations in Burt County ..................................................... ............................... 3.53 Figure 3.16. Dam Locations in Dakota County ................................................ ............................... 3.54 Figure 3.17. Dam Locations in Douglas County .............................................. ............................... 3.55 Figure 3.18. Dam Locations in Sarpy County .................................................. ............................... 3.56 Figure 3.19. Dam Locations in Thurston County ............................................. ............................... 3.57 Figure 3.20. Dam Locations in Washington County ......................................... ............................... 3.58 Figure 3.21. Nebraska Average Annual Rainfall in Inches (Isohyet Map) ....... ............................... 3.82 Figure 3.22. United States Percent of Time in Drought, 1985 -1995 ................ ............................... 3.88 Figure 3.23. Fault Lines in Nebraska ............................................................... ............................... 3.91 Figure 3.24. Nebraska Seismic Hazard Map ................................................... ............................... 3.92 Figure 3.25. Probability of Magnitude 5.0 or greater within 100 Years -Omaha .............................. 3.95 Figure 3.26. Burt County Estimated Building Losses - 2,500 -Year, 6.7 Magnitude Earthquake Event ............................................................................................ ............................... 3.98 Figure 3.27. Dakota County Estimated Building Losses - 2,500 -Year, 6.7 Magnitude Earthquake Event ............................................................................................ ............................... 3.99 Figure 3.28. Douglas County Estimated Building Losses - 2,500 -Year, 6.7 Magnitude Earthquake Event ............................................................................................ ............................... 3.100 Figure 3.29. Sarpy County Estimated Building Losses - 2,500 -Year, 6.7 Magnitude Earthquake Event ............................................................................................ ............................... 3.101 Figure 3.30. Thurston County Estimated Building Losses - 2,500 -Year, 6.7 Magnitude EarthquakeEvent ........................................................................ ............................... 3.102 Figure 3.31. Washington County Estimated Building Losses - 2,500 -Year, 6.7 Magnitude EarthquakeEvent ........................................................................ ............................... 3.103 Figure 3.32. Burt County HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood ................ ............................... 3.110 Figure 3.33. Decatur HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood ....................... ............................... 3.111 Figure 3.34. Tekamah HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood .................... ............................... 3.113 Figure 3.35. Dakota County HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ......................................................................................... ............................... 3.115 Figure 3.36. Dakota City HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ....... 3.116 Figure 3.37. Homer HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ............... 3.117 Figure 3.38. Hubbard HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ............ 3.118 Figure 3.39. Jackson HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ............. 3.119 Figure 3.40. South Sioux City HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ......................................................................................... ............................... 3.121 Figure 3.41. Douglas County HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ......................................................................................... ............................... 3.123 Figure 3.42. Bennington HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ........ 3.124 Figure 3.43. Boys Town HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ........ 3.125 Figure 3.44. Omaha HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) .............. 3.127 Figure 3.45. Ralston HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) .............. 3.129 Figure 3.46. Valley HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ................ 3.131 Papio- Missouri River NRD v i Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Juli 2011 Figure 3.47. Waterloo HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ...... Figure 3.48. Sarpy County HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) Figure 3.49. Bellevue HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ...... Figure 3.50. Gretna HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ......... Figure 3.51. La Vista HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ....... Figure 3.52. Papillion HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ...... Figure 3.53. Springfield HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ... Figure 3.54. Thurston County HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ................................................................................... ............................... Figure 3.55. Macy HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ........... Figure 3.56. Walthill HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ........ Figure 3.57. Winnebago HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) .. Figure 3.58. Washington HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) Figure 3.59. Arlington HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ...... Figure 3.60. Blair HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ............. Figure 3.61. Fort Calhoun HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) Figure 3.62. Herman HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ....... Figure 3.63. Kennard HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ...... Figure 3.64. Village of Washington HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) ................................................................................... ............................... Figure 3.65. Estimated Population Displaced by 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Burt County .................................................................................... ............................... Figure 3.66. Estimated Population Displaced by 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Dakota County .................................................................................... ............................... Figure 3.67. Estimated Population Displaced by 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Douglas County .................................................................................... ............................... Figure 3.68. Estimated Population Displaced by 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Sarpy County .................................................................................... ............................... Figure 3.69. Estimated Population Displaced by 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Thurston County - I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 3.70. Estimated Population Displaced by 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Washington County .................................................................................... ............................... Figure 3.71. Estimated Financial Losses from 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Burt County Figure 3.72. Estimated Financial Losses from 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Dakota County .................................................................................... ............................... Figure 3.73. Estimated Financial Losses from 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Douglas County .................................................................................... ............................... Figure 3.74. Estimated Financial Losses from 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Sarpy County .................................................................................... ............................... Figure 3.75. Estimated Financial Losses from 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Thurston County .................................................................................... ............................... Figure 3.76. Estimated Financial Losses from 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Washington County .................................................................................... ............................... Figure 3.77. Burt County Floodplain with Critical Facilities ........................ ............................... Figure 3.78. Dakota County Floodplain with Critical Facilities ................... ............................... Figure 3.79. Douglas County Floodplain with Critical Facilities ................. ............................... Figure 3.80. Sarpy County Floodplain with Critical Facilities ..................... ............................... Figure 3.81. Thurston County Floodplain with Critical Facilities ................ ............................... Figure 3.82. Washington County Floodplain with Critical Facilities ........... ............................... Figure 3.83. P -MRNRD Levees Recorded in State Mitigation Plan ........... ............................... Figure 3.84. MR R -613 and MR R -616 Levees, Sarpy County ................. ............................... Figure 3.85. Omaha FPP Levee, Douglas County ..................................... ............................... Figure 3.86. Waterloo Levee, Douglas County .......................................... ............................... Figure 3.87. Location and Performance of USACE Levees in the 1993 Midwest Flood .......... Figure 3.88. Average Number of Hours per Year with Freezing Rain ....... ............................... 3.132 3.137 3.139 3.139 3.141 3.142 3.143 3.145 3.146 3.147 3.148 3.150 3.152 3.154 3.156 3.157 3.158 3.159 3.201 3.202 3.203 3.204 3.204 3.206 3.212 3.213 3.214 3.215 3.215 3.217 3.221 3.222 3.223 3.224 3.225 3.226 3.231 3.232 3.233 3.234 3.238 3.248 Papio- Missouri Ri\erNRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jn1v 2011 N ii Figure 3.89. Snow Totals December 8 and 9, 2009 ........................................ ............................... 3.251 Figure 3.90. Snow Totals December 26, 2009 ................................................ ............................... 3.252 Figure 3.91. Storm Total Snowfall, Event Ending January 7, 2010 ................. ............................... 3.253 Figure 3.92. Heat Index Chart .......................................................................... ............................... 3.262 Figure 3.93. Map of Thunderstorms /Wind Events (Higher than 60 knots) by County (1950 to 2006) ............................................................................................ ............................... 3.263 Figure 3.94. Tornado Activity in the United States ........................................... ............................... 3.282 Figure 3.95. Wind Zones in the United States ................................................. ............................... 3.283 Figure 3.96. June 8, 2008 Tornado Path ......................................................... ............................... 3.287 APPENDICES APPENDIX A — PLANNING PROCESS APPENDIX B — PUBLIC INPUT FORMS APPENDIX C — FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND SIREN COVERAGE MAPS APPENDIX D — ADOPTION RESOLUTIONS Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD viii Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 1 PLANNING PROCESS 1.1 Introduction The Papio - Missouri River Natural Resource District (P- MRNRD) is one of 23 natural resources districts (NRDs) in the state of Nebraska. The Nebraska legislature created NRDs in 1972 by combining 154 special purpose resources management agencies, including soil and water conservation districts, drainage districts and watershed boards. Boundaries were formed using river basin boundaries for each NRD. For instance, the P -MRNRD boundary is formed by the Papio and Missouri River basins and contains all of the counties of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota and portions of Burt and Thurston counties. The boundaries of the P -MRNRD represent the area covered by this multi jurisdictional planning process as shown on Figure 1.1. The NRDs have broad legislative authorities for the protection and enhancement of natural resources within the state. Specifically, the broad -based objectives of the P -MRNRD are to address the following resource needs: 1. Reduce flood damages. 2. Maintain water quality and quantity. 3. Reduce soil erosion and sedimentation damages. 4. Provide outdoor recreation facilities. 5. Provide domestic water supply. 6. Develop and improve fish and wildlife habitat and forest resources. 7. Participate in solid waste management and recycling. Given these broad authorities, NRDs are the ideal government agency in Nebraska to fulfill local multi jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan requirements, including both the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) and the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (NFIRA). Because of this fact, the P -MRNRD adopted their first All- Hazards Mitigation Plan in October 2006. Cities and counties within the NRD boundaries participated in that effort led by the P- MRNRD at that time to make the plan multi jurisdictional. In accordance with the DMA 2000 implementing regulations and to maintain a current, relevant plan, the P -MRNRD has joined together again with participating jurisdictions in its boundaries to update the plan. This Regional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process has resulted in updates to effective mitigation activities and expansion of local participation to include previously non- participating jurisdictions, school districts and community organizations. By effectively participating in this plan and following the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) planning process guidelines, the P- MRNRD, along with other local government agencies and organizations, has built local public and political support for proactive (not reactive) hazard mitigation projects, allowed local governments to be eligible for post- disaster public assistance, and fulfilled planning requirements for applicable hazard mitigation grants. According to the Nebraska Association of Resources Districts (NARD), the P -MRNRD consists of 30 communities, has a population of 650,000 (U.S. Census 2000), and a total area of 1,116,800 acres. Within the 6 counties of the P- MRNRD, 61 entities were identified as being Papio- Missouri River NRD 1.1 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 potential officially participating jurisdictions in the plan, including the NRD, counties, communities, and schools districts. Other entities were encouraged to support the planning process, including townships, fire districts, and businesses. These entities were not included in the count listed above. These entities were considered supporting stakeholders, but were not considered jurisdictions in the plan. See Table 1.1 below for a complete listing of the entities in the planning area and a description of how each entity was involved in the planning process. An asterisk ( *) next to the entity name indicates that the community either participated in the P- MMNRD 2006 All - Hazard Mitigation Plan or previously had their own local All - Hazard Mitigation Plan. Table 1.1. Involvement in Planning Process Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.2 July 2011 Attended Public Attended Signed Meeting #1 and /or Public Meeting #2 Submitted Community Name Resolution Completed Public and /or One or More Adopt Plan of Input Forms completed Mitigation Participation Regarding Hazards STAPLES Projects of Concern Form Natural Resources Districts Papio- Missouri River NRD* x x x x Burt County Burt County x x x x City of Tekamah* Village of Decatur x x x x Lyons- Decatur Northeast Schools Tekamah- Herman Community Schools x x x x Summit Township x x x x Everett Township x Dakota County Dakota County* x x x x Dakota City x x x x Village of Homer* x Village of Hubbard x x Village of Jackson* x x x x South Sioux City* x x x x South Sioux City Community Schools x x Homer Community Schools x Emerson /Hubbard Community Schools x x x x Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.2 July 2011 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.3 Jnlc 2011 Attended Public Attended Signed Meeting #1 and /or Public Meeting #2 Submitted Community Name Resolution Completed Public and /or One or More Adopt Plan of Input Forms completed Mitigation Participation Regarding Hazards STAPLES Projects of Concern Form Northeast Community College - South Sioux x City Douglas County Douglas County* X x x x City of Bennington* x x City of Omaha* x x x x City of Ralston* x x x x City of Valley* x x x x Village of Boys Town x Village of Waterloo* x x x x Bennington Public Schools Douglas County West Community Schools Elkhorn Public Schools Metropolitan Community C College x x x x Millard Public Schools Omaha Public Schools x x x x Ralston Public Schools University of Nebraska Omaha x University of Nebraska Medical Center x x x x Westside Community Schools Sarpy County Sarpy County* x x x x City of Bellevue x x x x City of Gretna x x x x City of La Vista* x x x x City of Papillion* x x x x City of Springfield* x x x x Offutt Air Force Base Declined to Participate Gretna Public Schools Bellevue Public Schools x x x x Papillion -La Vista Public Schools S x x x x South Sarpy District 46 x Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.3 Jnlc 2011 Table 1.2, below, is the final list of participating jurisdictions. An asterisk ( *) next to the entity name indicates that the community either participated in the P -MRNRD 2006 All - Hazard Mitigation Plan or previously had their own local All - Hazard Mitigation Plan. Table 1.2. Participating Jurisdictions Communities P- MRNRD* Attended Public Attended Sarpy County* Village of Decatur City of Bellevue Signed Meeting #1 and /or Public Meeting #2 Submitted Community Name Resolution Completed Public and /or One or More Adopt Plan of Input Forms completed Mitigation Participation Regarding Hazards STAPLES Projects of Concern Form Thurston County Thurston County* x Village of Walthill x x x x Village of Winnebago x Village of Macy x UMO N HO N Nation Public Schools Walthill Public Schools Winnebago Public Schools X Washington County Washington County* x x x x City of Blair* x x x x City of Fort Calhoun* x x x x Village of Arlington* x Village of Herman* Village of Kennard* Village of Washington* St. Paul's Lutheran Elementary School Arlington Public Schools Blair Community Schools Fort Calhoun Community Schools Table 1.2, below, is the final list of participating jurisdictions. An asterisk ( *) next to the entity name indicates that the community either participated in the P -MRNRD 2006 All - Hazard Mitigation Plan or previously had their own local All - Hazard Mitigation Plan. Table 1.2. Participating Jurisdictions Communities P- MRNRD* Village of Waterloo* Burt County Sarpy County* Village of Decatur City of Bellevue Dakota County* City of Gretna Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.4 Jnlc 2011 Communities Dakota City City of La Vista* Village of Jackson* City of Papillion* South Sioux City* City of Springfield* Douglas County* Village of Walthill City of Omaha* Washington County* City of Ralston* City of Blair* City of Valley* City of Fort Calhoun* School Districts and Colleges Bellevue Public School District Tekamah- Herman Community School District Emerson - Hubbard Community School District Metropolitan Community College Omaha Public School District University of Nebraska Medical Center Papillion — La Vista School District Table 13, below, describes the jurisdictions that are currently considered not participating in this Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan. An asterisk ( *) next to the entity name indicates that the community either participated in the P -MRNRD 2006 All - Hazard Mitigation Plan or previously had their own local All - Hazard Mitigation Plan. Table 1.3. Non - Participating Jurisdictions Communities City of Tekamah* Thurston County* Everett Township (Supporting Stakeholder) Village of Winnebago Village of Homer* Village of Macy Village of Hubbard Village of Arlington* City of Bennington* Village of Herman* Village of Boys Town Village of Kennard* Offut Air Force Base Village of Washington* Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.5 Jnlc 2011 School Districts and Colleges Arlington Public School District Ralston Public School District Bennington Public School District South Sarpy District 46 Blair Community School District South Sioux City Community School District Douglas County West Community School District St. Paul's Lutheran Elementary School Elkhorn Public School District UMO N HO N Nation Public Schools Fort Calhoun Community School District Walthill Public School District Gretna Public School District Westside Community School District Homer Community School District Winnebago Public School District Lyons- Decatur Northeast School District Northeast Community College — South Sioux City Millard Public School District University of Nebraska -Omaha Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.6 Jnlc 2011 Figure 1.1. Project Area D\OLSSON N 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this updated plan is to sustain actions designed to reduce or eliminate long -term risk to people and property from natural and other hazards as well as to ensure that each participating community is eligible to obtain federal funding under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre - Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM), and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program. Through this plan, the P -MRNRD and participating jurisdictions have re- evaluated the hazards affecting the area, updated the risks these hazards present to the respective communities, revised mitigation goals, and identified and /or updated feasible mitigation activities for the participating entities. The updated plan is the result of a collaborative effort by the following participating jurisdictions: • Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District • Burt County o Village of Decatur Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.7 July 2011 Papio- Missouri River NRD MCounties DIXON WAYNE i ANTELOPE i f COMING WHEELER MADISOJSTANTO R BOONE GREELEY PLA f}76rF `rt WASHINGTON' <" `�f NANCE !l I � DOUGLAS 1 SAUNDERS BUTLER VJAR❑ i YAERRICK POLK i SARPY HALL YORK i SEWARD I LANCASTER CASS HAMILTON D\OLSSON N 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this updated plan is to sustain actions designed to reduce or eliminate long -term risk to people and property from natural and other hazards as well as to ensure that each participating community is eligible to obtain federal funding under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre - Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM), and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program. Through this plan, the P -MRNRD and participating jurisdictions have re- evaluated the hazards affecting the area, updated the risks these hazards present to the respective communities, revised mitigation goals, and identified and /or updated feasible mitigation activities for the participating entities. The updated plan is the result of a collaborative effort by the following participating jurisdictions: • Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District • Burt County o Village of Decatur Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.7 July 2011 o Tekamah - Herman Community Schools • Dakota County • Dakota City • Village of Jackson • South Sioux City • Emerson /Hubbard Community Schools • Douglas County • City of Omaha • City of Ralston • City of Valley • Village of Waterloo • Metropolitan Community College • Omaha Public Schools • University of Nebraska Medical Center • Sarpy County • City of Bellevue • City of Gretna • City of La Vista • City of Papillion • City of Springfield • Bellevue Public Schools o Papillion -La Vista Public Schools • Thurston County (Not a participant in the plan) o Village of Walthill • Washington County • City of Blair • City of Fort Calhoun Please see Appendix A to review signed `Resolutions for Participation' passed by communities agreeing to participate in the planning process. 1.3 Planning Process 44 CFR Requirement §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: 1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.8 Jnlc 2011 2) An opportunity for neighboring jurisdictions, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non - profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and, 3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information 44 CFR Requirement §201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved. 1.3.1 Background In 2006, the P -MRNRD adopted the first All — Hazards Mitigation Plan developed in the state of Nebraska. This updated Regional Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan follows the requirements of Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5165, as amended by Section 104 of the DMA 2000, P.L. 106 -390 and regulations set forth in 44 CFR §201.6, Local Mitigation Plans. The planning effort for the 5 year update began in 2009, with the P -MRNRD obtaining grant funding from the Nebraska Emergency Management Agency (NEMA). The next step for the P -MRNRD was to select an engineering consultant to assist with drafting the plan update. A Request for Proposals was published and ultimately the team of Olsson Associates ( Olsson) of Omaha, Nebraska and AMEC of Topeka, Kansas was selected as the engineering consultant team. Due to the nature of this multi jurisdictional plan, the project team agreed upon a chain -of- command for how information would be distributed and how the planning process would be organized. The project team consisted of the P- MRNRD, Olsson, AMEC, and an advisory committee, including county emergency management directors and floodplain managers. The Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (NDNR) and NEMA also provided assistance in the planning process. The planning team was assembled using personnel from each agency that was familiar with the local hazards and capable of generating public interest in the project. 1.3.2 Planning Team and Meetings The P -MRNRD was the primary contact for information dissemination and Lori Laster, project manager for the P- MRNRD, was the primary point of contact with Olsson throughout the project. Olsson communicated with Lori to forward information to the rest of the project team. The advisory committee met periodically and was consulted about meeting dates, times, and locations. Additionally, the advisory committee provided feedback on individuals and groups who should be notified of upcoming meetings and project events. There were three public meetings held at the beginning of the planning process; meetings were combined for Douglas and Sarpy Counties, Washington and Burt Counties, and Dakota and Thurston Counties. Representatives from the NRD, Olsson, AMEC, as well as the advisory committee were present at the first round of public meetings. Community representatives were invited to attend the public meetings through telephone calls, letters, and public notices in local papers (See Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.9 July 2011 documentation in Appendix A). The public notices also served to notify neighboring communities, businesses, academia, and private non - profit entities as well as local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation and /or regulation of development. Additionally, a project website was established ( http: // oaprojects .com /papionrd_ hazard /) in order to provide participants and citizens with information regarding the planning process. Representatives were encouraged to attend the meeting for their respective county but were welcome to attend other meetings if they had a scheduling conflict. The first public meetings were held in late October and early November 2009. The dates and locations of these meetings were as follows: • October 20 — Dakota and Thurston County (Dakota City) • October 27 — Douglas and Sarpy County (Omaha) • November 4 — Washington and Burt County (Blair) Each public meeting followed the same agenda (available in Appendix A), starting with a presentation, explaining the need for the planning effort and how communities could participate. Survey forms were handed out as representatives arrived and they were asked to fill them out after the conclusion of the presentation. These forms were crucial in providing Olsson with the background information on the hazards that threaten each entity. At the conclusion of each meeting the attendees were notified that a copy of the presentation would be available on the project website or by contacting the P -MRNRD or Olsson. After the completion of the first round of meetings, the planning team followed up with the communities that had not been represented. Phone calls were made to representatives of each entity within the planning area in an attempt to notify each community of the planning process, benefits, and requirements. Informational letters, along with the surveys disseminated at the meetings, were mailed or e- mailed to each representative. Neighboring communities and other interested parties were contacted via mailings or phone calls and were provided the opportunity to be involved in the planning process (a copy of the notice provided to neighboring jurisdictions is available in Appendix A). The goal of the planning team was to ensure everyone was given ample opportunity to participate in the plan, whether through public meetings, mailings, the project website or personal communication. Prior to the first round of public meetings, Olsson project team members arranged to attend local Regional School Safety Meetings, organized by local Educational Service Units (ESUs). There were two meetings held within the planning area on October 16, 2009 and October 19, 2009, and Olsson gave a brief presentation at each meeting. The presentations were similar to those used at the initial public meetings, explaining the need for the planning effort and how participation would benefit school districts. These meetings were used to generate interest in the planning effort by local school districts, which were not included in the planning effort that resulted in the 2006 plan. A second set of public meetings was conducted in May 2010 to collect mitigation actions and complete Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental (STAPLEE) forms for each action. As with the first round of public meetings, the advisory Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.10 July 2011 committee was consulted about the meeting dates, times, and locations. Representatives from the county emergency management agencies attended the meeting located in their respective counties, along with a representative from the NRD, Olsson, and AMEC. There were three public meetings for the second round of meetings. Once again, meetings were combined for Dakota and Thurston counties, Burt and Washington Counties, and Douglas and Sarpy Counties. Entity representatives were invited to attend through emails, telephone calls, post card invites, and a press release submitted to local papers (See documentation in Appendix A). Representatives were encouraged to attend the meeting that was the most convenient for them. The dates and locations of the meetings were as follows: • May 10, 2010 —Dakota and Thurston Counties (Dakota City) • May 10, 2010 —Burt and Washington Counties (Tekamah) • May 13, 2010 —Douglas and Sarpy (Omaha) As before, each meeting, followed the same agenda (available in Appendix A), starting with a presentation prepared by Olsson and AMEC. The presentation updated the public on the progress of the planning effort to date and summarized the information that remained to be completed. At the conclusion of the presentation the STAPLEE forms were provided for the representatives to complete and to ask questions. These forms were critical for the plan writers to determine project prioritization and complete the cost benefit review. At the conclusion of the meeting, the STAPLEE forms were collected, or advice was given to the representatives on how to submit the STAPLEE forms in the future. The STAPLEE methodology is discussed in Section 4 "Mitigation Strategy ". A Public Hearing was scheduled during the draft review and comment period, giving the public and the P -MRNRD Board an opportunity to provide feedback on the plan. During this hearing, Lori Laster and the Olsson team made a presentation on the plan requirements, contents, and participants. Afterwards, the floor was opened for a question and answer session. Table 1.4 summarizes the meetings conducted throughout the planning timeline, organized by date held, agenda, and attendees. Table 1.4. Summary of Planning Meetings Meeting Date Purpose of Meeting Attendees Advisory Advisory Background, Define role of Advisory Committee, Committee, Committee 9/23/09 Initial planning, Participation requirements P- MRNRD, Meeting #1 Olsson, AMEC 2009 Regional Introduce plan and personnel, explain importance of School School 10/16/09 plan, gather public input from representatives of District Safety planning area school districts, determine mitigation Reps, Meeting alternatives Olsson Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.11 July 2011 Meeting Date Purpose of Meeting Attendees 2009 Regional Introduce plan and personnel, explain importance of School School 10/19/09 plan, gather public input from representatives of District Safety planning area school districts, determine mitigation Reps, Meeting alternatives Olsson Dakota, Introduced plan and personnel, explained importance Thurston County Public 10/20/09 of plan, gathered public input from representatives of Reps, P- Meeting #1 Dakota and Thurston Counties, determined mitigation MRNRD, alternatives Olsson, AMEC Douglas, Introduced plan and personnel, explained importance Sarpy County Public 10/27/09 of plan, gathered public input from representatives of Reps, P- Meeting #1 Douglas and Sarpy Counties, determined mitigation MRNRD, alternatives Olsson, AMEC Burt, Introduced plan and personnel, explained importance Washington County Public 11/4/09 of plan, gathered public input from representatives of Reps, P- Meeting #1 Burt and Washington Counties, determined mitigation MRNRD, alternatives Olsson, AMEC Advisory Advisory Reviewed project progress, provided updated Committee, Committee 2/4/10 timeline, provided examples of mitigation projects, P- MRNRD, Meeting #2 collaborated on public participation Olsson, AMEC Dakota, Reviewed progress and information from first Thurston Public meeting, explained and shared Risk and Hazard County Meeting #2 5/10/10 Assessment, explained project identification lists and Reps, P- STAPLEE Form to representatives of Dakota and MRNRD, Thurston Counties Olsson, AMEC Burt, Reviewed progress and information from first Washington Public meeting, explained and shared Risk and Hazard County Meeting #2 5/10/10 Assessment, explained project identification lists and Reps, P- STAPLEE Form to representatives of Burt and MRNRD, Washington Counties Olsson, AMEC Douglas, Reviewed progress and information from first Sarpy Public meeting, explained and shared Risk and Hazard County Meeting #2 5/13/10 Assessment, explained project identification lists and Reps, P- STAPLEE Form to representatives of Douglas and MRNRD, Sarpy Counties Olsson, AMEC Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.12 July 2011 Meeting Date Purpose of Meeting Attendees Reviewed remaining schedule, presented and Advisory Advisory discussed hazard mitigation plan goals and Committee, Committee 9/9/10 objectives, discussed hazard summaries, reviewed P- MRNRD, Meeting #3 mitigation actions, reviewed status of community Olsson participation HMP Draft Draft plan was available for review on the project Review 10/1/10 — 12/1/10 website. Any comments received were incorporated N/A into the plan. Present draft plan to P -MRNRD Board and Public and P -MRNRD Board of Public explain the requirements for the plan, the contents of Directors, Hearing 11/10/10 the plan, and the remaining timeline for completion. General Question and Answer session followed the plan Public, presentation. Olsson For each set of public meetings, press releases were sent to local media contacts, notifying the public of the meeting times and locations. This not only served to notify the residents of the participating counties, but also allowed neighboring areas the opportunity to attend and participate in the meetings. Copies of each press release are included in Appendix A. The plan was developed over the course of 15 months from September 2009 to December 2010. Below is a list of the key personnel involved in the planning process. To view records of the representatives who attended the public meetings, please see the public meeting sign in sheets available in Appendix A. Advisory Committee Members • Lori Laster — Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District • Paul Woodward — Olsson Associates • Carrie Romero — Olsson Associates • Dennis Lawlor — AMEC • Laurie Bestgen — AMEC • Peggy Smith — Burt County Roads • Bill Pook — Region 5/6 Emergency Management • Dan Douglas — Region 5/6 Emergency Management • Pat Foust — Dakota County /South Sioux City Emergency Management • Deanna Beckman — Dakota County /South Sioux City Emergency Management • Paul Johnson — Douglas County Emergency Management • Barb Frohlich — Douglas County Floodplain Management • Michael Carter — City of Omaha Planning Department • Larry Lavelle — Sarpy County Emergency Management • Lynn Marshall — Sarpy County Emergency Management • Rebecca Horner — Sarpy County Planning Director Papio - Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.13 Jnlc 2011 • Tom Perez — Thurston County Emergency Management • Doug Cook — Washington County Planning • Phil Green — City of Blair • Grant Anderson — MAPA To meet guidelines established by the planning team, each entity was required to turn in a signed resolution of participation, attend the first public meeting and /or turn in a public comment form, and submit a STAPLEE form indentifying action items. If those three items were completed, the entity was considered to be a part of the planning effort. In all, 29 entities turned in the necessary paperwork and met the requirements to be considered officially participating jurisdictions in the plan. Resolutions adopting the approved plan are provided in Appendix D. To view a list of the status of all entities, please see Table 1.1. 1.3.3 2006 All- Hazard Mitigation Plan Review and Update Methodology Using the guidance of FEMA's Local Multi Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, 2008 and Multi - Jurisdictional Planning, 2006 the project team determined that the entire 2006 plan required amendment due to the availability of new information, conformity with FEMA requirements, inclusion of additional communities and school districts, and changes in priorities. Table 1.5 outlines the changes made to the individual plan sections as well as the basis for the revisions. Table 1.5. Review Process Summary Section Reviewed Revisions Made Basis for Revisions Summary of Revisions Incorporated into Section 1: Introduction Yes Yes Plan reformatting Planning Process; Includes an introduction to the plan and the process to create the plan Additional 6 hazards evaluated; mitigation goals, objectives, and actions moved to Section 4: Mitigation Strategy; HAZUS -MH MR4 Plan reformatting and was utilized to determine Risk Assessment Yes Yes re- evaluation of assets at risk; Hazard Ranking regional hazards Methodology based on the state's methodology and scoring system relating to the four criteria of history, vulnerability, maximum threat, and probability. Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.14 July 2011 Section Reviewed Revisions Made Basis for Revisions Summary of Revisions plan. Plan reformatting and Incorporated into both Section Public changes to 1: Planning Process and Participation on Yes Yes participating Section 4: Mitigation Strategy; Plan jurisdictions Changes to participating jurisdictions noted Portions of this section Implementation Yes Yes Plan reformatting incorporated into both Section 4: Mitigation Strategy and Section 5: Plan Maintenance This update includes a revision to the formatting of the earlier plan. Olsson, AMEC, and P- MRNRD staff conducted research, collected information, developed maps, and authored the plan update. Throughout the data collection and drafting stages of the plan update, the advisory committee was consulted to provide comments and feedback. A draft of the plan was presented to the Project Team for review on October 1, 2010. At this time the draft plan was placed on the project website, available for download by any interested party. Public notice was placed in local papers, notifying the public that the plan was available on the project website for review before submittal for approval. In addition, postcard notices were sent to jurisdiction representatives to notify them of the availability of the draft plan. The documentation of the public notice is available in Appendix A. The public was given a two month time period to review the draft plan, from October 1, 2010 to December 1, 2010. 1.3.4 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans In updating the P -MRNRD Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan, it was important to incorporate any existing information into the plan documenting potential hazards or threats in the area. To obtain this information, Olsson worked with the P- MRNRD, the NDNR, and local jurisdictions to determine any existing plans, studies, reports, or other technical information that would be beneficial to include in this plan. Table 1.6 details the different planning mechanisms that were reviewed as part of this planning effort and also details how each planning mechanism was used for this plan. Table 1.6. Existing Plans, Studies, Reports, or Other Technical Information Summary Planning Mechanism Description of Use 2006 P -MRNRD All- Hazards Mitigation Plan Updated information from 2006 for use in this plan. Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.1 July 2011 Planning Mechanism Description of Use State of Nebraska Hazard Mitigation Plan Obtained hazards of concern for project area. Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) Researched guidelines for plan. Nebraska Association of Resources Districts (NARD) Researched and obtained information regarding P- MRNRD. Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (NDNR) High hazard dam information; 2006 Hazard Mitigation Plan files and figures "Local Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance ", Researched guidelines for plan. 2008, FEMA "Multi- Jurisdictional Planning ", 2006, FEMA Researched guidelines for plan. Obtained guidance and location of reference Nebraska Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) documents to ensure the proper criteria were followed for planning process. U.S. Census Bureau Researched and obtained demographic information for use in this plan. Nebraska State Data Center Obtained demographic information for P- MRNRD. University of Nebraska — Omaha Obtained demographic information for P- MRNRD. High Plains Regional Climate Center (HPRCC) Obtained climate information for P- MRNRD. Bellevue Public School District Obtained information about the school district to include in the plan. Emerson - Hubbard Community School District Obtained information about the school district to include in the plan. Omaha Public School District Obtained information about the school district to include in the plan. Papillion — La Vista School District Obtained information about the school district to include in the plan. Tekamah- Herman Community School District Obtained information about the school district to include in the plan. Metropolitan Community College Obtained information about the college to include in the plan. University of Nebraska Medical Center Obtained information about the University to include in the plan. Used information from other sources to input HAZUS -MH MR4 into the program in order to develop risk assessment portion of this plan. FEMA 386 -2 "Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Researched guidelines for plan. Hazards and Estimating Losses" U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Provided crop insurance data for planning area. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.16 Jnlc 2011 Planning Mechanism Description of Use National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Obtained climate information and information (NOAA) on weather trends and hazard events in the planning area. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Attained information regarding past hazard occurrences for use in this plan. Utilized information regarding NFIP Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) participation, Floodplain maps, Flood Insurance Studies, and other helpful information for incorporation into this plan. National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) Researched drought patterns for use in this plan. Local Emergency Operations Plan — Burt County Reviewed LEOP and incorporated pertinent information into this plan. Local Emergency Operations Plan — Dakota County Reviewed LEOP and incorporated pertinent information into this plan. Local Emergency Operations Plan — Douglas County Reviewed LEOP and incorporated pertinent information into this plan. Local Emergency Operations Plan — Sarpy County Reviewed LEOP and incorporated pertinent information into this plan. Local Emergency Operations Plan — Thurston County Reviewed LEOP and incorporated pertinent information into this plan. Local Emergency Operations Plan — Washington Reviewed LEOP and incorporated pertinent County information into this plan. Utilized information from the report to develop Dun & Bradstreet Business Population Report a 2006 building inventory, based on 2000 census information. R.S. Means Utilized to determine building replacement estimates. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (NDCS) Obtained information regarding prison inventory. Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services Obtained information regarding elderly (NDHHS) facilities in the P -MRNRD Provided information regarding threatened Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) and endangered species and disease outbreak among wildlife populations. Nebraska State Historical Society Obtained information regarding historic structures in the P- MRNRD. Nebraska Department of Agriculture (NDA) Provided livestock disease data National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Provided information on land, livestock, and crop value in the planning area 2007 Census of Agriculture Provided information regarding livestock value and county rankings. University of Nebraska — Lincoln — Institute of Researched information on crop disease Agriculture and Natural Resources (UNL -IANR) outbreak, earthquakes and earthquake history in Nebraska Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.17 Jnlc 2011 Planning Mechanism Description of Use U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Provided crop insurance data for planning area. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Obtained information regarding crop pests and disease for the planning area. Provided information in wildfire history within Nebraska Forest Service the planning area and data on Emerald Ash Borer. Stanford University's National Performance of Dams Researched information regarding dam Program failures in the P- MRNRD. "Earthquakes in Nebraska ", Raymond R. Burchett, et al Obtained information regarding earthquakes in the planning area. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Obtained information regarding Nebraska fault lines. Researched information regarding U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) earthquakes and incorporated any pertinent information into this plan. Obtained information on dams and levees, as U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) applicable, to include in this plan. Utilized structural inventory data from 2006 plan. Acquired floodplain boundaries and flood National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) hazards for the planning area to incorporate into this plan. Incorporated information regarding flooding Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding City of Tekamah and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding Dakota County and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding Dakota City and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding Village of Homer and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding City of South Sioux City and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Douglas County Unincorporated and Incorporated information regarding flooding Incorporated and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding Village of Bennington and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding Village of Boys Town and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.18 Jnlc 2011 Planning Mechanism Description of Use Incorporated information regarding flooding City of Omaha and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding City of Ralston and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding City of Valley and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding Village of Waterloo and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable Incorporated information regarding flooding Sarpy County Unincorporated and Incorporated and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding City of Bellevue and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding City of Gretna and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding City of La Vista and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding City of Papillion and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding City of Springfield and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Thurston County Unincorporated and Incorporated information regarding flooding Incorporated and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding Village of Walthill and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding Town of Winnebago and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding Washington County and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding Village of Arlington and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding City of Blair and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Incorporated information regarding flooding City of Fort Calhoun and flood hazards into this plan, where applicable. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.19 Jnlc 2011 Planning Mechanism Description of Use Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Obtained information regarding flood damages. "So You Live Behind a Levee ", FEMA Obtained information regarding how to analyze levee failure in the planning area. "Midwest Flood Information on the Performance, Obtained information regarding the Effects, and Control of Levees ", U.S. Government performace of USACE levees during the 1993 Accountability Office. August 1995 midwest flood event. American Meteorological Society Provided data on freezing rain events in the planning area National Weather Service (NWS) Obtained information regarding hazard events. National Weather Service Forecast Office , Omaha and Obtained information regarding 2009 to 2010 Valley snowfall event. "What is a Benefit ?: Guidance on Benefit -Cost Analysis Utilized to determine loss of use estimates. of Hazard Mitigation Project ", June 2009, FEMA City - data.com Provided data on mobile homes located in the planning area Tekamah Flood Study (1999) Reviewed document and utilized relevant information in this plan. Energy Information Association Incorporated information into this plan regarding pipelines. City - data.com Provided data on mobile homes located in the planning area Prepared and reviewed EAPs and Emergency Action Plans for dams incorporated pertinent information into this plan. Washington County Comprehensive Plan Incorporated future development data into this plan City of Bellevue Comprehensive Plan Incorporated future development data into this plan South Sioux City Comprehensive Plan Incorporated future development data into this plan Fort Calhoun Existing and Future Land Use Maps Incorporated future development data into this plan City of Blair Zoning Maps Incorporated future development data into this plan Douglas County Existing and Concept Land Use Maps Incorporated future development data into this plan City of Gretna Comprehensive Plan Incorporated future development data into this plan City of Gretna Zoning Maps Incorporated future development data into this plan City of La Vista Zoning Maps Incorporated future development data into this plan Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.20 Jnlc 2011 Planning Mechanism Description of Use Omaha Land Use Element Incorporated future development data into this plan City of Omaha Master Plan — Papillion Creek Incorporated future development data into this Watershed plan City of Papillion Plan Maps Incorporated future development data into this plan City of Ralston Zoning Maps Incorporated future development data into this plan Comprehensive Development Plan for Sarpy County Incorporated future development data into this plan Southern Sarpy County Sewer Master Plan Incorporated future development data into this plan City of Springfield Existing and Future Land Use Maps Incorporated future development data into this plan City of Valley Zoning Maps Incorporated future development data into this plan Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.21 Jnlc 2011 2 COMMUNITY PROFILES 2.1 Demographic Summary The following paragraphs summarize the diversity of the population with the demographic information for the P -MRNRD as a whole, followed by demographic data broken out for each county. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of the project area in 2000 was 640,175. The population in the project area has increased steadily over the past several decades. Figure 2.1 below shows the population trend in the P -MRNRD since 1880. Figure 2.1. P -MRNRD Population, 1880 to 2000 Sources: Nebraska State Data Center, Center for Public Affairs Research, University of Nebraska at Omaha; and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing ", "CPH -2 -29, Population and Housing Counts, Nebraska ", Census Web Site (www.census.gov) and similar publications for preceding years. The population of the project area is projected to increase overtime, as shown in Figure 2.2 below. This is mainly due to the increase that occurred between the 1980 census and the 2000 census. Based on the county populations found on the U.S. Census Bureau Web site, the population in the project area was higher in 2007 than it was in 2000. Papio- Missouri River NRD 2.1 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 i 0,175 600,000 567,186 531,133 506,600 495,787 c 400.606 - 416 471 R 3 0 338751 , a 300,006 288,508 255,916 200 OOG 1 %,383 18,152 188,599 V 100,006 , M6 0 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 Year Sources: Nebraska State Data Center, Center for Public Affairs Research, University of Nebraska at Omaha; and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing ", "CPH -2 -29, Population and Housing Counts, Nebraska ", Census Web Site (www.census.gov) and similar publications for preceding years. The population of the project area is projected to increase overtime, as shown in Figure 2.2 below. This is mainly due to the increase that occurred between the 1980 census and the 2000 census. Based on the county populations found on the U.S. Census Bureau Web site, the population in the project area was higher in 2007 than it was in 2000. Papio- Missouri River NRD 2.1 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 2.2. P -MRNRD Population Projection, 2005 to 2030 1,000,000 950,000 900,000 850,000 c 0 800,000 a 0 a 750,000 700,000 650,000 600,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year Source: University of Nebraska, Bureau of Business Research, Nebraska County Population Projections. According to the U.S Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program dated July 2006, the population of the P -MRNRD is 689,885. The gender breakdown is 49 percent male and 51 percent female. Table 2.1 below depicts the age characteristics of the project area. Table 2.1. Age Characteristics of the P- MRNRD, July 2006 Age Number of People Percent of Total Under 5 years 56,093 8.1% 5 to 9 years 49,762 7.2% 10 to 14 years 49,920 7.2% 15 to 19 years 49,903 7.2% 20 to 24 years 51,075 7.4% 25 to 34 years 98,416 14.3% 35 to 44 years 100,230 14.5% 45 to 54 years 97,731 14.2% 55 to 59 years 40,007 5.8% 60 to 64 years 26,297 3.8% 65 to 74 years 36,798 5.3% Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.2 July 2011 Age Number of People Percent of Total 75 to 84 years 23,862 3.5% 85 years and over 9,791 1.4% Vacant Housing Units 18 years and over 502,835 72.9% 21 years and over 474,909 68.8% 62 years and over 85,951 12.5% 65 years and over 70,451 10.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2006 As shown in Table 2. 1, the population is split fairly evenly among the age brackets. However, there is a higher percentage of the population between the ages of 25 to 54 than in any other age bracket. There also are a significant number of people older than age 65, which is an important fact to consider when determining the best method of protection from hazards for citizens and communities. Another important demographic detail that should not be overlooked is the housing occupancy and the age of the existing structures. Table 2.2 below shows the housing occupancy and tenure in the project area. Table 2.2. Housing Occupancy and Tenure of P- MRNRD, 2000 Census Subject Number of Peo le Percent of Total Total Housing Units 258,779 100.0% Occupied Housing Units 245,065 94.7% Vacant Housing Units 13,714 5.3% For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 1,548 0.6% Occupied Housing Units 245,065 100.0% Owner Occupied 159,210 65.0% Renter Occupied 85,855 35.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 In addition to the occupancy of homes shown in Table 2.2, the homeowner vacancy rate is 1.7 percent and the rental vacancy rate is 7.1 percent throughout the P- MRNRD. Table 23 shows the age of homes within the P- MRNRD, to help determine the level of damage that could be seen in the event of a hazard occurrence. Table 2.3. Age of Structures in P- MRNRD, 2000 Census Year Structure Built Number of Structures Percent of Total 1999 to March 2000 6,284 2.4% 1995 to 1998 18,758 7.2% 1990 to 1994 16,650 6.4% 1980 to 1989 31,608 12.2% Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.3 Adv 2011 Year Structure Built Number of Structures Percent of Total 1970 to 1979 52,318 20.2% 1960 to 1969 42,149 16.3% 1940 to 1959 45,578 17.6% 1939 or earlier 45,434 17.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. DP -4. Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000 2.1.1 Burt County Demographic Summary According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of Burt County in 2000 was 7,791. The population in the county has increased steadily over the past several decades. Figure 2.3 below shows the population trend in the Burt County since 1870. Figure 2.3. Burt County Population, 1880 to 2000 14,000 12,000 10,000 O 8,000 R a O a 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Year Sources: Nebraska State Data Center, Center for Public Affairs Research, University of Nebraska at Omaha; and U.S. Bureau of the Census, "1990 Census of Population and Housing ", "CPH -2 -29, Population and Housing Counts, Nebraska ", Census Web Site (www.census.gov) and similar publications for preceding years. The population of Burt County is projected to increase over time, as shown in Figure 2.4 below. Based on the county populations found on the U.S. Census Bureau Web site, the population in Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.4 July 2011 13,040 6 13,0 12,7 12,559 2 12,546 11,0 9 11,5 6 10,192 �,2 8,813 6,937 2,84 Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.4 July 2011 the county has decreased slightly from 2000 to 2007; however, it is anticipated that the population will begin to increase after 2015. Figure 2.4. Burt County Population Projection, 2005 to 2030 7,900 7,800 7,700 c O 7,600 R a O a 7,500 7,400 7,300 7,200 7,100 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year Source: University of Nebraska, Bureau of Business Research, Nebraska County Population Projections. According to the U.S Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program dated July 2006, the population of Burt County is 7,341. The gender breakdown is 49 percent male and 51 percent female. Table 2.4 below depicts the age characteristics of the project area. Table 2.4. Age Characteristics of Burt County, July 2006 Age Number of People Percent of Total Under 5 years 379 5.2% 5 to 9 years 437 6.0% 10 to 14 years 517 7.0% 15 to 19 years 490 6.7% 20 to 24 years 465 6.3% 25 to 34 years 554 7.5% 35 to 44 years 851 11.6% 45 to 54 years 1,212 16.5% Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.5 July 2011 Age Number of People Percent of Total 55 to 59 years 499 6.8% 60 to 64 years 358 4.9% 65 to 74 years 726 9.9% 75 to 84 years 574 7.8% 85 years and over 279 3.8% 100.0% 18 years and over 5,680 77.4% 21 years and over 5,444 74.2% 62 years and over 1,809 24.6% 65 years and over 1,579 21.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2006 As shown in Table 2.4, the population is split fairly evenly among the age brackets. However, there is a higher percentage of the population between the ages of 35 to 54 than in any other age bracket. There also are a significant number of people older than age 65, which is an important fact to consider when determining the best method of protection from hazards for citizens and communities. Another important demographic detail that should not be overlooked is the housing occupancy and the age of the existing structures. Table 2.5 below shows the housing occupancy and tenure in the project area. Table 2.5. Housing Occupancy and Tenure of Burt County, 2000 Census Subject Number of People Percent of Total Total Housing Units 3,723 100.0% Occupied Housing Units 3,155 84.7% Vacant Housing Units 568 15.3% For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 275 7.4% Occupied Housing Units 3,155 100.0% Owner Occupied 2,391 75.8% Renter Occupied 764 24.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 In addition to the occupancy of homes shown in Table 2.5, the homeowner vacancy rate is 3.2 percent and the rental vacancy rate is 7.2 percent throughout Burt County. Table 2.6 shows the age of homes within the county, to help determine the level of damage that could be seen in the event of a hazard occurrence. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.6 Adv 2011 Table 2.6. Age of Structures in Burt County, 2000 Census Year Structure Built Number of Structures Percent of Total 1999 to March 2000 28 0.8% 1995 to 1998 177 4.8% 1990 to 1994 101 2.7% 1980 to 1989 326 8.8% 1970 to 1979 482 12.9% 1960 to 1969 357 9.6% 1940 to 1959 604 16.2% 1939 or earlier 1,648 44.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -4. Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000 2.1.2 Dakota County Demographic Summary According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of Dakota County in 2000 was 20,253. The population in the county has increased steadily over the past several decades. Figure 2.5 below shows the population trend in the Dakota County since 1870. Figure 2.5. Dakota County Population, 1870 to 2000 25,000 20,000 12,168 9,50 9,836 16,573 /116,742 15,000 7,694 6,5 . 0 2 6,286 R 2,040 3,213 a 7 O a 10,000 5,000 0 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Year Sources: Nebraska State Data Center, Center for Public Affairs Research, University of Nebraska at Omaha; and U.S. Bureau of the Census, "1990 Census of Population and Housing ", "CPH -2 -29, Population and Housing Counts, Nebraska ", Census Web Site (www.census.gov) and similar publications for preceding years. Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.7 July 2011 13,1 12,168 9,50 9,836 7,694 6,5 4 6,286 2,040 3,213 the Census, "1990 Census of Population and Housing ", "CPH -2 -29, Population and Housing Counts, Nebraska ", Census Web Site (www.census.gov) and similar publications for preceding years. Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.7 July 2011 The population of Dakota County is projected to increase overtime, as shown in Figure 2.6 below. Based on the county populations found on the U.S. Census Bureau Web site, the population in the county has increased slightly from 2000 to 2007. Figure 2.6. Dakota County Population Projection, 2005 to 2030 30,000 28,000 26,000 c O 24,000 R a O a 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year Source: University of Nebraska, Bureau of Business Research, Nebraska County Population Projections. According to the U.S Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program dated July 2006, the population of Dakota County is 20,587. The gender breakdown is 50 percent male and 50 percent female. Table 2.7 below depicts the age characteristics of the project area. Table 2.7. Age Characteristics of Dakota County, July 2006 Age Number of People Percent of Total Under 5 years 1,922 9.3% 5 to 9 years 1,701 8.3% 10 to 14 years 1,700 8.3% 15 to 19 years 1,581 7.7% 20 to 24 years 1,295 6.3% 25 to 34 years 2,746 13.3% Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.8 July 2011 Age Number of People Percent of Total 35 to 44 years 2,851 13.8% 45 to 54 years 2,825 13.7% 55 to 59 years 1,097 5.3% 60 to 64 years 819 4.0% 65 to 74 years 1,092 5.3% 75 to 84 years 637 3.1% 85 years and over 321 1.6% 32.6% 18 years and over 14,210 69.0% 21 years and over 13,458 65.4% 62 years and over 2,532 12.3% 65 years and over 2,050 10.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2006 As shown in Table 2.7, the population is split fairly evenly among the age brackets. However, there is a higher percentage of the population between the ages of 25 to 54 than in any other age bracket. There also are a significant number of people older than age 65, which is an important fact to consider when determining the best method of protection from hazards for citizens and communities. Another important demographic detail that should not be overlooked is the housing occupancy and the age of the existing structures. Table 2.8 below shows the housing occupancy and tenure in the project area. Table 2.8. Housing Occupancy and Tenure of Dakota County, 2000 Census Subject Number of People Percent of Total Total Housing Units 7,528 100.0% Occupied Housing Units 7,095 94.2% Vacant Housing Units 433 5.8% For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 34 0.5% Occupied Housing Units 7,095 100.0% Owner Occupied 4,781 67.4% Renter Occupied 2,314 32.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 In addition to the occupancy of homes shown in Table 2.8, the homeowner vacancy rate is 13 percent and the rental vacancy rate is 93 percent throughout Dakota County. Table 2.9 shows the age of homes within the county, to help determine the level of damage that could be seen in the event of a hazard occurrence. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.9 Adv 2011 Table 2.9. Age of Structures in Dakota County, 2000 Census Year Structure Built Number of Structures Percent of Total 1999 to March 2000 62 0.8% 1995 to 1998 749 9.9% 1990 to 1994 391 5.2% 1980 to 1989 745 9.9% 1970 to 1979 1,987 26.4% 1960 to 1969 1,197 15.9% 1940 to 1959 1,214 16.1% 1939 or earlier 1,183 15.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -4. Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000 2.1.3 Douglas County Demographic Summary According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of Douglas County in 2000 was 463,585. The population in the county has increased steadily over the past several decades. Figure 2.7 below shows the population trend in the Douglas County since 1870. Figure 2.7. Douglas County Population, 1870 to 2000 Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.10 July 2011 Sources: Nebraska State Data Center, Center for Public Affairs Research, University of Nebraska at Omaha; and U.S. Bureau of the Census, "1990 Census of Population and Housing ", "CPH -2 -29, Population and Housing Counts, Nebraska ", Census Web Site (www.census.gov) and similar publications for preceding years. The population of Douglas County is projected to increase overtime, as shown in Figure 2.8 below. Based on the county populations found on the U.S. Census Bureau Web site, the population in the county has increased slightly from 2000 to 2007. Figure 2.8. Douglas County Population Projection, 2005 to 2030 600,000 580,000 583,538 567,702 560,000 c O }, 550,918 R 0 540,000 a 532,354 520,000 511,227 500,000 486,929 480,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year Source: University of Nebraska, Bureau of Business Research, Nebraska County Population Projections. According to the U.S Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program dated July 2006, the population of Douglas County is 492,003. The gender breakdown is 49 percent male and 51 percent female. Table 2.10 below depicts the age characteristics of the project area. Table 2.10. Age Characteristics of Douglas County, July 2006 Age Number of People Percent of Total Under 5 years 40,193 8.2% 5 to 9 years 34,898 7.1% 10 to 14 years 34,446 7.0% 15 to 19 years 35,012 7.1% 20 to 24 years 35,983 7.3% Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.11 July 2011 Age Number of People Percent of Total 25 to 34 years 69,899 14.2% 35 to 44 years 71,008 14.4% 45 to 54 years 70,069 14.2% 55 to 59 years 29,122 5.9% 60 to 64 years 19,197 3.9% 65 to 74 years 26,401 5.4% 75 to 84 years 18,139 3.7% 85 years and over 7,636 1.6% 18 years and over 360,823 73.3% 21 years and over 340,889 69.3% 62 years and over 63,503 12.9% 65 years and over 52,176 10.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2006 As shown in Table 2. 10, the population is split fairly evenly among the age brackets. However, there is a higher percentage of the population between the ages of 25 to 54 than in any other age bracket. There also are a significant number of people older than age 65, which is an important fact to consider when determining the best method of protection from hazards for citizens and communities. Another important demographic detail that should not be overlooked is the housing occupancy and the age of the existing structures. Table 2.11 below shows the housing occupancy and tenure in the project area. Table 2.11. Housing Occupancy and Tenure of Douglas County, 2000 Census Subject Number of People Percent of Total Total Housing Units 192,672 100.0% Occupied Housing Units 182,194 94.6% Vacant Housing Units 10,478 5.4% For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 884 0.5% Occupied Housing Units 182,194 100.0% Owner Occupied 115,254 63.3% Renter Occupied 66,940 36.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 In addition to the occupancy of homes shown in Table 2.11, the homeowner vacancy rate is 1.0 percent and the rental vacancy rate is 7.5 percent throughout Douglas County. Table 2.12 shows the age of homes within the county, to help determine the level of damage that could be seen in the event of a hazard occurrence. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.12 Adv 2011 Table 2.12. Age of Structures in Douglas County, 2000 Census Year Structure Built Number of Structures Percent of Total 1999 to March 2000 62 0.8% 1995 to 1998 749 9.9% 1990 to 1994 391 5.2% 1980 to 1989 745 9.9% 1970 to 1979 1,987 26.4% 1960 to 1969 1,197 15.9% 1940 to 1959 1,214 16.1% 1939 or earlier 1,183 15.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -4. Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000 2.1.4 Sarpy County Demographic Summary According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of Sarpy County in 2000 was 122,595. The population in the county has increased steadily over the past several decades. Figure 2.9 below shows the population trend in the Sarpy County since 1870. Figure 2.9. Sarpy County Population, 1870 to 2000 Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.13 July 2011 Sources: Nebraska State Data Center, Center for Public Affairs Research, University of Nebraska at Omaha; and U.S. Bureau of the Census, "1990 Census of Population and Housing ", "CPH -2 -29, Population and Housing Counts, Nebraska ", Census Web Site (www.census.gov) and similar publications for preceding years. The population of Sarpy County is projected to increase overtime, as shown in Figure 2.10 below. Based on the county populations found on the U.S. Census Bureau Web site, the population in the county has increased from 2000 to 2007. Figure 2.10. Sarpy County Population Projection, 2005 to 2030 240,000 Number of People Percent of Total Under 5 years 11,711 8.2% 5 to 9 years 10,747 7.5% 10 to 14 years 11,115 7.8% 15 to 19 years 10,656 220,000 20 to 24 years 11,083 7.8% 25 to 34 years 21,957 15.4% 224,709 208,441 200,000 191,540 180,000 174,201 160,000 156,696 140,000 139,371 120,000 100,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year Source: University of Nebraska, Bureau of Business Research, Nebraska County Population Projections. According to the U.S Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program dated July 2006, the population of Sarpy County is 142,637. The gender breakdown is 50 percent male and 50 percent female. Table 2.13 below depicts the age characteristics of the project area. Table 2.13. Age Characteristics of Sarpy County, July 2006 Age Number of People Percent of Total Under 5 years 11,711 8.2% 5 to 9 years 10,747 7.5% 10 to 14 years 11,115 7.8% 15 to 19 years 10,656 7.5% 20 to 24 years 11,083 7.8% 25 to 34 years 21,957 15.4% Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.14 July 2011 Age Number of People Percent of Total 35 to 44 years 22,215 15.6% 45 to 54 years 19,702 13.8% 55 to 59 years 7,534 5.3% 60 to 64 years 4,759 3.3% 65 to 74 years 6,818 4.8% 75 to 84 years 3,311 2.3% 85 years and over 1,029 0.7% 30.8% 18 years and over 102,164 71.6% 21 years and over 96,407 67.6% 62 years and over 13,931 9.8% 65 years and over 11,158 7.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2006 As shown in Table 2. 1 3 1, the population is split fairly evenly among the age brackets. However, there is a higher percentage of the population between the ages of 25 to 54 than in any other age bracket. There also are a significant number of people older than age 65, which is an important fact to consider when determining the best method of protection from hazards for citizens and communities. Another important demographic detail that should not be overlooked is the housing occupancy and the age of the existing structures. Table 2.14 below shows the housing occupancy and tenure in the project area. Table 2.14. Housing Occupancy and Tenure of Sarpy County, 2000 Census Subject Number of People Percent of Total Total Housing Units 44,981 100.0% Occupied Housing Units 43,426 96.5% Vacant Housing Units 1,555 3.5% For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 211 0.5% Occupied Housing Units 43,426 100.0% Owner Occupied 30,054 69.2% Renter Occupied 13,372 30.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 In addition to the occupancy of homes shown in Table 2.14, the homeowner vacancy rate is 0.9 percent and the rental vacancy rate is 4.7 percent throughout Sarpy County. Table 2.15 shows the age of homes within the county, to help determine the level of damage that could be seen in the event of a hazard occurrence. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.15 Adv 2011 Table 2.15. Age of Structures in Sarpy County, 2000 Census Year Structure Built Number of Structures Percent of Total 1999 to March 2000 1,788 4.0% 1995 to 1998 5,191 11.5% 1990 to 1994 4,135 9.2% 1980 to 1989 8,017 17.8% 1970 to 1979 11,343 25.2% 1960 to 1969 7,496 16.7% 1940 to 1959 5,080 11.3% 1939 or earlier 1,931 4.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -4. Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000 2.1.5 Thurston County Demographic Summary According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of Thurston County in 2000 was 7,171. The population in the county has varied over the past several decades. Figure 2.11 below shows the population trend in the Thurston County since 1870. Figure 2.11. Thurston County Population, 1870 to 2000 Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.16 July 2011 Sources: Nebraska State Data Center, Center for Public Affairs Research, University of Nebraska at Omaha; and U.S. Bureau of the Census, "1990 Census of Population and Housing ", "CPH -2 -29, Population and Housing Counts, Nebraska ", Census Web Site (www.census.gov) and similar publications for preceding years. The population of Thurston County is projected to decrease over time, as shown in Figure 2.12 below. Based on the county populations found on the U.S. Census Bureau Web site, the population in the county has decreased slightly from 2000 to 2007. Figure 2.12. Thurston County Population Projection, 2005 to 2030 8,000 7,800 7,600 7,400 0 7.200 . R 0 7,000 a 6,800 6,600 6,400 6,200 6,000 7,282 7,222 7,128 7,072 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year Source: University of Nebraska, Bureau of Business Research, Nebraska County Population Projections. According to the U.S Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program dated July 2006, the population of Thurston County is 7,273. The gender breakdown is 50 percent male and 50 percent female. Table 2.16 below depicts the age characteristics of the project area. Table 2.16. Age Characteristics of Thurston County, July 2006 Age Number of People Percent of Total Under 5 years 754 10.4% 5 to 9 years 714 9.8% 10 to 14 years 724 10.0% 15 to 19 years 671 9.2% 20 to 24 years 569 7.8% 25 to 34 years 719 9.9% Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.17 July 2011 Age Number of People Percent of Total 35 to 44 years 862 11.9% 45 to 54 years 798 11.0% 55 to 59 years 338 4.6% 60 to 64 years 277 3.8% 65 to 74 years 403 5.5% 75 to 84 years 319 4.4% 85 years and over 125 1.7% 39.2% 18 years and over 4,624 63.6% 21 years and over 4,298 59.1% 62 years and over 1,024 14.1% 65 years and over 847 11.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2006 As shown in Table 2.16, the population is split fairly evenly among the age brackets. However, there is a higher percentage of the population between the ages of 35 to 54 than in any other age bracket. There also are a significant number of people older than age 65, which is an important fact to consider when determining the best method of protection from hazards for citizens and communities. Another important demographic detail that should not be overlooked is the housing occupancy and the age of the existing structures. Table 2.17 below shows the housing occupancy and tenure in the project area. Table 2.17. Housing Occupancy and Tenure of Thurston County, 2000 Census Subject Number of People Percent of Total Total Housing Units 2,467 100.0% Occupied Housing Units 2,255 91.4% Vacant Housing Units 212 8.6% For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 19 0.8% Occupied Housing Units 2,255 100.0% Owner Occupied 1,370 60.8% Renter Occupied 885 39.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 In addition to the occupancy of homes shown in Table 2.17, the homeowner vacancy rate is 2.9 percent and the rental vacancy rate is 5.3 percent throughout Thurston County. Table 2.18 shows the age of homes within the county, to help determine the level of damage that could be seen in the event of a hazard occurrence. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.18 Adv 2011 Table 2.18. Age of Structures in Thurston County, 2000 Census Year Structure Built Number of Structures Percent of Total 1999 to March 2000 52 2.1% 1995 to 1998 88 3.6% 1990 to 1994 97 3.9% 1980 to 1989 258 10.5% 1970 to 1979 524 21.2% 1960 to 1969 273 11.1% 1940 to 1959 322 13.1% 1939 or earlier 853 34.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -4. Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000 2.1.6 Washington County Demographic Summary According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of Washington County in 2000 was 18,780. The population in the county has increased steadily over the past several decades. Figure 2.13 below shows the population trend in the Washington County since 1870. Figure 2.13. Washington County Population, 1870 to 2000 20,000 18,780 18,000 12,738 12,180 13,3 0 16,000 11,8 9 11,5 8 11,511 12,103 16,607 8,631 14,45 15,508 14,000 13,086 12,000 12, 95 p R 0 10,000 a 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Year Sources: Nebraska State Data Center, Center for Public Affairs Research, University of Nebraska at Omaha; and U.S. Bureau of the Census, "1990 Census of Population and Housing ", "CPH -2 -29, Population and Housing Counts, Nebraska ", Census Web Site (www.census.gov) and similar publications for preceding years. Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.19 July 2011 12,738 12,180 13,3 0 11,8 9 11,5 8 11,511 12,103 8,631 14,45 Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.19 July 2011 The population of Washington County is projected to increase overtime, as shown in Figure 2.14 below. Based on the county populations found on the U.S. Census Bureau Web site, the population in the county has increased from 2000 to 2007. Figure 2.14. Washington County Population Projection, 2005 to 2030 32,000 30,000 28,000 c 26,000 R a O a 24,000 22,000 20,000 18,000 30,024 27,460 25,140 23,053 21,235 19,772 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year Source: University of Nebraska, Bureau of Business Research, Nebraska County Population Projections. According to the U.S Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program dated July 2006, the population of Washington County is 20,044. The gender breakdown is 50 percent male and 50 percent female. Table 2.19 below depicts the age characteristics of the project area. Table 2.19. Age Characteristics of Washington County, July 2006 Age Number of People Percent of Total Under 5 years 1,134 5.7% 5 to 9 years 1,265 6.3% 10 to 14 years 1,418 7.1% 15 to 19 years 1,493 7.4% 20 to 24 years 1,680 8.4% 25 to 34 years 2,541 12.7% Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.20 July 2011 Age Number of People Percent of Total 35 to 44 years 2,443 12.2% 45 to 54 years 3,125 15.6% 55 to 59 years 1,417 7.1% 60 to 64 years 887 4.4% 65 to 74 years 1,358 6.8% 75 to 84 years 882 4.4% 85 years and over 401 2.0% 22.8% 18 years and over 15,334 76.5% 21 years and over 14,413 71.9% 62 years and over 3,152 15.7% 65 years and over 2,641 13.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2006 As shown in Table 2.19, the population is split fairly evenly among the age brackets. However, there is a higher percentage of the population between the ages of 25 to 54 than in any other age bracket. There also are a significant number of people older than age 65, which is an important fact to consider when determining the best method of protection from hazards for citizens and communities. Another important demographic detail that should not be overlooked is the housing occupancy and the age of the existing structures. Table 2.20 below shows the housing occupancy and tenure in the project area. Table 2.20. Housing Occupancy and Tenure of Washington County, 2000 Census Subject Number of People Percent of Total Total Housing Units 7,408 100.0% Occupied Housing Units 6,940 93.7% Vacant Housing Units 468 6.3% For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 125 1.7% Occupied Housing Units 6,940 100.0% Owner Occupied 5,360 77.2% Renter Occupied 1,580 22.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 In addition to the occupancy of homes shown in Table 2.20, the homeowner vacancy rate is 1.0 percent and the rental vacancy rate is 8.5 percent throughout Washington County. Table 2.21 shows the age of homes within the county, to help determine the level of damage that could be seen in the event of a hazard occurrence. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.21 Adv 2011 Table 2.21. Age of Structures in Washington County, 2000 Census Year Structure Built Number of Structures Percent of Total 1999 to March 2000 199 2.7% 1995 to 1998 692 9.3% 1990 to 1994 438 5.9% 1980 to 1989 839 11.3% 1970 to 1979 1,475 19.9% 1960 to 1969 841 11.4% 1940 to 1959 882 11.9% 1939 or earlier 2,042 27.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -4. Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000 2.2 Climate Summary Since the planning area is a six county area, spatial climate data can vary slightly. To ensure that the climate information provided in this section is as accurate as possible, a central location in the planning area was selected as the source of the climate summary. Tekamah, located in Burt County, was the most centrally located city of those that had available information. Information in this report is based on climate data from the High Plains Regional Climate Center (HPRCC). Nebraska has a continental climate, meaning the state experiences highly variable temperatures, from season to season. In general, the planning area sees an average maximum temperature being in the mid- to upper -30s in January, February, and December; temperatures in the low -50s in March and November; the mid- to upper -60s in April and October; the mid -70s in May; and, in the 80s from June through September. The average minimum temperatures are in the teens in January, February, and December; the mid- to upper -20s in March and November; the upper -30s to mid -40s in April and October; the low- to mid -50s in May and September; and, the low- to mid -60s in June, July, and August. The average annual precipitation in the area is between 25 inches and 30 inches and the average annual snowfall is between 20 inches and 26.5 inches. Figure 2.15 below depicts the daily temperature averages and extremes. The period of record is 1893 to 2009. According to the HPRCC, the daily extreme maximum temperature is the maximum of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for that day of the year. The average maximum is the average of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for that day of the year. The average minimum is the average of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for that day of the year. The extreme minimum is the minimum of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for the day of the year. Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.22 July 2011 Figure 2.15. P -MRNRD Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes 140 120 100 80 60 ;i 40 w L 20 L Q w 0 -20 -40 -60 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 -Jan 1 -Feb 1 -Mar 1 -Apr 1 -May 1 -Jun 1 -Jul 1 -Aug 1 -Sep 1 -Oct 1 -Nov 1 -Dec Day of Year Extreme Maximum Average Maximum Average Minimum Extreme Minimum 7 Figure 2.16 shows the precipitation averages and extremes for the planning area. Figure 2.17 details the snowfall averages and extremes for the project area. The daily extreme is the greatest precipitation or snowfall recorded for that day of the year. The daily average is the average of all daily precipitation of snowfall recorded for that day of the year. Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.23 July 2011 Figure 2.16. P -MRNRD Daily Precipitation Averages and Extremes 9 8 7 6 N d t 4 c 0 g 3 c 'u d a` 2 1 D 1 -Jan 1 -Feb 1 -Mar 1 -Apr 1 -May 1 -Jun 1 -Jul 1 -Aug 1 -Sep 1 -Oct 1 -Nov 1 -Dec Day of Year — MaximumPrecipitation — AveragePrecipilation Source: High Plains Regional Climate Center Figure 2.17. P -MRNRD Daily Snowfall Averages and Extremes 14 12 10 8 a u � 6 3 0 N 4 2 Source: Hig Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.24 July 2011 D 1 -Jan 1 -Feb 1 -Mar 1 -Apr 1 -May 1 -Jun 1 -Jul 1 -Aug 1 -Sep 1 -Oct 1 -Nov 1 -Dec Day of Year — Maximum Snowfall Average Snowfall 2.2.1 Burt County Climate Summary Nebraska has a continental climate, meaning the state experiences highly variable temperatures from season to season. In general, Burt County sees average maximum temperatures in the mid - to upper -30s to low -40s in January, February, and December; temperatures in the low -50s in March and November; the mid- to upper -60s in April and October; the mid -70s in May; and temperatures in the 80s from June through September. The record high was 113 degrees F on July 25, 1936. The average minimum temperatures range from being in the teens in January, February, and December; the mid- to upper -20s in March and November; the upper -30s to low - 40s in April and October; the upper -40s to mid -50s in May and September; to temperatures in the upper -50s to mid -60s in June, July and August. The record low was minus 37 degrees F, occurring on Jan. 12, 1912. The average annual precipitation is just more than 29 inches, with the maximum daily rainfall amount of 8.25 inches occurring on Aug. 7, 1999, and the average annual snowfall is approximately 30 inches, with the maximum daily snowfall amount of 13.0 inches occurring on Dec. 4, 1924. Figure 2.18 below depicts the daily temperature averages and extremes, in a period from 1893 to 2009, in Tekamah. According to the BPRCC, the daily extreme maximum temperature is the maximum of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for that day of the year. The average maximum is the average of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for that day of the year. The average minimum is the average of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for that day of the year, and the extreme minimum is the minimum of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for the day of the year. Figure 2.18. Burt County Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes Source: High Plains Regional Climate Center Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.25 July 2011 i sw�� + 1 4 � SSA iii L Source: High Plains Regional Climate Center Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.25 July 2011 Figure 2.19 shows the precipitation averages and extremes for Burt County. Figure 2.20 details the snowfall averages and extremes for Burt County. The daily extreme is the greatest precipitation or snowfall recorded for that day of the year. The daily average is the average of all daily precipitation of snowfall recorded for that day of the year. Figure 2.19. Burt County Daily Precipitation Averages and Extremes 9 a 7 6 5 a r c 4 c v m 3 �n a` 2 1 0 1 -Jan 1 -Feb 1 -Mar 1 -Apr 1 -May 1 -Jun 1 -Jul 1-Aug 1 -Sep 1-Oct I -Nov 1 -D Pay of Year —Maxinium Precipitation — Average Precipitation Source: High Plains Regional Climate Center Figure 2.20. Burt County Daily Snowfall Averages and Extremes 14 12 10 8 v r c 6 m 3 0 y 4 2 aource: reign reams megionai tumaJe temer Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.26 July 2011 0 1 -Jan 1 -Feb 1 -Mar 1 -Apr 1 -May 1 -Jun 1 -Jul 1 -Aug 1 -Sep 1-Oct I•Nov I -Dec Pay of Year — Maximum Snowfall — Average Snowfall 2.2.2 Dakota County Climate Summary Nebraska has a continental climate, meaning the state experiences highly variable temperatures from season to season. In general, Dakota County sees average maximum temperatures in the mid- to upper -30s to low -40s in January, February, and December; temperatures in the low -50s in March and November; the mid- to upper -60s in April and October; the mid -70s in May; and temperatures in the 80s from June through September. The record high was 108 degrees F on June 21, 1988 and July 12, 1995. The average minimum temperatures range from being in the teens in January, February, and December; the mid- to upper -20s in March and November; the upper -30s to low -40s in April and October; the upper -40s to mid -50s in May and September; to temperatures in the upper -50s to mid -60s in June, July and August. The record low was minus 26 degrees F, occurring on Jan. 19, 1970 Jan. 21, 1970 and Feb. 28, 1962. The average annual precipitation is just more than 26 inches, with the maximum daily rainfall amount of 5.5 inches occurring on July 17, 1972, and the average annual snowfall is just more than 34 inches, with the maximum daily snowfall amount of 18.4 inches occurring on March 15, 2004. Figure 2.21 below depicts the daily temperature averages and extremes, in a period from 1948 to 2009, in Sioux City, Iowa. According to the HPRCC, the daily extreme maximum temperature is the maximum of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for that day of the year. The average maximum is the average of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for that day of the year. The average minimum is the average of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for that day of the year, and the extreme minimum is the minimum of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for the day of the year. Figure 2.21. Dakota County Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes Source: High Plains Regional Climate Center Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.27 July 2011 e *� �_•Q A F 0 09 pr 1 MO VE % IR if t MIN 1�1 0 :ter Source: High Plains Regional Climate Center Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.27 July 2011 Figure 2.22 shows the precipitation averages and extremes for Dakota County. Figure 2.23 details the snowfall averages and extremes for Dakota County. The daily extreme is the greatest precipitation or snowfall recorded for that day of the year. The daily average is the average of all daily precipitation of snowfall recorded for that day of the year. Figure 2.22. Dakota County Daily Precipitation Averages and Extremes 6 5 4 y 3 m 2 • n a` 1 a 1 �ww■ww ■ww ■�ww�ww■ww■��ww ■ww■ w. ■ww■ww■ww■���ww■ww■ww■ww■ww■ww■ �ww ■ww■ww ■ww.ww�ws�ww.ww ■ww.ww ■ww. ww■ ww■..�..■ww■ wt.�! .I w• ww■.. ■w•..■ ww■ww■ww■ww■ww■..�! !ww■ww■..■w�ww■ ww■ww■ww■ww■ww■�! !ww■ww■ww■ww■ww■ ww■ww■ww■ww■ww■1•wl !ww■ww■ ww■ww■ ww■ww■ww■ww■ww■�! !w■�■ww■ ww■ww■ ww■ww■ww■ww■iwwlwl !w■ ■ww■ww■ ww■ww■ a �• Source: High Plains Regional Climate Center Figure 2.23. Dakota County Daily Snowfall Averages and Extremes 20 18 16 14 12 ;, 1a r S m 3 G 6 H 4 2 aource: reign ruins megionai uumaze uemer Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.28 July 2011 1 -Jan 1 -Feb 1 -Mar 1 -Apr 1 -May 1 -Jun 1 -Jul 1 -Aug 1 -Sep 1-Oct 1-Nov 1 -Dec Day of Year —Maximum Snowfall —Average Snowfall 2.2.3 Douglas County Climate Summary Nebraska has a continental climate, meaning the state experiences highly variable temperatures from season to season. In general, Douglas County sees average maximum temperatures in the mid- to upper -30s to low -40s in January, February, and December; temperatures in the low -50s in March and November; the mid- to upper -60s in April and October; the mid -70s in May; and temperatures in the 80s from June through September. The record high was 110 degrees F on July 21, 1974. The average minimum temperatures range from being in the teens in January, February, and December; the mid- to upper -20s in March and November; the upper -30s to low - 40s in April and October; the upper -40s to mid -50s in May and September; to temperatures in the upper -50s to mid -60s in June, July and August. The record low was minus 23 degrees F, occurring on Jan. 10, 1982 and Dec. 22, 1989. The average annual precipitation is just more than 30 inches, with the maximum daily rainfall amount of 6.5 inches occurring on Aug. 7, 1999, and the average annual snowfall is approximately 28 inches, with the maximum daily snowfall amount of 18.3 inches occurring on Feb. 11, 1965. Figure 2.24 below depicts the daily temperature averages and extremes, in a period from 1948 to 2009, in Omaha. According to the HPRCC, the daily extreme maximum temperature is the maximum of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for that day of the year. The average maximum is the average of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for that day of the year. The average minimum is the average of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for that day of the year, and the extreme minimum is the minimum of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for the day of the year. Figure 2.24. Douglas County Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes 120 100 80 60 LL 40 a 3 A `m 20 C Q G a F -20 -40 Day of Year Extreme Maximum —Average Maximum — Average Minimum — Extreme Minimum Source: High Plains Regional Climate Center Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.29 July 2011 i -Jan 1 -Feb 1 -Mar 1 -Apr 1 -May 1 -Jun 1 -lul 1 -Aug 1-Sep 1 -Oct 1 -Nov 1 -Dec Figure 2.25 shows the precipitation averages and extremes for Douglas County. Figure 2.26 details the snowfall averages and extremes for Douglas County. The daily extreme is the greatest precipitation or snowfall recorded for that day of the year. The daily average is the average of all daily precipitation of snowfall recorded for that day of the year. Figure 2.25. Douglas County Daily Precipitation Averages and Extremes 7 6 5 4 a r c 3 c v n 2 a` 1 Oourcc. My[] riauis rceyionai 1,mriaie �.AMLUr Figure 2.26. Douglas County Daily Snowfall Averages and Extremes 20 18 16 14 12 ;, 1a r C a G G H 4 2 OUurcc. niyri riauia rNcywriai 1.mriaLc 1.1Crucr Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.30 July 2011 0 1 -Jan 1 -Feb 1 -Mar 1 -Apr 1 -May 1 -Jun 1 -Jul 1 -Aug 1 -Sep 1.Od 1-Nov 1 -13ec Pay of Year -Maximum Precipitadon - Average Precipitation 1 -Jan 1 -Feb 1 -Mar 1 -Apr 1 -May 1 -Jun 1 -Jul 1 -Aug 1 -Sep 1-Oct I•Nov I -Dec Pay of Year -Maximum Snowfall -Average Snowfall 2.2.4 Sarpy County Climate Summary Nebraska has a continental climate, meaning the state experiences highly variable temperatures from season to season. In general, Sarpy County sees average maximum temperatures in the mid - to upper -30s to low -40s in January, February, and December; temperatures in the low -50s in March and November; the mid- to upper -60s in April and October; the mid -70s in May; and temperatures in the 80s from June through September. The record high was 116 degrees F on July 20, 1934. The average minimum temperatures range from being in the teens in January, February, and December; the mid- to upper -20s in March and November; the upper -30s to low - 40s in April and October; the upper -40s to mid -50s in May and September; to temperatures in the upper -50s to mid -60s in June, July and August. The record low was minus 33 degrees F, occurring on Jan. 12, 1974 and Feb. 13, 1905. The average annual precipitation is just more than 28 inches, with the maximum daily rainfall amount of 7.3 inches occurring on July 29, 1948, and the average annual snowfall is approximately 25 inches, with the maximum daily snowfall amount of 17.0 inches occurring on Feb. 11, 1965. Figure 2.27 below depicts the daily temperature averages and extremes, in a period from 1893 to 2009, in Ashland. According to the HPRCC, the daily extreme maximum temperature is the maximum of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for that day of the year. The average maximum is the average of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for that day of the year. The average minimum is the average of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for that day of the year, and the extreme minimum is the minimum of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for the day of the year. Figure 2.27. Sarpy County Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes •1 11 .. YA T'W MAAgdp�WM ME. != � Source: High Plains Regional Climate Center Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.31 July 2011 Figure 2.28 shows the precipitation averages and extremes for Sarpy County. Figure 2.29 details the snowfall averages and extremes for Sarpy County. The daily extreme is the greatest precipitation or snowfall recorded for that day of the year. The daily average is the average of all daily precipitation of snowfall recorded for that day of the year. Figure 2.28. Sarpy County Daily Precipitation Averages and Extremes Figure 2.29. Sarpy County Daily Snowfall Averages and Extremes is 16 14 12 10 v r c 8 m 3 6 0 G H 4 2 aource: reign ruins megionai kumaie kemer Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.32 July 2011 D 1 -Jan 1 -Feb 1 -Mar 1 -Apr 1 -May 1 -Jun 1 -Jul 1 -Aug 1 -Sep 1 -dc[ I•Nov I -Dec Day of Year — Maximum Snowfall —Average Snowfall 2.2.5 Thurston County Climate Summary Nebraska has a continental climate, meaning the state experiences highly variable temperatures from season to season. In general, Thurston County sees average maximum temperatures in the mid- to upper -30s to low -40s in January, February, and December; temperatures in the low -50s in March and November; the mid- to upper -60s in April and October; the mid -70s in May; and temperatures in the 80s from June through September. The record high was 99 degrees F on July 25, 1907 and July 29, 1908. The average minimum temperatures range from being in the teens in January, February, and December; the mid- to upper -20s in March and November; the upper -30s to low -40s in April and October; the upper -40s to mid -50s in May and September; to temperatures in the upper -50s to mid -60s in June, July and August. The record low was minus 45 degrees F, occurring on Feb. 2, 1905. The average annual precipitation is approximately 27 inches, with the maximum daily rainfall amount of 6.1 inches occurring on July 2, 1958, and the average annual snowfall is approximately 23 inches, with the maximum daily snowfall amount of 11.0 inches occurring on Feb. 18, 1962. Figure 2.30 below depicts the daily temperature averages and extremes, in a period from 1900 to 1972, in Winnebago. According to the HPRCC, the daily extreme maximum temperature is the maximum of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for that day of the year. The average maximum is the average of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for that day of the year. The average minimum is the average of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for that day of the year, and the extreme minimum is the minimum of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for the day of the year. Figure 2.30. Thurston County Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes 120 100 80 60 40 LL � 2D 3 A `a 0 a F -20 -40 -60 Day of Year Extreme Maximum --- Average Maximum — Average Minimum — Extreme Minimum Source: High Plains Regional Climate Center Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.33 July 2011 1 -Jan 1 -Feb 1 -Mar 1 -Apr 1 -May 1 -Jun 1 -Jul 1 -Aug 1 -Sep 1 -Oct 1 -Nov 1 -Dec Figure 2.31 shows the precipitation averages and extremes for Thurston County. Figure 2.32 details the snowfall averages and extremes for Thurston County. The daily extreme is the greatest precipitation or snowfall recorded for that day of the year. The daily average is the average of all daily precipitation of snowfall recorded for that day of the year. Figure 2.31. Thurston County Daily Precipitation Averages and Extremes 7 6 5 4 a r c 3 c v n 2 a` F 6ource: reign Plains Keglonal unmaie uenier Figure 2.32. Thurston County Daily Snowfall Averages and Extremes 12 10 8 v 6 r c m 3 4 0 G H 2 aource: reign ruins megionai u mace uenier Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.34 July 2011 0 1 -Jan 1 -Feb I -Mar 1 -Apr 1 -May 1 -Jun 1 -Jul 1 -Aug 1 -Sep 1-Oct 1-Nov 1 -Dec Pay of Year -Maximum Precipitadon - Average Precipitation 0 1 -Jan 1 -Feb 1 -Mar 1 -Apr 1 -May 1 -Jun 1 -Jul I -Aug 1 -Sep 1-Oct I•Nov I -Dec Pay of Year -Maximum Snowfall -Average Snowfall 2.2.6 Washington County Climate Summary Nebraska has a continental climate, meaning the state experiences highly variable temperatures from season to season. In general, Washington County sees average maximum temperatures in the mid- to upper -30s to low -40s in January, February, and December; temperatures in the low - 50s in March and November; the mid- to upper -60s in April and October; the mid -70s in May; and temperatures in the 80s from June through September. The record high was 116 degrees F on July 25, 1936. The average minimum temperatures range from being in the teens in January, February, and December; the mid- to upper -20s in March and November; the upper -30s to low - 40s in April and October; the upper -40s to mid -50s in May and September; to temperatures in the upper -50s to mid -60s in June, July and August. The record low was minus 36 degrees F, occurring on Jan. 12, 1987. The average annual precipitation is approximately 29 inches, with the maximum daily rainfall amount of 6.3 inches occurring on August 7, 1999, and the average annual snowfall is just more than 27 inches, with the maximum daily snowfall amount of 13.0 inches occurring on Feb. 18, 1908 and March 15, 1923. Figure 2.33 below depicts the daily temperature averages and extremes, in a period from 1893 to 2001, in Blair. According to the HPRCC, the daily extreme maximum temperature is the maximum of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for that day of the year. The average maximum is the average of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for that day of the year. The average minimum is the average of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for that day of the year, and the extreme minimum is the minimum of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for the day of the year. Figure 2.33. Washington County Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes 140 120 100 so 60 40 a 3 v 20 Gl Q a 0 F -20 -40 -60 Source: High Plains Regional Climate Center Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.35 July 2011 1 -Jars 1 -Feb 1 -Mar 1 -Apr 1 -May 1 -Jun 1 -Jul 1 -Aug 1 -Sep 1 -Oct 1 -Nov 1 -Dec Day of Year — Extreme Maximum --Average Maximum — Average Minimum — Extreme Minimum Figure 2.34 shows the precipitation averages and extremes for Washington County. Figure 2.35 details the snowfall averages and extremes for Washington County. The daily extreme is the greatest precipitation or snowfall recorded for that day of the year. The daily average is the average of all daily precipitation of snowfall recorded for that day of the year. Figure 2.34. Washington County Daily Precipitation Averages and Extremes 7 6 5 4 a r c 3 c v n 2 a` 1 6ource: reign Plains Keglonal unmate uenier Figure 2.35. Washington County Daily Snowfall Averages and Extremes 14 12 16 a r c 6 m 3 0 H 4 2 aource: reign ruins megionai L nmaie Lenier Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.36 July 2011 0 1 -Jan 14eb 1-Mar 1 -Apr I -May 1 -Jun 1 -Jul 1-Aug 1 -Sep 1-Oct 1-Nov 1 -Dec Pay of Year - Maximum Precipitation - Average Precipitation 0 1 -Jan 1 -Feb 1 -Mar 1 -Apr 1 -May 1-Jun 1 -Jul 1 -Aug 1 -Sep I-Oct 1-Nov 1 -Dec Day of Year -Maximum Snowfall - Average Snowfall 2.3 School District and College Profiles There are five public school districts located within the P -MRNRD that participated in this planning effort. These districts consist of approximately 93 elementary schools, 17 middle schools or junior high schools, 14 high schools, and ten school facilities, such as learning centers. The estimated student population of all public schools is approximately 66,000. Please note that private schools were not considered in this profile, but may be included in the five year update. In addition to the public school facilities there are also two universities and colleges participating in the P- MRNRD, the University of Nebraska Medical Center and Metropolitan Community College. The following sections provide detailed information about each participating school district. 2.3.1 Bellevue Public School District The Bellevue Public School District consists of 15 elementary schools, three middle schools and two high schools throughout the City of Bellevue. The total student population in 2009 was approximately 9,700 students. There were also approximately 700 staff members in 2009. Please see Table 2.22 for additional information regarding the Bellevue Public School District. Table 2.22. Bellevue Public School District Summary Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.37 July 2011 Student Total Population School Name School Address Po ulation* includin Staff * Avery Elementary School 2107 Avery Road Bellevue, NE 68005 Belleaire Elementary School 1200 West Mission Avenue Bellevue, NE 68005 Bellevue Elementary School 12001 Timberridge Drive Bellevue, NE 68133 Bertha Barber Elementary 1402 Main Street School Bellevue, NE 68005 Betz Elementary School 605 West 27 In Avenue Bellevue, NE 68005 Birchcrest Elementary School 1212 Fairfax Road Bellevue, NE 68005 Central Elementary School 510 West 22 Avenue Bellevue, NE 68005 317 353 Fairview Elementary School 14110 Tregaron Circle Bellevue, NE 68123 Fort Crook Elementary School 12501 South 25 In Street Bellevue, NE 68123 LeMay Elementary School 2726 Kennedy Boulevard Bellevue, NE 68123 Leonard Lawrence 132042 9 Street Elementary School Bellevue, NE 68123 Peter Sarpy Elementary 2908 Vandenberg Avenue School Bellevue, NE 68123 Twin Ridge Elementary 1400 Sunbury Drive School Bellevue, NE 68005 Two Springs Elementary 3001 Spring Boulevard Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.37 July 2011 *Based on 2009 population estimates Please refer to Figure 3.2 in Section 3 for a map depicting the school district boundary. Figures 236 through Figure 2.39 depict the attendance areas for the elementary, middle and high schools in the Bellevue Public School District. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.38 Jnlc 2011 - Student Total Population School Name School Address Po ulation* includin Staff School Bellevue, NE 68123 Wake Robin Elementary 700 Lincoln Road School Bellevue, NE 68005 Lewis and Clark Middle 13502 South 38 Street School Bellevue, NE 68123 Logan Fontenelle Middle 701 Kayleen Drive School Bellevue, NE 68005 Mission Middle School 2202 Washington Street Bellevue, NE 68005 Bellevue East High School 1401 High School Drive Bellevue, NE 68005 Bellevue West High School 1501 Thurston Avenue Bellevue, NE 68123 *Based on 2009 population estimates Please refer to Figure 3.2 in Section 3 for a map depicting the school district boundary. Figures 236 through Figure 2.39 depict the attendance areas for the elementary, middle and high schools in the Bellevue Public School District. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.38 Jnlc 2011 Figure 2.36. Bellevue Public School District Elementary School Attendance Area Bellevue Public Schools Elementary School Attendance Boundaries PLATTE RIVER Proudly Serving the Bellevue /Offutt Community 2109 Source: Bellevue Public School District ( http : / /www.bellevuepubliescliools.org) Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.39 July 2011 Bellevue /Omaha City Boundary Lin HARRISON ST Figure 2.37. Bellevue Public School District Middle School Attendance Area was kk fill NOW }� � � � � , � 1 '� 1 Q arrrnrrr■ rrrrrrrr■ a r r'!1- rti IIl1l1 �Y' WAIR f � Source: Bellevue Public School District ( http:// R NN Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plmi 2.40 Juh- 2011 Figure 2.38. Bellevue Public School District High School Attendance Area Bellevue Public schools Senior High Attendance Boundaries PLATTE RIVER Proudly Serving the Bellevue /Offutt Community Source: Bellevue Public School District ( llttp:// www.bellevueptiblicscliools.org) Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.41 July 2011 Beilevuelomaha City Boundary Line HARRISON S7 2.3.2 Emerson - Hubbard Community School District The Emerson - Hubbard Community School District consists of one elementary school and one high school. The elementary school and high school are both located in Emerson. The total student population in 2009 was approximately 300 students. There were also approximately 40 staff members in 2009. Please see Table 2.23 for additional information regarding the Emerson - Hubbard Community School District. Table 2.23. Emerson - Hubbard Community School District Summary *Based on 2009 population estimates Please refer to Figure 3.3 in Section 3 for a map depicting the school district boundary. 2.3.3 Omaha Public School District The Omaha Public School District consists of 61 elementary schools, 11 middle schools, eight high schools, and seven other school facilities throughout the City of Omaha. Figure 2.39 shows the location of the Omaha Public School District facilities. The total student population in 2009 was approximately 47,000 students. There were also approximately 7,000 staff members in 2009. Please see Table 2.24 for additional information regarding the Omaha Public School District. Table 2.24. Omaha Public School District Summary Student Total Population School Name School Address Student Population* includin Staff Emerson - Hubbard 109 West 3 Street Elementary School Emerson, NE 68733 317 353 Emerson - Hubbard High 1503 Dakota Street School Emerson, NE 68733 *Based on 2009 population estimates Please refer to Figure 3.3 in Section 3 for a map depicting the school district boundary. 2.3.3 Omaha Public School District The Omaha Public School District consists of 61 elementary schools, 11 middle schools, eight high schools, and seven other school facilities throughout the City of Omaha. Figure 2.39 shows the location of the Omaha Public School District facilities. The total student population in 2009 was approximately 47,000 students. There were also approximately 7,000 staff members in 2009. Please see Table 2.24 for additional information regarding the Omaha Public School District. Table 2.24. Omaha Public School District Summary Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.42 Jnlc 2011 Student Total Population School Name School Address Population* includin Staff Adams Elementary School 3429 North 78 Street Omaha, Ne 68134 Ashland Park /Robbins 5050 Sough 51 s ' Street Elementary School Omaha, NE 68117 Bancroft Elementary School 2724 Riverview Boulevard Omaha, NE 68108 Beals Elementary School 1720 South 48 Street Omaha, NE 68106 47,000 54,000 Belle Ryan Elementary 1807 South 60 Street School Omaha, NE 68106 Belvedere Elementary School 3775 Curtis Avenue Omaha, NE 68111 Benson West Elementary 6652 Maple Street School Omaha, NE 68104 Boyd Elementary School 8314 Boyd Street Omaha, NE 68134 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.42 Jnlc 2011 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.43 Jnlc 2011 Student Total Population School Name School Address Population* (including Staff)* Castelar Elementary School 2316 South 18 Street Omaha, NE 68108 Catlin Magnet Elementary 12736 Marinda Street School Omaha, NE 68144 Central Park Elementary 4904 North 42 Street School Omaha, NE 68111 Chandler View Elementary 800 South 25 In Street School Omaha, NE 68147 Columbian Elementary 330 South 127 Street School Omaha, NE 68154 Conestoga Magnet 2115 Burdette Street Elementary School Omaha, NE 68110 Crestridge Magnet 818 Crestridge Road Elementary School Omaha, NE 68154 Dodge Elementary School 3520 Maplewood Boulevard Omaha, NE 68134 Druid Hill Elementary School 4020 North 30 Street Omaha, NE 68111 Dundee Elementary School 310 North 51 Street Omaha, NE 68132 Edison Elementary School 2303 North 97 Street Omaha, NE 68134 Field Club Elementary School 3512 Walnut Street Omaha, NE 68105 Florence Elementary School 7902 North 36 In Street Omaha, NE 68112 Fontenelle Elementary School 3905 North 52 Street Omaha, NE 68104 Franklin Elementary School 3506 Franklin Street Omaha, NE 68111 Fullerton Magnet Elementary 4711 North 138 In Street School Omaha, NE 68164 Gilder Elementary School 3705 Chandler Road Omaha, NE 68147 Gomez Heritage Elementary 5101 South 17 In Street School Omaha, NE 68107 Harrison Elementary School 5304 Hamilton Street Omaha, NE 68132 Hartman Elementary School 5530 North 66 In Street Omaha, NE 68104 Highland Elementary School 2625 Jefferson Street Omaha, NE 68107 Indian Hill Elementary School 3121 U Street Omaha, NE 68107 Jackson Elementary School 620 South 31 Street Omaha, NE 68105 Jefferson Elementary School 4065 Vinton Street Omaha, NE 68105 Joslyn Elementary School 11220 Blondo Street Omaha, NE 68164 Kellom Elementary School 1311 North 24 In Street Omaha, NE 68102 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.43 Jnlc 2011 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.44 Jnlc 2011 Student Total Population School Name School Address Population* (including Staff)* Kennedy Elementary School 2906 North 30 Street Omaha, NE 68111 King Elementary School 3706 Maple Street Omaha, NE 68111 Liberty Elementary School 2021 St. Mary's Avenue Omaha, NE 68102 Lothrop Magnet Elementary 3300 North 22 Street School Omaha, NE 68110 Masters Elementary School 5505 North 99 Street Omaha, NE 68134 Miller Park Elementary 5625 North 28 In Avenue School Omaha, NE 68111 Minne Lusa Elementary 2728 Ida Street School Omaha, NE 68112 Mount View Elementary 5322 North 52 Street School Omaha, NE 68104 Oak View Elementary School 3109 Pedersen Drive Omaha, NE 68144 Pawnee Elementary School 7310 South 48 Street Omaha, NE 68157 Picotte Elementary School 14506 Ohio Street Omaha, NE 68116 Pinewood Elementary School 6717 North 63 Street Omaha, NE 68152 Ponca Elementary School 11300 North Post Road Omaha, NE 68112 Prairie Wind Elementary 10908 Ellison Avenue School Omaha, NE 68164 Rose Hill Elementary School 5605 Corby Street Omaha, NE 68104 Saddlebrook Elementary 14850 Laurel Avenue School Omaha, NE 68116 Saratoga Elementary School 2504 Meredith Avenue Omaha, NE 68111 Sherman Elementary School 5618 North 14 In Avenue Omaha, NE 68110 Skinner Magnet Elementary 4304 North 33 Street School Omaha, NE 68111 Spring lake Magnet 4215 South 20 Street Elementary School Omaha, NE 68107 Springville Elementary School 7400 North 60 Street Omaha, NE 68152 Standing Bear Elementary 15860 Taylor Street School Omaha, NE 68116 Sunny Slope Elementary 10828 Old Maple Road School Omaha, NE 68164 Underwood Hills Focus 9030 Western Avenue School Omaha, NE 68114 Wakonda Elementary School 4845 Curtis Avenue Omaha, NE 68104 Walnut Hill Elementary 4370 Hamilton Street School Omaha, NE 68131 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.44 Jnlc 2011 Student Total Population School Name School Address Population* lincludina Staff)* Washington Elementary School Western Hills Magnet Elementary Beveridge Magnet Middle School Bryan Middle School Buffet Magnet Middle School King Science and Technology Magnet Middle School Lewis and Clark Middle School R.M. Marrs Magnet Middle School McMillan Magnet Middle School Monroe Middle School Morton Magnet Middle School Nathan Hale Magnet Middle School Norris Middle School Benson High Magnet School Bryan High School Burke High School Career Center Central High School North High Magnet School Northwest High School South High Magnet School Blackburn High School Independent Study Program JP Lord School Parrish The Integrated Learning Program 5519 Mayberry Street Omaha, NE 68106 6523 Western Avenue Omaha, NE 68132 1616 South 120 Street Omaha, NE 68144 8210 South 42 Street Omaha, NE 68147 14101 Larimore Avenue Omaha, NE 68164 3720 Florence Boulevard Omaha, NE 68110 6901 Burt Street Omaha, NE 68132 5619 South 19 Street Omaha, NE 68107 3802 Redick Avenue Omaha, NE 68112 5105 Bedford Avenue Omaha, NE 68104 4606 Terrace Drive Omaha, NE 68134 6143 Whitmore Street Omaha, NE 68152 2235 South 46 Street Omaha, NE 68106 5120 Maple Street Omaha, NE 68104 4700 Giles Road Omaha, NE 68157 12200 Burke Boulevard Omaha, NE 68154 3230 Burt Street Omaha, NE 68131 124 North 20 Street Omaha, NE 68102 4410 North 36 In Street Omaha, NE 68111 8204 Crown Point Avenue Omaha, NE 68134 4519 South 24 Street Omaha, NE 68107 2606 Hamilton Street Omaha, NE 68131 3230 Burt Street Omaha, NE 68131 330 South 44 Street Omaha, NE 68131 4469 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68131 3030 Spaulding Street Omaha, NE 68111 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.45 Jnlc 2011 *Based on 2009 population estimates Please refer to Figure 3.4 in Section 3 for a map depicting the school district boundary. Figures 2.40 through Figure 2.42 depict the attendance areas for the elementary, middle and high schools in the Omaha Public School District. Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.46 July 2011 Student Total Population School Name School Address Population (including Staff)* Wilson Middle School 5141 F Street Omaha, NE 68117 *Based on 2009 population estimates Please refer to Figure 3.4 in Section 3 for a map depicting the school district boundary. Figures 2.40 through Figure 2.42 depict the attendance areas for the elementary, middle and high schools in the Omaha Public School District. Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.46 July 2011 Figure 2.39. Omaha Public School District Building Location Map Omaha Public Schools Building Locations � 8 W . RueW R0 WflBS 0 125 25 5 Created by OPS Division of Research 06-2009 Source: Onialla Public School District (http: / /www.ops.org) Pa io- Missouri River NRD Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.47 July 2011 R'K Rd rcrtxwcrt i M i f i ii N�r� A °°'i .wcx c ec X10 7 R �ra.i � wd�cr MFR g.wu emra[ �� *orw DOWN g C w �w o ET u..Eww *• qm Ar i i Rwrx f n. ..i % t Schools C...E eh [a �f .; ,.. * Magnet Schools Major Streets OPS Saundary Ln g a xwa q s wrn.en n x.K.raf w o�rw[ i i H� W . RueW R0 WflBS 0 125 25 5 Created by OPS Division of Research 06-2009 Source: Onialla Public School District (http: / /www.ops.org) Pa io- Missouri River NRD Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.47 July 2011 Figure 2.40. Omaha Public School District Elementary School Attendance Area Omaha Public Schools Elementary School Attendance Areas a sr..wtceuw Oa M C...r e[ i x >a rt ns �i x nn•..er �. - l_rwn�u[. • °wuxFt� swuacn .� .axr eu i j � xx sn w L'rV .- ...... h�xi i uNt Sox tymnq L j uVNt[[ r ll } }/ +.aSOi RT T .uu arxw � � �usnue .. N 5 4 Elementary SchorAs — Major Streets Created by OPS Division of Research 06-2609 Source: Omaha. Public School District (http: / /www.ops.org) Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.48 July 2011 Miles 0 1.6 3 6 Figure 2.41. Omaha Public School District Middle School Attendance Area Omaha Public Schools Middle School Attendance Areas mown A OoEP 6 1 BEVERIDGE MAGNET MIDDLE f N b s HALE MIDDLE MAGNET �. j MCMILLAN j MIDDLE MAGNET 1 F[INGSCIITECH iONR0 Ml OLEMAGNET NIO LE 4 Middle Schools NORRIS -- - Major Streets MIDDLE Shared Area ® Beveridge Buffett King Science/McMillan MAR RS MIDDLE MAGNET BRYAN i PADDLE F +, l Nibs m � 25 S W nben 61 N b s HALE MIDDLE MAGNET �. j MCMILLAN j MIDDLE MAGNET 1 F[INGSCIITECH iONR0 Ml OLEMAGNET NIO LE 4 Middle Schools NORRIS -- - Major Streets MIDDLE Shared Area ® Beveridge Buffett King Science/McMillan MAR RS MIDDLE MAGNET BRYAN i PADDLE F +, l Created by OPS Division of Research 2010 Source: Omaha Public School District (http: /Ai-ww .ops.org) Papio - Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.49 July 2011 Nibs 0 125 25 S Created by OPS Division of Research 2010 Source: Omaha Public School District (http: /Ai-ww .ops.org) Papio - Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.49 July 2011 Figure 2.42. Omaha Public School District High School Attendance Area Omaha Public Schools High School Attendance Areas Created by OPS Omsion of Research 06-2009 Source: Omaha Public School District (http: / /ww .ops.org) Papio - Missouri RiNer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.50 Ju1N 2011 Wks o i.6 a s 2.3.4 Papillion -La Vista School District The Papillion — La Vista School District consists of 14 elementary schools, two junior high schools, two high schools and three other facilities throughout the City of Papillion and the City of La Vista. The total student population in 2009 was approximately 9,800 students. There were also approximately 1,500 staff members in 2009. Please see Table 2.25 for additional information regarding the Papillion — La Vista School District. Table 2.25. Papillion -La Vista School District Summary Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.51 Jnlc 2011 Total Population Student (including School Name School Address Population* Staff)* Anderson Grove Elementary 11820South 37 Street School Bellevue, NE68123 Bell Elementary School 7909 Reed Street Papillion, NE 68046 Carriage Hill Elementary 400 Cedardale Road School Papillion, NE 68046 G. Stanley Hall Elementary 7600 South 72 Street School La Vista, NE 68128 Golden Hills Elementary 2912 Coffey Avenue School Bellevue, NE 68123 Hickory Hill Elementary 1307 Rogers Drive School Papillion, NE 68046 La Vista West Elementary 7821 Terry Drive School La Vista, NE 68128 Parkview Heights Elementary 7609 South 89 Street School La Vista, NE 68128 Patriot Elementary School 1701 Hardwood Drive Papillion, NE 68046 Portal Elementary School 9920 Brentwood Drive La Vista, NE 68128 9,800 11,300 Rumsey Station Elementary 110 Eagle Ridge Drive School Papillion, NE 68133 Tara Heights Elementary 700 Tara Road School Papillion, NE 68046 Trumble Park Elementary 500 Valley Road School Papillion, NE 68046 Walnut Creek Elementary 720 Fenwick Street School Papillion, NE 68046 La Vista Junior High School 7900 Edgewood Boulevard La Vista, NE 68128 Papillion Junior High School 423 South Washington Street Papillion, NE 68046 Papillion — La Vista High 402 East Centennial Road School Papillion, NE 68046 Papillion — La Vista South 10799 Highway 370 High School Papillion, NE 68046 IDEAL Alternative Program 1104 Applewood Drive Papillion, NE 68046 District Office 420 South Washington Street Papillion, NE 68046 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.51 Jnlc 2011 Based on 2009 population estimates Please refer to Figure 3.5 in Section 3 for a map depicting the school district boundary. Figure 2.43 shows the district map obtained from the Papillion — La Vista School District. Figure 2.43. Papillion- La Vista School District Map s - pYN I `L Ob Fmd Ob �k.�•! PORTAL 6 clued $ _ 3 TP WC trd��s a PAT g PAT +t+ w t Z 0 �n HH TH a A gi_ °SRS ` CH BELL Source: Papillion — La Vista School District (http: / /ii 2.3.5 Tekamah- Herman Community School District 11 The Tekamah - Herman Community School District consists of two elementary schools and one high school. There is one elementary school located in each community, one in Tekamah and one in Herman, and the high school is located in Tekamah. The total student population in 2006 was approximately 600 students. There were also approximately 80 staff members in 2006. Please see Table 2.26 for additional information regarding the Tekamah - Herman Community School District. ,10ffutt Air PorceN Base HousirW Families in llffult Air Force Base housing can choose the District of their choice. Choose the Npilhon- la Vista School $listrictl BELL �-- Papio - Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Phin 2.52 July 2011 Total Population Student (including School Name School Address Population* Staff * 701 Olson Drive, Suite 108 STAR Center Papillion, NE 68046 Based on 2009 population estimates Please refer to Figure 3.5 in Section 3 for a map depicting the school district boundary. Figure 2.43 shows the district map obtained from the Papillion — La Vista School District. Figure 2.43. Papillion- La Vista School District Map s - pYN I `L Ob Fmd Ob �k.�•! PORTAL 6 clued $ _ 3 TP WC trd��s a PAT g PAT +t+ w t Z 0 �n HH TH a A gi_ °SRS ` CH BELL Source: Papillion — La Vista School District (http: / /ii 2.3.5 Tekamah- Herman Community School District 11 The Tekamah - Herman Community School District consists of two elementary schools and one high school. There is one elementary school located in each community, one in Tekamah and one in Herman, and the high school is located in Tekamah. The total student population in 2006 was approximately 600 students. There were also approximately 80 staff members in 2006. Please see Table 2.26 for additional information regarding the Tekamah - Herman Community School District. ,10ffutt Air PorceN Base HousirW Families in llffult Air Force Base housing can choose the District of their choice. Choose the Npilhon- la Vista School $listrictl BELL �-- Papio - Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Phin 2.52 July 2011 Table 2.26. Tekamah- Herman Community School District Summary *Based on 2006 population estimates Please refer to Figure 3.6 in Section 3 for a map depicting the school district boundary. 2.3.6 Metropolitan Community College Metropolitan Community College is located in Omaha and consists of eight campuses. Please see Figure 2.44 for a map depicting the locations of each campus. The college serves a four county area including Dodge, Douglas, Sarpy and Washington Counties. Metropolitan Community College offers more than 100 one- and two -year career programs and based on the 2008 to 2009 statistics has an estimated enrollment of 47,300 students, of those approximately 31,500 are credit students and approximately 15,800 are non- credit students. In addition, Metropolitan Community College reported approximately 1,800 full and part time faculty and staff members in the 2008 to 2009 enrollment year. Please see Table 2.27 for additional information regarding Metropolitan Community College. Table 2.27. Metropolitan Community College Summary Student Total Population School Name School Address Student Population* (including Staff)* Herman Elementary School 20051 County Road 25 College Herman, NE 68029 619 696 Tekamah Elementary School 112 North 13 In Street Applied Technology Center Tekamah, NE 68061 (ATC) Omaha, NE 68122 Tekamah- Herman High 112 North 13 In Street School Tekamah, NE 68061 Bellevue, NE 68005 *Based on 2006 population estimates Please refer to Figure 3.6 in Section 3 for a map depicting the school district boundary. 2.3.6 Metropolitan Community College Metropolitan Community College is located in Omaha and consists of eight campuses. Please see Figure 2.44 for a map depicting the locations of each campus. The college serves a four county area including Dodge, Douglas, Sarpy and Washington Counties. Metropolitan Community College offers more than 100 one- and two -year career programs and based on the 2008 to 2009 statistics has an estimated enrollment of 47,300 students, of those approximately 31,500 are credit students and approximately 15,800 are non- credit students. In addition, Metropolitan Community College reported approximately 1,800 full and part time faculty and staff members in the 2008 to 2009 enrollment year. Please see Table 2.27 for additional information regarding Metropolitan Community College. Table 2.27. Metropolitan Community College Summary Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.53 Jnlc 2011 Student Total Population School Name School Address Population* (including Staff)* Metropolitan Community PO Box 3777 College Omaha, NE 68103 Campus Locations: Applied Technology Center 10407 State Street (ATC) Omaha, NE 68122 Bellevue Center 2820 Arboretum Drive Bellevue, NE 68005 204 Street and West Dodge Elkhorn Valley Campus Road 47,000 49,000 Elkhorn, NE 68022 Fort Omaha Campus 30 Street and Fort Street Omaha, NE 68111 Fremont Area Center 835 North Broad Street Fremont, NE 68025 106 Peacekeeper Drive Offutt Center Suite 806 Offutt AFB, NE 68113 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.53 Jnlc 2011 School Name School Address Student Population* Total Population (including Staff 9110 Giles Road Sarpy Center La Vista, NE 68127 2909 Edward Babe Gomez South Omaha Campus Avenue Omaha, NE 68107 *Based on 2008 to 2009 enrollment Please refer to Figure 2.44 for a map depicting the Metropolitan Community College campus locations. Figures 2.45 through Figure 2.50 provide detailed maps of each campus. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.54 Jnlc 2011 Figure 2.44. Metropolitan Community College Campus Location Map 91 k___ BLAIR P 30 • FORT • C 133 APPLIED 1 TE NOLOGY 75 CENTER 36 © i 44 r\ * �Y 66 LKH RN EL R MPUS RN VAL EY 6 2);;=- W ffN Rw 1'C 31 N LR ETNA W-1 E S A5 st X A 1016E A ►. 80 SOUTH OMAHA CAMPUS _ wM A V HALSTON VISTA f © SARPY 374 PAPILLIQI� CENTER tx �. s0 • SPRINGFIELD u ra 163 - BELLEVUE N IELLEVUE CENTER Source: Metropolitan Community College (http: / /www.mccneb.edu) Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.55 July 2011 Figure 2.45. Applied Technology Center Campus Map A METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE : 04!7 SWc Suter. Omafn, NE 681::..�wN ,..... .. Lnfomailo% 407457 -Na0 PVIyIIC safety: 407 +57 -3777 A pp lied Tech n olo M ap _ CONSift�•- .4P%1f0 7ECFfNCIOCY �N1ER 1� ML \ O rien to tion Map Legend Source: Metropolitan Community College (http: / /www.mccneb.edu) Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.56 July 2011 Figure 2.46. Elkhorn Valley Campus Map At METR�PC7LITAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE I2D Nnkkh 2041h Su-t. Omaha, NE 6W27�www.mttieh.edu ln60—tiun: 402 457 -7900 Puhlk Woo; 41)2.457 -2772 Elkliorn Valley Campus (EVC),Vap 2041h St. Orientation Maj Legend Noilh V M �a I: klN�ll'[VAllkv ■ V l� Last Updated 11111110 Source: Metropolitan Community College (http: / /www.mccneb.edu) Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.57 July 2011 Figure 2.47. Fort Omaha Campus Map Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.58 July 2011 Source: Metropolitan Community College (http: / /www.mccneb.edu) Figure 2.48. Fremont Center Campus Map ?� I coMUUrviry 1 1 C C O CENTER LLEGE Fremont Center (FRE) Map Legend ■ MCC Buildng ®iJOn -MCC 6uddinp 9th STREET MCL I f N N O L7 T �O neP Sdr.� 00 ° O +om. c. rnme�r _ _._�� 6fiseen ❑ry Ve.k CHURCH w. Minrary.,. Orl en ra tlon M up North 8th STREET No Sole lift Vodl led 1 1117 l a Source: Metropolitan Community College (http: / /www.mccneb.edu) Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.59 July 2011 Figure 2.49. Sarpy Center Campus Map A METROP01 TAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE � �■. 9] SO Giles Road 2 t ww a. NE 2 w.mc[ne6.edu "formation: 402-457-2400 '► �Glk. Rd��� � Pu6iic5aFe[y: 402-457 -2227 i 1 RP Map Le gend MCC Building orientation M■p 0 s ■ No Scale North 7. L Last Up-dated 11111/10 _ !_ � 7NCC SARPY CENTER 1 LAYISTA PUBLIC LIBRARr i Source: Metropolitan Community College (http: / /www.mccneb.edu) Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.60 July 2011 Figure 2.50. South Omaha Campus Map 2.3.7 University of Nebraska Medical Center The University of Nebraska Medical Center is located in Omaha and the campus consists of ten square blocks, which includes classrooms, labs, outpatient care, the Lied Transplant Center, Munroe -Meyer Institute and other university facilities. Two hospital towers — University Tower and Clarkson Tower — are also located on campus and are operated by the University of Nebraska Medical Center's clinical partner the Nebraska Medical Center. Please see Figure 2.44 for a map depicting layout of the campus. The university consists of six colleges, two institutes and a graduate studies program. Based on the 2010 statistics the University of Nebraska Medical Center has an estimated enrollment of 3,500 students. In addition, the university reported approximately 5,000 employees in 2010. Please see Table 2.28 for additional information regarding the University of Nebraska Medical Center. Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.61 July 2011 Source: Metropolitan Community College (http: / /www.mccneb.edu) Table 2.28. University of Nebraska Medical Center Summary *Based on 2008 to 2009 enrollment Please refer to Figure 2.51 for a map depicting the University of Nebraska Medical Center campus layout. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.62 Jnlc 2011 Student Total Population School Name School Address Population* (including Staff)* University of Nebraska 42 Street and Emile Street Medical Center Omaha, NE 68198 The Nebraska Medical Center 42 Street and Dewey Avenue Omaha, NE 68198 Major Units: College of Medicine 985527 Nebraska Medical Center Omaha, NE 68198 College of Nursing 985330 Nebraska Medical Center Omaha, NE 68198 College of Pharmacy 986000 Nebraska Medical Center Omaha, NE 68198 3,500 8,500 College of Dentistry 40 Street and Holdrege Street Box 830740 Lincoln, NE 68583 College of Public Health 984355 Nebraska Medical Center Omaha, NE 68198 Office of Graduate Studies 987810 Nebraska Medical Center Omaha, NE 68198 School of Allied Health 984000 Nebraska Medical Center Professions Omaha, NE 68198 Eppley Cancer Center 985950 Nebraska Medical Center Omaha, NE 68198 Munroe -Meyer Institute for 985450 Nebraska Medical Center Genetics and Rehabilitation Omaha, NE 68198 *Based on 2008 to 2009 enrollment Please refer to Figure 2.51 for a map depicting the University of Nebraska Medical Center campus layout. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.62 Jnlc 2011 Figure 2.51. University of Nebraska Medical Center Campus Map m m N m m a 0 0 F L --j 11 c � D as °x° 0 e d E o LT v Source: UniversitA- of Nebraska Medical Center (http: / /«-«-«-.mnnc.edii) Papio - Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2.63 July 2011 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 within the P -MRNRD in Nebraska to these hazards. The goal of the risk assessment is to estimate the potential loss in the planning area, including loss of life, personal injury, property damage, and economic loss, from a hazard event. The risk assessment process allows communities in the planning area to better understand their potential risk to natural hazards and provides a framework for developing and prioritizing mitigation actions to reduce risk from future hazard events. Please note that there may be instances in the risk assessment where jurisdictions that did not participate in the plan are listed. These jurisdictions were included for informational purposes, as the data had been collected and analyzed, and to assist in developing these sections for the five year update if these entities decide to participate at that time. An All- Hazards Mitigation Plan was completed for the P -MRNRD in September 2006. Therefore, this risk assessment is an update to the risk assessment previously prepared. There are, however, several improvements: 1) Additional jurisdictions participated in the plan update process; 2) Hazards to include were evaluated and refined (see section 3.1); 3) HAZUS -MH MR4 was utilized to determine assets at risk; 4) HAZUS -MH MR4 results assessed vulnerability and loss estimates for dam failure, earthquake, flooding, and levee failure; 5) Hazard Ranking Methodology based on the state's methodology and scoring system relating to the four criteria of history, vulnerability, maximum threat, and probability. The risk assessment for the P -MRNRD and participating 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 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.1 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 This chapter is divided into five main parts: • Section 3.1 Hazard Identification identifies the hazards that threaten the planning area; • Section 3.2 Assets at Risk provides the planning area's total exposure to natural hazards, considering critical facilities and other community assets at risk; • Section 3.3 Hazard Profiles and Vulnerability For each hazard, this section is divided into two parts: 1) Hazard Profile discusses the threat to the planning area, the geographic location /extent at risk, previous occurrences of hazard events, and probability of fixture occurrence; and 2) Vulnerability Assessment further defines and quantifies populations, buildings, critical facilities, and other community assets at risk to natural hazards; • Section 3.4 Future Land Use and Development discusses areas of planned fixture development and any associated hazard concerns; and • Section 3.5 Hazard Analysis Summaries provides a summary for each hazard based on the state's methodology and scoring system relating to the four criteria of history, vulnerability, maximum threat, and probability. 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 Review of Existing Mitigation Plans The planning advisory committee reviewed data and discussed the impacts of each of the hazards included in the 2006 P -MRNRD All - Hazards Mitigation Plan, as well as the State of Nebraska Hazard Mitigation Plan. Table 3.1 below provides a comparison of the hazards included in these two plans: Table 3.1. Hazards Included in State Plan and 2006 P -MRNRD Plan State of Nebraska Hazard Mitigation Plan P -MRNRD All Hazards Mitigation Plan - 2006 Agricultural Incidents- Animals /Livestock Not Included Agricultural Incidents - Plants /Crops Not Included Dam Failure Dam Failure Drought Drought Earthquakes Not Included Flooding Flood Levee Failure Not Included Severe Winter Storms /Ice Storms Severe Weather (included summer and winter storms) Terrorism Not Included Thunderstorms /High Winds /Lightning /Hail Severe Weather (included summer and winter storms) Tornadoes Tornado Wildfires Not Included Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.2 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.1.2 Review Disaster Declaration History One method used by the planning advisory committee to identify hazards was to examine events that triggered federal 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 low - interest 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 3.2 lists federal disaster declarations received by each county in the P -MRNRD from 1999 to July 2010. Each of the disaster events affected multiple counties; estimated damages reflect total losses to all counties. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.3 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.2. FEMA Disaster Declaration History in the P- MRNRD, 1999 through April 2010 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.4 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 O c O a� Declared p 0 U) s Disaster (Incident ~ Number Period ) Type/Description IA Declared Counties PA Declared Counties 1924 7/15/2010 Severe Storms, None Adams, Antelope, Arthur, Blaine, Boone, PA PA PA PA PA (6/1 -8/29) Flooding, and Boyd, Brown, Buffalo, Burt, Cass, Chase, Tornadoes Cherry, Cheyenne, Colfax, Cuming, Custer, Dawes, Dawson, Dodge, Douglas Frontier, Garden, Garfield, Greeley, Harlan, Hayes, Holt, Hooker, Howard, Jefferson, Keya Paha, Knox, Lincoln, Logan, Loup, Madison, McPherson, Morrill, Nance, Nemaha, Nuckolls, Otoe, Perkins, Phelps, Pierce, Platte, Richardson, Rock, Sarpv Saunders, Sheridan, Sherman, Sioux, Stanton, Thomas, Thurston Valley, Washington Wayne, Webster, and Wheeler Counties. 1902 4/21/2010 Severe Storms, Ice None Antelope, Arthur, Boone, Boyd, Butler, PA PA (3/6- 4/3/10) Jams, and Flooding Cass, Colfax, Cuming, Dakota Gage, Greeley, Hayes, Holt, Howard, Jefferson, Johnson, Lancaster, Loup, Madison, Nance, Nemaha, Nuckolls, Otoe, Pawnee, Pierce, Platte, Polk, Richardson, Saline, Seward, Stanton, Thurston Valley, Wheeler, and York Counties 1878 02/25/2010 Major Presidential None Adams, Antelope, Brown, Burt, Butler, PA PA PA PA PA (12/22/2009- Severe Winter Cass, Cherry, Clay, Dakota, Dodge, 1/8/2010) Storms and Douglas Gage, Garfield, Hamilton, Snowstorm Jefferson, Johnson, Keya Paha, Lancaster, Madison, Morrill, Nance, Nemaha, Otoe, Pawnee, Rock, Saline, Saunders, Seward, Stanton, Thayer, Thurston Washington Wheeler, and York Counties. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.4 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.5 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 c Declared 0 Q 0 U) Disaster (Incident Number Period ) Type/Description IA Declared Counties PA Declared Counties 1779 07/18/2008 Major Presidential None Dodge, Douglas Sarpv and Saunders PA PA (6/27/08) Severe Storms, Counties. Straight -line winds, and Floodin 1770 06/20/2008 Major Presidential Buffalo, Butler, Colfax, Adams, Blaine, Boone, Boyd, Brown, PA IA, IA (5/22/2008) Severe Storms, Custer, Dawson, Buffalo, Burt, Butler, Cass, Chase, Cherry, PA Tornadoes, and Douglas Gage, Colfax, Cuming, Custer, Dawson, Flooding Hamilton, Holt, Jefferson, Douglas Dundy, Fillmore, Frontier, Kearney, Lancaster, Furnas, Gage, Garfield, Greeley, Gosper, Platte, Richardson, Hall, Hamilton, Hayes, Holt, Howard, Sarpv and Saunders Jefferson, Johnson, Keya Paha, Counties. Lancaster, Lincoln, Logan, Loup, Merrick, McPherson, Morrill, Nance, Nemaha, Otoe, Phelps, Platte, Polk, Red Willow, Richardson, Rock, Saline, Saunders, Sarpv Seward, Sherman, Stanton, Thayer, Thomas, Thurston Valley, Webster, Wheeler, and York Counties 3245 09/13/2005 Emergency None All PA PA PA PA PA PA Declaration Hurricane Katrina Evacuation 1517 05/25/2004 Major Presidential Adams, Buffalo, Butler, Adams, Antelope, Blaine, Boone, Clay, IA IA PA PA, 5/20- Severe Storms, Cass, Clay, Dodge, Cuming, Dodge, Greeley, Jefferson, IA 24/2004) Tornadoes and Douglas Fillmore, Howard, Madison, Nance, Pierce, Red Flooding Franklin, Gage, Hall, Willow, Sherman, Thayer, Thurston Hamilton, Jefferson, Washington Webster, and York Counties. Johnson, Kearney, Debris removal and emergency protective Lancaster, Nuckolls, measures (Categories A and B) for the Otoe, Pawnee, Saline, counties of Cass, Gage, Lancaster, and Sarpv Saunders, Saline Counties. Seward, Thayer, Washington Webster, and York Counties. 1480 07/21/2003 Major Presidential None Butler, Cedar, Cuming, Deuel, Dixon, PA (6/9- Severe Storms and Douglas Greeley, Holt, Howard, 14/2003) Tornadoes Jefferson, Knox, McPherson, Perkins, Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.5 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, www.fema.gov /; Note: Incident dates are in parentheses. Zero values (0) may indicate missing data; PA= Public Assistance, IA= Individual Assistance Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.6 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 o c a� 00 a) Declared Q o Disaster (Incident Number Period ) Type/Description IA Declared Counties PA Declared Counties Pierce, Platte, Polk, Stanton, Thayer and Valley Counties. 1394 10/12/2001 Major Presidential None Dakota County PA (8/17- Severe Storms & 18/2001 Floodin 1286 8/20/1999 Major Presidential Burt, Douglas, and Burt, Douglas, and Washington Counties PA, PA, PA, 8/6- 9/1999 Severe Storms and Washington Counties IA IA IA Floodin Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, www.fema.gov /; Note: Incident dates are in parentheses. Zero values (0) may indicate missing data; PA= Public Assistance, IA= Individual Assistance Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.6 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.1.3 Research Additional Sources Additional data on the past impacts of hazards in the planning area was collected from the following sources: • Nebraska Hazard Mitigation Plan (2008); • Papio- Missouri River Natural Resources District All- Hazard Mitigation Plan (2006); • Information on past extreme weather and climate events from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) • Disaster declaration history from the FEMA; • The National Drought Mitigation Center Drought Reporter; • USDA's Risk Management Agency Crop Insurance Statistics; • Information provided by local jurisdictions; and • Various articles and publications available on the internet (sources are indicated where data is cited). 3.1.4 Hazards Identified The planning advisory committee decided to include all hazards from the 2006 P -MRNRD All - Hazards Mitigation Plan as well as the following hazards that were included in the 2008 State of Nebraska Hazard Mitigation Plan: Agricultural Incidents- Animals/Live stock, Agricultural Incidents - Plants /Crops, Earthquakes, Levee Failure, and Wildfire. The only hazard included in the State of Nebraska Hazard Mitigation that was eliminated from this risk assessment by the planning advisory committee is Terrorism. This hazard was eliminated for two reasons. First, evaluation of this man - made /technological hazard is not necessary for plans to meet the requirements of the DMA 2000. Secondly, this hazard is profiled and planned for in other plans such as the Local Emergency Operations Plans (LEOPs). Through this hazard identification review process, 11 natural hazards that have the potential to significantly affect the planning area were chosen for further analysis in the risk assessment. These hazards are named and organized in the plan to be consistent with the Nebraska Hazard Mitigation Plan (2008) as follows: Agricultural Incidents-Animals/Livestock Agricultural Incidents-Plants/Crops Dam Failure Drought Earthquakes Flooding Levee Failure Severe Winter Storms /Ice Storms Thunderstorms/High Winds/Lightning/Hail Tornadoes Wildfires Although 11 natural hazards that have the potential to significantly affect the planning area were selected for additional analysis, not all hazards impact every jurisdiction. Table 3.3 provides a summary of the jurisdictions impacted by each hazard. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.7 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.3. Hazards Identified for All Jurisdictions Jurisdiction C ° U U CO U a' E CO Q U "N- a' ca 0- L 'FU ca o .� a) a o o N CO L ca w a) -a 0 U- N N a) -i E 0 Un U) N \ N E a) o Unto T- E L �, �O O J "O N C a N O c ° Burt County Burt X X X X X X - X X X X Decatur Burt X X - X X X - X X X X Tekamah Burt X X X X X X - X X X X Dakota City Dakota X X - X X X - X X X X Dakota County Dakota X X X X X X - X X X X Homer Dakota X X - X X X - X X X X Hubbard Dakota X X X X X X - X X X X Jackson Dakota X X - X X X - X X X X South Sioux City Dakota X X - X X X - X X X X Bennington Douglas X X X X X X - X X X X Boys Town Douglas X X X X X X - X X X X Douglas County Douglas X X X X X X X X X X X Omaha Douglas X X X X X X X X X X X Ralston Douglas X X X X X X - X X X X Valley Douglas X X - X X X - X X X X Waterloo Douglas X X - X X X X X X X X Bellevue Sarpy X X X X X X X X X X X Gretna Sarpy X X - X X X - X X X X La Vista Sarpy X X X X X X - X X X X Offut Air Force Base Sarpy Declined to Participate Papillion Sarpy X X X X X X - X X X X Sarpy County Sarpy X X X X X X X X X X X Springfield Sarpy X X - X X X - X X X X Macy Thurston X X - X X X - X X X X Thurston County Thurston X X - X X X - X X X X Walthill Thurston X X - X X X - X X X X Winnebago Thurston X X - X X X - X X X X Village of Washington Washington X X - X X X - X X X X Arlington Washington X X - X X X - X X X X Blair Washington X X - X X X - X X X X Fort Calhoun Washington X X - X X X - X X X X Herman Washington X X - X X X - X X X X Kennard Washington X X - X X X - X X X X Washington County Washington X X - X X X - X X X X Note: dash ( -) indicates hazard is not applicable; Levee Failure is considered only for those jurisdictions at risk to failure of levees indicated on DFIRMs as providing 100 -year or greater protection, failure of other levees is considered in the 100 -year flood scenario. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.8 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 3.1.5 Multi- Jurisdictional Risk Assessment For this multi jurisdictional plan, the risks are assessed for each jurisdiction where they deviate from the risks facing the entire planning area. The planning area is fairly uniform in terms of climate and topography, as well as building construction characteristics. Accordingly, the geographic areas of occurrence for weather - related hazards do not vary greatly across the planning area for most hazards. Weather - related hazards, such as drought, severe winter storms /ice storms, thunderstorms, and tornadoes, occur similarly in the entire planning area. In addition, agricultural incidents can occur randomly. Therefore, the impact areas for these hazards do not differ across the planning area. The more urbanized areas within the planning area have a higher number of assets that are vulnerable to these hazards and varied development trends impact their future vulnerability. These differences are discussed in greater detail in the vulnerability sections of each hazard. The hazards that do vary across the planning area in terms of geographic areas at risk include dam failure, earthquakes, flooding, levee failure, and wildfires. For the school districts that participated in this plan, all hazards were determined to have the potential to impact the districts as the district boundaries incorporate portions of all other jurisdictions participating in the plan. For analysis of specific school district or college assets, such as buildings, refer to the geographic location of specific structures. Figure 3.1 through Figure 3.6 show each of the five school districts in the planning area that participated in plan development. Information regarding the colleges that participated in the planning process are available in Section 2.3.6 and Section 2.3.7. The locations of buildings within each school district and the two colleges that participated in the plan are provided in Section 2.3 if the maps were available. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.9 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 � c o o � � " N o � z ro W O COM J.'k WAYNE CUMING i i BOONE i t f NEE ME R191GK J -LAT7[ LOLF i i BUTLER I VQ K LT. TF;;iTP 1 DODGE SAL)NDERS D vuw Flubfic School� Emerson. Hubbard Public cols Omaha Public Snol9 M Ilapilllnn -LaWsW Nblic SAwds Tekamah-H$rrnan Community Sd 9 wr�I�arq SARF'l� C OLS-S N TI CQ fD W n S O O v n' .-r IM O Q N Figure 3.2. Bellevue Public School District N O G U V. 5 -. I — I { i .is Fit a« `r.. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.11 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Phm July 2011 Figure 3.3. Emerson - Hubbard Community School District Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.12 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 &n Figure 3.4. Omaha Public School District i �■ 1 _A 4 r Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.13 Figure 3.5. Papillion -La Vista Public School District z_q( F r ti Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.14 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.6. Tekamah- Herman Community School District Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.15 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Phni July 2011 01-55 ON 3.2 Community Assets This section assesses the population, structures, critical facilities and infrastructure, and other important assets in the planning area that may be at risk to natural hazards. 3.2.1 Total Exposure of Population and Structures Table 3.4 shows the total population, building count, estimated value of buildings, estimated value of contents and estimated total exposure to parcels by jurisdiction. This information was derived from inventory data associated with FEMA's loss estimation software HAZUS -MI MR 4 (August 2009), the latest version of the software available during development of this plan. Population data is based on 2000 census data. Building inventory counts are also based on the 2000 census data adjusted to 2006 numbers using the Dun & Bradstreet Business Population Report. Inventory values reflect 2006 valuations, based on R. S. Means (a supplier of construction cost information) replacement costs. 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). The highest concentration of people and buildings in the planning area is in Omaha. Table 3.4. Maximum Population and Building Exposure by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Population 2000 Building Count Building Exposure $ Content Exposure $ Total Exposure $ Burt County Decatur 618 415 $48,790,000 $29,319,000 $78,109,000 Tekamah 1,892 1,271 $137,815,000 $89,633,000 $227,448,000 Unincorporated 1,588 1,480 $125,570,000 $77,138,000 $202,708,000 Total 4,098 3,166 $312,175,000 $196,090,000 $508,265,000 Dakota Count Dakota City 1,821 997 $78,075,000 $48,986,000 $127,061,000 Homer 590 330 $28,041,000 $15,214,000 $43,255,000 Hubbard 234 135 $12,469,000 $7,116,000 $19,585,000 Jackson 216 148 $14,928,000 $9,682,000 $24,610,000 South Sioux City 11,949 4,739 $703,272,000 $484,958,000 $1,188,230,000 Unincorporated 5,443 2,859 $262,051,000 $162,931,000 $424,982,000 Total 20,253 9,208 $1,098,836,000 $728,887,000 $1,827,723,000 Douglas Count Bennington 934 444 $72,536,000 $47,446,000 $119,982,000 Boys Town 830 108 $71,780,000 $39,050,000 $110,830,000 Omaha 398,152 144,439 $30,343,787,000 $20,599,101,000 $50,942,888,000 Ralston 6,065 2413 $422,751,000 $266,209,000 $688,960,000 Valley 1,870 986 $156,376,000 $118,844,000 $275,220,000 Waterloo 670 408 $47,015,000 $30,989,000 $78,004,000 Unincorporated 55,064 21,336 $4,105,835,000 $2,438,315,000 $6,544,150,000 Total 463,585 170,134 $35,220,080,000 $23,539,954,000 $58,760,034,000 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.16 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Jurisdiction Population 2000 Building Count Building Exposure $ Content Expos re $ Total Exposure $ Sarpy County Bellevue 44,017 16,207 $2,733,649,000 $1,603,221,000 $4,336,870,000 Gretna 2,830 1,203 $210,260,000 $134,075,000 $344,335,000 La Vista 11,699 3,508 $719,621,000 $411,332,000 $1,130,953,000 Papillion 17,964 6,063 $1,249,289,000 $734,960,000 $1,984,249,000 Springfield 1,339 628 $80,915,000 $47,545,000 $128,460,000 Unincorporated 35,834 13,539 $2,772,885,000 $1,795,556,000 $4,568,441,000 Totals 122,595 43,372 $8,241,777,000 $5,016,900,000 $13,258,677,000 Thurston Count Macy 950 262 $27,219,000 $18,724,000 $45,943,000 Walthill 909 427 $35,994,000 $24,298,000 $60,292,000 Winnebago 768 299 $21,776,000 $12,028,000 $33,804,000 Unincorporated 2,313 1,056 $85,845,000 $59,727,000 $145,572,000 Total 4,940 2,044 $170,834,000 $114,777,000 $285,611,000 Washington County Arlington 1,197 666 $77,390,000 $47,345,000 $124,735,000 Blair 7,516 3,428 $573,383,000 $392,079,000 $965,462,000 Fort Calhoun 856 535 $70,372,000 $47,494,000 $117,866,000 Herman 310 205 $20,900,000 $11,245,000 $32,145,000 Kennard 371 131 $22,130,000 $12,400,000 $34,530,000 Washington 126 65 $9,528,000 $5,615,000 $15,143,000 Unincorporated 8,404 4,063 $538,154,000 $330,759,000 $868,913,000 Total 18,780 9,093 $1,311,857,000 $846,937,000 $2,158,794,000 Grand Total $634,251 $237,017 $46,355,559,000 $30,443,545,000 $76,799,104,000 Sources: HAZUS -MH MR 4 (structures) Table 3.5 provides the building count total for each county and city in the planning area broken out by building usage types (residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, religious, government, and education). This data is supplied by HAZUS -NM MR 4 and is broken down into jurisdictions according to available census blocks. Table 3.5. Building Counts by Usage Type Papio- Nlissouri Ricer NRD 3.17 Nlulti- Hazard (litigation Plan Adv 2011 fC E O E rte+ v L Q w Jurisdiction c 0 Burt County Decatur 388 19 1 4 0 3 0 415 Tekamah 1,168 59 15 15 7 5 2 1,271 Uninc. 1,366 36 11 63 3 0 1 1,480 Total 2,922 114 27 82 10 8 3 3,166 Dakota County Dakota City 943 32 9 5 2 4 2 997 Papio- Nlissouri Ricer NRD 3.17 Nlulti- Hazard (litigation Plan Adv 2011 Jurisdiction ` v r fC +L+ r L Q 7 O CM I w d E L ; c r- O w Homer 306 9 2 1 1 1 0 320 Hubbard 128 5 0 0 1 1 0 135 Jackson 130 9 3 1 0 1 1 145 South Sioux City 4,327 278 79 13 26 8 8 4,739 Unincorporated 2,659 99 45 63 4 1 1 2,872 Total 8,493 432 138 83 34 16 12 9,208 Douglas County Bennington 386 29 15 1 1 2 2 436 Boys Town 94 4 2 1 3 3 1 108 Omaha 132,957 8,059 1,996 375 630 140 282 144,439 Ralston 2,218 123 46 8 7 5 6 2413 Valley 895 52 22 3 8 4 2 986 Waterloo 375 19 9 1 1 2 1 408 Unincorporated 19,714 1018 371 151 53 12 26 21345 Total 156,639 9,304 2,461 540 703 168 320 170,135 Sarpy County Bellevue 15,319 620 166 25 45 12 20 16,207 Gretna 1,066 84 31 11 6 2 3 1,203 LaVista 3345 117 33 7 5 0 1 3508 Papillion 5,580 327 84 22 29 8 13 6,063 Springfield 578 26 10 6 5 2 1 628 Unincorporated 15,685 838 341 130 32 4 17 17,047 Total 40,355 1,911 640 195 121 93 57 43,372 Thurston County Macy 248 7 1 1 1 3 1 262 Walthill 395 18 4 1 3 4 2 427 Winnebago 293 4 2 0 0 0 2 301 Unincorporated 1,023 15 6 3 2 4 1 1,054 Total 1,959 44 13 5 6 11 6 2,044 Washington County Arlington 619 27 5 9 3 1 2 666 Blair 3,088 224 64 21 16 4 11 3,428 Fort Calhoun 489 31 4 2 6 1 2 535 Herman 199 4 0 0 2 0 0 205 Kennard 123 3 3 0 1 1 0 131 Washington 59 3 1 1 0 1 0 65 Unincorporated 3,654 167 90 140 6 1 5 4,063 Total 8,231 459 167 173 34 9 20 9,093 Source: HAZUS -MH MR 4 Papio- Nlissouri River NRD 3.15 ylulti- Hazard ylitigation Plan July 2011 3.2.2 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure A critical facility may be defined as a structure that is essential in providing utility or direction either during the response to an emergency or during the recovery operation. Table 3.6 is an inventory of critical facilities and infrastructure (based on available data) in the planning area. Table 3.6. Inventory of Critical Facilities and Infrastructure by Jurisdiction Papio- Missouri RiNer NRD 3.19 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jn1N 2011 U) A N N N N N ++ Cn 2 N y N ++ i= LU � ' LL O Cn a y y LL 0 LL •V N N L Q O 1= O i L i N M 2 H m U Li w w 2 Li a a a` Cn Burt Count Unincorporated 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 Decatur 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 Tekamah 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 Total 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 2 12 Dakota Count Unincorporated 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 8 Dakota City 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 6 Homer 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 Hubbard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jackson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 South Sioux 0 0 2 1 1 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 1 0 26 Cit Total 0 4 3 1 3 10 0 0 2 1 0 0 15 2 3 44 Douglas Count Unincorporated 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 23 4 0 34 Bennington 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 Boys Town 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 7 Omaha 2 1 19 27 1 22 78 11 9 13 4 3 13 188 5 2 398 Ralston - - - - 1 4 - - 1 - - 1 4 - - 11 Valley - - 1 1 6 - - - 1 - - 2 1 1 13 Waterloo - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 3 Totals 2 1 19 28 1 31 88 12 9 16 5 3 14 223 13 4 469 Sarpy Count Unincorporated 0 5 0 0 1 11 1 1 2 1 0 1 19 4 4 50 Bellevue 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 24 0 1 34 Gretna 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 8 La Vista 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 8 Papillion 0 0 3 0 2 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 12 0 0 25 Springfield 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Total 1 0 7 5 0 10 12 8 1 9 1 0 1 68 5 5 133 Papio- Missouri RiNer NRD 3.19 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jn1N 2011 `Note: Elderly facilities are not available in GIS format and are therefore not included in GIS hazard analysis of critical facilities in risk areas Source: HAZUS -MH MR 4; Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (prison inventory); Department of Health and Human Services (elderly facilities) Figure 3.7 through Figure 3.12 show the locations of all bridges in the planning area. The bridges indicated by the red square are "scour critical" bridges. These are discussed in additional detail in Section 3.3.6 Flooding. Papio- Dlissou i River NRD 3.20 Dlulti- Hazard Dlitigation Plan Jnly 2011 _ y U) N R '� y + _ 0 y N +� ++ a LJ a) N }' y y R cc U y R C LL LL O �= V f V O y 7 y LL +� f3 f4 + V cc N ++ R 7 N �' N } 2 N } d y O L N a MA LL y E E .0 U) Cc to N � y L Q O f4 E N L LL N V t3 t3 O O O X L U 3 ++ O m U LL Lu Lu x LL x a a a U) H Thurston County Unincorporated 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 1 11 Macy 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Walthill 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Winnebago 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 Total 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 8 0 2 17 Washington Count Unincorporated 1 2 0 0 1 9 0 3 0 2 0 0 3 3 4 28 Arlington 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 Blair 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 9 2 1 21 Fort Calhoun 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 Herman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Kennard 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Village of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washington Totals 1 3 2 0 6 9 1 3 2 3 0 0 17 6 5 1 58 `Note: Elderly facilities are not available in GIS format and are therefore not included in GIS hazard analysis of critical facilities in risk areas Source: HAZUS -MH MR 4; Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (prison inventory); Department of Health and Human Services (elderly facilities) Figure 3.7 through Figure 3.12 show the locations of all bridges in the planning area. The bridges indicated by the red square are "scour critical" bridges. These are discussed in additional detail in Section 3.3.6 Flooding. Papio- Dlissou i River NRD 3.20 Dlulti- Hazard Dlitigation Plan Jnly 2011 Figure 3.7. Burt County Bridges i OF+ , • �p�eal �ndd8 � tH,:pst:�:q �xr.= p �+ f ■ a ■ 49 ft " � � T i + BURT ■ i , _ Q 1 A A �~ * k i - _r, ■ ■ * f L r 1 Q SLY G %60LSSON -CWNI5 +fir b P'f*"qo WVNWSQEh y 3 0 4 I 03ft S&.PM �kft d Mbr&L aWL N%. J SJ*- KI dW A Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.21 Figure 3.8. Dakota County Bridges V ) ~ 4 SOUTM DAKOTA Ir 4 t - I � i J� S3QL tiro i r �, ■ - k - ■ ::.4 OTA i — :3xo:a i:z• ■ rs r f J — A f 40 no < 0 a .0 I ,.,r , -SON Vamurmpot IK-20k Pkftw br pow—q prp� Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.22 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.9. Douglas County Bridges A K a� Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.23 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.10. Sarpy County Bridges %n em I 13 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.24 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.11. Thurston County Bridges Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.2 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 O 2.5 5 10 Miles N I I a I I i I I "*w OLINIa . , 19 "Uw" t .0 MON" F 4w. J5- + UW Figure 3.12. Washington County Bridges t 1 1 10 �i Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.26 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 The maps for incorporated cities in Figure 3.32 through 3.64 in the flooding profile section provide locations of the available critical facilities located within each incorporated city. Figure 3.77 through 3.82 in the flooding vulnerability section provides the available critical facilities located within the unincorporated portions of each county in the P -MRNRD planning area. 3.2.3 Other Assets Assessing the vulnerability of the planning area to disasters also involves inventories of the natural, historic, cultural, and economic assets of the area. This is important for the following reasons: • The plan participants 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, blowing 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 the planning area, specific assets include the following: Threatened and Endangered Species: Table 3.7 includes all federal and state listed species. Species Status: FE= Federal Endangered, FT= Federal Threatened, SE =State Endangered, ST =State Threatened. Table 3.7. Threatened and Endangered Species in P -MRNRD County Common Name Scientific Name Status Burt American Ginseng Panax quinquefolium ST Burt Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens ST Burt Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhyncus albus FE, SE Burt Small White Lady's Slipper Cypripedium candidum ST Burt Sturgeon Chub Macrhybopsis gelida SE Burt Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara FT, ST Dakota American Ginseng Panax quinquefolium ST Dakota Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens ST Dakota Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhyncus albus FE, SE Dakota Sturgeon Chub Macrhybopsis gelida SE Dakota Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara FT, ST Douglas American Ginseng Panax quinquefolium ST Douglas Interior Least Tern Sternula antillarum athalassos FE, SE Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.27 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 County Common Name Scientific Name Status Douglas Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens ST Douglas Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhyncus albus FE, SE Douglas Piping Plover Charadrius melodus FT, ST Douglas River Otter Lutra canadensis ST Douglas Small White Lady's Slipper Cypripedium candidum ST Douglas Sturgeon Chub Macrhybopsis gelida SE Douglas Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara FT, ST Sarpy American Ginseng Panax quinquefolium ST Sarpy Interior Least Tern Sternula antillarum athalassos FE, SE Sarpy Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens ST Sarpy Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhyncus albus FE, SE Sarpy Piping Plover Charadrius melodus FT, ST Sarpy River Otter Lutra canadensis ST Sarpy Sturgeon Chub Macrhybopsis gelida SE Sarpy Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara FT, ST Thurston American Ginseng Panax quinquefolium ST Thurston Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens ST Thurston Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhyncus albus FE, SE Thurston Small White Lady's Slipper Cypripedium candidum ST Thurston Sturgeon Chub Macrhybopsis gelida SE Thurston Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara FT, ST Washington American Ginseng Panax quinquefolium ST Washington Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens ST Washington Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhyncus albus FE, SE Washington Small White Lady's Slipper Cypripedium candidum ST Washington Sturgeon Chub Macrhybopsis gelida SE Washington I Western Prairie Fringed Orchid I Platanthera praeclara I FT, ST Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, http: // outdoornebraska. ne. gov / wildlife / programs /nongame /pdf /TandESpecies.pdf; Species Status: FE= Federal Endangered, FT= Federal Threatened, SE =State Endangered, ST =State Threatened. Historic resources: These properties are identified in Table 3.8. Table 3.8. P -MRNRD Properties on the National Register of Historic Places Property Name Count Logan Creek Archaeological Site Burt St. John's German Evangelical Lutheran Church Burt John Henry Stork Log House Burt William and Emma Guhl Farmhouse Burt H.S.M. Spielman House Burt Burt County State Bank Burt Burt County Courthouse Burt E.C. Houston House Burt Edward W. and Rose Folsom Bryant House Burt Property Name Count Tekamah Carnegie Librar Burt Tekamah City Bridge Burt Homer Archaeological Site Dakota Cornelius O'Connor House Dakota Ben Bonderson Farm Dakota Emmanuel Lutheran Church Dakota Meisch House Dakota Champe- Fremont 1 Archeological Site Douglas Cabanne Archeological Site Douglas Frank Parker Douglas Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 3.28 Property Name County Archeological Site Douglas Lincoln Highway Douglas Ackerhurst - Eimmehurst Dairy Barn Douglas Anheuser -Busch Office Building Douglas Aquila Court Building Douglas Astro Theater Douglas Bank of Florence Douglas Barker Building Douglas Beebe and Runyan Furniture Showroom and Warehouse Douglas Bemis Omaha Bag Company Building Douglas Bennington State Bank Douglas Barkeley Apartments Douglas Blackstone Hotel Douglas Bradford - Pettis House Douglas Brandeis - Millard House Douglas Broomfield Rowhouse Douglas Burlington Headquarters Building Douglas Burlington Station Douglas Carl Penke Farm Douglas Center School Douglas Charles D. McLaughlin House Douglas Christian Specht Building Douglas City National Bank Building /Orpheum Theater Douglas Columbia School Douglas Country Club Historic District Douglas Dr. Samuel D. Mercer House Douglas Douglas County Courthouse Douglas Drake Court Apartments and Dartmore Apartments Historic District Douglas Dundee /Happy Hollow Historic District Douglas Edgar Zabriskie House Douglas Eggerss- O'Flyng Building Douglas The Farnam Building Douglas Father Flanagan's House Douglas Federal Building Douglas Field Club Historic District Douglas First National Bank Building Douglas First Unitarian church Douglas Flatiron Hotel Douglas Property Name County Ford Hospital Douglas Fort Omaha Historic District Douglas Gallagher Building Douglas Garneau -Kilpatrick House Douglas General George Crook House Douglas George A. Joslyn Mansion Douglas George H. Kelly House Douglas Georgia Row House Douglas Gold Coast Historic District Douglas Gottlieb Storz House Douglas Havens -Page House (101 Building) Douglas Hill Hotel Douglas Holy Family Church Douglas Hospe -Anton Music Warehouse Douglas Immaculate Conception Church and School Douglas J.C. Robinson House Douglas Jewell Building Douglas J.L. Bradeis and Sons Store Building Douglas Joel N. Cornish House Douglas Keeline Building Douglas Kennedy Building Douglas Kirschbraun and Sons Creamery Building Douglas Leone, Floretine and Carpathia Apartment Buildings Douglas Livestock Exchange Buildin Douglas Lizzie Robinson House Douglas The Logan Douglas M.A. Disbrow & Company Buildings Douglas Malcom X House Site Douglas The Margaret Douglas Mary Rogers Kimball House Douglas Mason School Douglas Melrose Apartments Douglas M.F. Shafer & Co. Building Douglas Military Road Segment Douglas Moses Block Douglas Moyer Row Houses Douglas Nash Block Douglas Normandie Apartments Douglas North Presbyterian Douglas Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 3.29 Property Name County Church Northern Natural Gas Douglas Buildin Douglas Northwestern Bell Douglas Regional Headquarters Douglas Buildin Douglas Notre Dame Academy Douglas and Convent Douglas Old Market Historic Douglas District Douglas Old People's Home Douglas Omaha Ford Motor Douglas Company Assembly Plant Douglas Omaha High School Douglas (Central High School) Douglas Omaha National Bank Douglas Building (New York Life Douglas Insurance Building) Douglas Omaha Nut, Bolt and Douglas Screw Building Douglas Omaha Public Library Douglas Omaha Quartermaster Douglas Depot Historic District Douglas Omaha Rail and Douglas Commerce Historic Douglas District Douglas Omaha Star Douglas Packer's National Bank Douglas Buildin Sarpy Park Avenue Apartment Douglas District Sarpy Park School Douglas Peerless Motor Company Douglas Poppleton Block Douglas Porter- Thomsen House Douglas Prague Hotel Douglas Robbins - Franklin School Douglas Redick Tower Douglas Rose Realty- Securities Douglas Building Rosewater School Douglas Sacred Heart Catholic Douglas Church Complex Saddle Creek Underpass Douglas (Dodge Street Overpass) St. Cecilia's Cathedral Douglas St. John's African Douglas Methodist Episcopal Church St. Joseph Parish Douglas Complex St. Martin of Tours Douglas Episcopal Church St. Matthias Episcipal Douglas Church Dietz Memorial Property Name County United Methodist Church) St. Philomena's Cathedral and Rectory (St. Frances Cabrini) Douglas Sanford Hotel (Conant Hotel Douglas Saunders School Douglas Selby Apartments Douglas Selma Terrace Douglas The Sherman Douglas Simon Brothers Company (Ford Warehouse Building) Douglas South Omaha Bridge Douglas South Omaha Main Street Historic District Douglas Stabrie Grocery Douglas Standard Oil Company Building of Nebraska Douglas Steiner Row House #1 Douglas Steiner Row House #2 Douglas Strehlow Terrace (Terrace Garden Apartment complex) Douglas Swartz Printing Company Building Douglas Swoboda Bakery Douglas Terrace Court Douglas Trinity Cathedral Douglas Undine Apartments Douglas Union Passenger Terminal Douglas U.S.S. Hazard Douglas Vinton School Douglas Vinton Street Commercial Historic District Douglas Weber Mill Douglas Webster Telephone Exchange Buildin Douglas West Lawn Mausoleum Douglas Kurz Omaha Village Site Sarpy Peter A. Sarpy Trading Post Sarpy Patterson Site Sarpy Moses Merrill Mission and Oto Indian Village Site Sarpy John Sautter Farmhouse Sarpy Zwiebel Farmstead Sarpy Linoma Beach Sarpy Big Papillion Creek Bridge Sarpy Fontenelle Forest Historic District Sarpy William Hamilton House Sarpy Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 3.30 Property Name County Fontenelle Bank Sarpy Old Log Cabin Sarpy Presbyterian Church Sarpy William E. Gordon House Sarpy Fort Crook Historic District Sarpy Fort Crook Blacksmith Sho Sarpy Sarpy County Courthouse Sar Springfield Community Hall Sarpy Blackbird Hill Thurston North Omaha Creek Bridge Thurston First Thurston County Courthouse Thurston Thurston County Courthouse Thurston Dr. Susan Picotte Memorial Hospital Thurston Frank Parker Washington Property Name County Archeological Site Fort Atkinson State Historical park Washington Bertrand Steamboat Site Washington Long Creek School District 8 Washington Old McDonald Farm Washington Congregational Church of Blair Washington C.C. Crowell, Jr. House Washington Abraham Castetter House Washington Washington County Courthouse Washington Blair High School Washington Fontanelle Township Hall Washington Alfred H. and Sarah Frahm House Washington Source: Nebraska State Historical Society, http: / /www.nebraskahistory.org /histpres /nebraska /index.htm Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.31 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 3.3 Hazard Profiles and Vulnerability 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. The level of information presented in the profiles varies by hazard, and is based on available information. With each update of this plan, new information will be incorporated to provide for better evaluation and prioritization of the hazards that affect the planning area. Detailed profiles for each of the identified hazards include information categorized as follows: Hazard Description This section consists of a general description of the hazard and the types of impacts it may have on a community. Geographic Location /Extent This section describes the geographic location of the hazard in the planning area. Where available, maps are utilized to indicate the locations in the planning area that are vulnerable to the subject hazard. This section also provides information regarding the extent of the hazard (i.e. the size or degree of impacts). Extent is addressed in more detailed /quantified terms (where available) in the Vulnerability Section for each hazard. Previous Occurrences /History This section includes information on historic incidents and their impacts. Within this section, the rating for the "History" criteria is assigned. This relates to the State of Nebraska's methodology for ranking hazards. For the "History" Criteria, the following rating system is used: • Low = No record of occurrence or a single occurrence of a disaster event in the area in the last 100 years • Medium = The event has occurred more than once, but less than four times in the past 100 years. • High= The event has happened four or more times in 100 years. Probability of Future Occurrence The frequency of past events is used to gauge the likelihood of fixture occurrences. Where possible, the probability, or chance of occurrence, was calculated based on historical data. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.32 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Adv 2011 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 percent chance of a drought occurring in any given year. Within this section the rating for the "Probability" criteria is assigned as it relates to the State of Nebraska's methodology for ranking hazards. For the "Probability" Criteria, the following rating system is used: • Low = Less than 1 chance in 1,000 years • Medium = Between 1 chance in 1,000 years and 1 chance in ten years • High = Greater than 1 chance in ten years Vulnerability Assessments 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)(ii)(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. Following the hazard profile for each hazard is the vulnerability assessment. 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 "Understandil�g Your Risks Iden4l'i)hj g Ha. ards and Estimatil�g Losses" (2002). The vulnerability assessments were conducted based on the best available data and the significance of the hazard. Data to support the vulnerability assessments was collected from the following sources: • 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; Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.33 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 • Existing plans and reports; • Personal interviews with planning committee members and other stakeholders; and • Other sources as cited. Detailed profiles for each of the identified hazards include information categorized as follows: Vulnerability Overview This section consists of a general overview narrative of the planning area's vulnerability to the hazard. Potential Losses to Existing Development This section provides the potential losses to existing development. Where data is available, this section provides estimated financial losses as well as the methodology used. Within this section the ratings for the "Vulnerability" and "Maximum Threat" criteria are assigned as they relate to the State of Nebraska's methodology for ranking hazards. The ratings are assigned as follows: Vulnerability • Low = Less than 1 percent of people vulnerable; less than 1 percent of property damaged or destroyed. • Medium = 1 percent to 10 percent of people vulnerable; 1 percent to 10 percent of property damaged or destroyed. • High = More than 10 percent of people vulnerable; more than 10 percent of property damaged or destroyed. Maximum Threat • Low = Less than 5 percent of community devastated • Medium = 5 percent to 25 percent of community devastated • High = More than 25 percent of community devastated Future Development Considerations This section provides information for jurisdictions to consider in planning future development. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.34 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.3.1 Agricultural Incidents - Animals /Livestock Profile Hazard Description Agricultural incidents are naturally occurring infection of crops or livestock with insects, vermin, or diseases that render them unfit for consumption or use. Because of the planning area's substantial agricultural industry and related facilities and locations, the potential for infestation of crops or livestock poses a significant risk to the economy of the area. Due to the difference in risk and occurrences, the planning advisory committee chose to discuss animal /livestock incidents separate from incidents that impact plants and crops. The remainder of this section will provide descriptive information for incidents relating to animals and livestock. Incidents that pertain to plants and crops will be discussed in Section 3.3.2 that follows. One of the key concerns regarding this hazard is the potential introduction of a rapid and economically devastating foreign animal disease, such as foot and mouth disease and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) disease. The Nebraska Department of Agriculture (NDA) has confirmed that there have been no outbreaks of these foreign animal diseases in Nebraska. However, there are regular incidents each year of other animal diseases that can prove to be very costly. Producers are required by state law to report any of the reportable animal diseases to the NDA. The NDA's Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) is the lead coordinating agency for livestock emergency disease response, monitoring, and diagnostic information. The BAI protects producers and consumers, as well as the health of livestock in Nebraska, by enforcing rules and regulations governing eradication and control of certain livestock and poultry diseases. Auction markets and livestock dealers are licensed by BAI in order to regulate the health requirements of animals moving within the state. The import of animals into the state is also monitored according to established health standards which allow only healthy animals to enter. BAI also licenses and inspects pet feed and rendering plants to ensure that finished products from these plants are safe for livestock and pets. Disease outbreaks can also occur in wild animal populations. The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission is the lead agency for monitoring and surveillance of wild animal species and game throughout the state as well as diseases that may impact them such as chronic wasting disease (CWD) that can impact white- tailed deer, mule deer, and Rocky Mountain elk. Geographic Location /Extent The areas at most risk to animal /livestock incidents are those agricultural areas with higher concentrations of animals and livestock. According to the Nebraska State Hazard Mitigation Plan, all counties in the P -MRNRD are at minimal risk to animal /livestock incidents. This determination is based on the livestock population in the planning area. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.35 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.9 provides the value of livestock and state rank placement for each county in the P- MMNRD according to the 2007 Census of Agriculture. Table 3.9. Value of Livestock and State Rank County Value of Livestock (in $1,000s) State Rank (out of 93) Burt $53,696 59 Dakota $8,178 91 Douglas $2,497 93 Sarpy $32,978 68 Thurston $93,378 33 Washington $65,983 47 Total $256,710 - Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 2007 Census of Agriculture Previous Occurrences Table 3.10 provides the reportable diseases and number of occurrences in each of the counties in the P -MRNRD during 2009. Table 3.10. Reportable Diseases in P -MRNRD Counties 2009 Source: Nebraska Department of Agriculture, http: / /www.agr.state.ne.us /division /bai /bai.htm; Dash ( -) means "none reported" Figure 3.13 provides locations of confirmed CWD in Nebraska from 2000 -2007. There were no confirmed cases in the planning area. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.36 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Burt Dakota Douglas Sarpy Thurston Washington Porcine Circovirus 1 - - - 1 (type 2) Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome 9 - 3 - - 3 Porcine Postweaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome 1 - - - - - Avian Infectious Laryngotracheitis - - 1 - - - Marek's Disease (poultry) - - 1 - - - Bovine Paratuberculosis - - - - 13 1 Bovine Viral Diarrhea - - - - - 1 Leptospirosis - - - - - 1 Totals 11 - 5 - 13 7 Source: Nebraska Department of Agriculture, http: / /www.agr.state.ne.us /division /bai /bai.htm; Dash ( -) means "none reported" Figure 3.13 provides locations of confirmed CWD in Nebraska from 2000 -2007. There were no confirmed cases in the planning area. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.36 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Figure 3.13. Chronic Wasting Disease in Nebraska 2000 -2007 2000 - 2007 Free- Rangirg CWD POSitiVES IP +5 2470 -2X6 POSIWes 9 #F h 140 7 PLvv$s Source: Nebraska Game and Parks Commission; http: / /www.ngpc. state. ne. us / wildlife /quides /cwd /images /cwdpositives.mpg History Rating = High: The event has happened four or more times in 100 years. Probability of Future Occurrence The planning area experiences agricultural losses every year as a result of naturally- occurring diseases that impact animals /livestock. During 2009 alone, there were 36 instances of reportable animal diseases within the planning area. Probability Rating =High: Greater than one chance in ten years. Vulnerability Overview A widespread infestation of animals /livestock could seriously impact the economic base of the planning area. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (MASS) 2007 Census of Agriculture, the total value of livestock in the planning area was $256,710,000 (see Table 3.11). 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. In an average year, the Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.37 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 vulnerability of the planning area to this hazard is considered to be "Low ", less than 1 percent of property damaged or destroyed. Vulnerability Rating = Low: Less than 1 percent of property damaged or destroyed Rough estimates of potential direct losses fall in a range of 1 to 75 percent of livestock receipts. Based on a worst case scenario, where 75 percent of livestock is lost in a given year due to agricultural infestations, the total direct costs could approach $192,532,500. Table 3.11 provides the worst -case scenario losses for each county in the planning area. Indirect costs are not estimated in this analysis. Table 3.11. Worst -Case Scenario Animal /Livestock Losses County Burt Dakota I Douglas I sarpy I Thurston I Washington Total Value of $53,696 $8,178 $2,497 $32,978 $93,378 $65,983 $256,710 Livestock (in 1,000s) Worst -Case $40,272 $6,134 $1,873 $24,734 $70,034 $49,487 $192,533 Scenario Losses (in 1,000s) Maximum Threat = Medium: 5 percent to 25 percent of community devastated—although the worst case scenario considers a 75 percent loss of livestock, this loss would not impact people or other improved property. Therefore, the maximum threat level is considered medium for the planning area as a whole. Future Development Future development is not expected to significantly impact the planning area's vulnerability to this hazard. However, increases in the numbers and values of animals /livestock would result in higher losses if a widespread infestation occurs. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.38 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.3.2 Agricultural Incidents - Plants /Crops Profile Hazard Description Nebraska cropland is vulnerable to disease and other agricultural pests. An estimated 1.14 billion bushels of corn (12 percent of the national total), 222 million bushels of soybeans, 77 million bushels of wheat, and 1.79 million bushels of great northern beans (85 percent of the national total) are grown annually in the state, according to USDA figures. Nebraska's total agricultural output reached $15.5 billion in 2007, with crops contributing $6.8 billion to that total (USDA NASS, 2007 Census of Agriculture). A plant disease outbreak or a pest infestation could negatively impact crop production and agriculturally dependent businesses. An extreme outbreak or infestation could potentially result in millions of dollars in production losses. The cascading net negative economic effects could result in wide - spread business failures, reduction of tax revenues, harm to other state economies, and diminished capability for this country to compete in the global market. According to Jon Stack, an extension plant pathologist with the University of Nebraska Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, disease is a natural part of every crop production system. In any given year, the question becomes which diseases will occur in Nebraska's field crops, and at what incidence and severity. Many factors influence disease development in plants, including hybrid /variety genetics, plant growth stage at the time of infection, weather (e.g., temperature, rain, wind, hail, etc.), single versus mixed infections, and genetics of the pathogen populations. The two elements of coordination and communication are essential when plant diseases or pest infestations occur. The USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), local producers, local government, assessment teams, and state government entities must work together to effectively diagnose the various plant hazards to determine if immediate crop quarantine and destruction is required. Crop Pests /Diseases According to information from the University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension in Lincoln, Nebraska, the following are common known crop pests /diseases in Nebraska: • Pests - Grasshoppers, Western Bean Cutworm, European Corn Borer, Corn Rootworm, Corn Nematodes, Bean Weevil, Mexican Bean Beatle, Soybean Aphids, and Rootworm Beatles. • Corn Diseases — Anthrancnose, Bacterial Stalk Rot, Common Rust, Fusarium Root Rot, Maize Chloriotic Mottle Virus, Southern Rust, Stewart's Wilt. • Soybean Diseases — Bean Pod Mottle Virus, Soybean Mosaic Virus, Brown Stem Rot, and Phytophthora Root Rot. Soybean Rust was detected in Southeastern Nebraska for the first time in October of 2007. • Wheat Diseases — Common Leaf Rust, Wheat Streak Mosaic Virus, Wheat Soil Borne Virus, Tan Spot, Crown and Root Rot, and Barley Yellow Dwarf Mosaic Virus. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.39 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Dry Bean Diseases — Fusariam Root Rot, Haloblight, Rust, White Mold, Fusariam Wilt, and Bacterial Blight, and Rhizoctonia Root Rot. Emerald Ash Borer The planning advisory committee also determined that infestation of the Emerald Ash Borer is of particular concern. This pest is a slender, emerald green beetle that is inch long, and responsible for the destruction of approximately 20 million ash trees in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Maryland. The Nebraska Forest Service estimates that 2.2 million of Nebraska's ash trees could become vulnerable to the pest. The replacement of these trees would cost the state approximately 1.5 billion dollars. The key to stopping this pest is education, monitoring surveillance, containment, and communication. Wildlife Nebraska farmers also lose a significant amount of crops each year as a result of wildlife foraging. This can be particularly problematic in areas where natural habitat has been diminished or in years where weather patterns such as early /late frost, deep snow, or drought has caused the wild food sources to be limited. Geographic Location /Extent All agricultural areas of the planning area are subject to agricultural infestations. However if a major infestation event were to occur the economy in the entire planning area would be affected, including urban areas. Figure 3.14 provides the 2004 grain production sales, by county, in Nebraska. In the planning area, Burt County has the highest grain production followed by Washington and Thurston Counties. Figure 3.14. Nebraska Grain Production Sales, 2004 (in US 1000s Dollars) Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.40 Dlulti- Hazard Dlitigation Plan July 2011 Source: Nebraska State Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 3. 12 provides the acreage in farms and the dollar value of all crops in each county in the planning area for 2007 along with the state rank. Again, this shows the highest dollar value of crops in Burt County followed by Washington and then Thurston Counties. Table 3.12. Land in Farms and Value of Crops, 2007 County Land in Farms (acres) Value of Crops (in $1,000s) State Rank (value of crops out of 93) Burt 275,041 $92,177 32 Dakota 166,555 $55,253 57 Douglas 83,374 $43,844 65 Sarpy 100,835 $35,126 69 Thurston 199,689 $60,364 53 Washington 217,306 $65,452 49 Totals 1,042,800 $352,216 - Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 2007 Census of Agriculture Previous Occurrences According to the USDA's Risk Management Agency, during the ten -year period from 2000 to 2009, combined crop insurance payments for damages resulting from insects, mycotoxin, plant disease, and wildlife totaled $887,301. The Nebraska Statewide average for farm acres with insurance is 88 percent (USDA Risk Management Agency, 2009 Nebraska Crop Insurance Profile; http: / /www.rma.usda.gov /pubs/ 2010 /stateprofiles /nebraska09.pdf). Table 3.13 provides a summary of insured crop losses as a result of crop infestations for each county in the planning area. Table 3.13. Crop Insurance Payments for Crop Pests /Diseases 2000 to 2009 Crop Year County Name Crop Name Cause of Loss (COL) COL Indemnity Paid ($) 2000 Burt CORN Insects $95 2001 Burt CORN Insects $935 2001 Burt SOYBEANS Insects $1,026 2002 Burt CORN Insects $1,276 2002 Burt SOYBEANS Insects $12,441 2003 Burt CORN Insects $290 2003 Burt SOYBEANS Insects $2,976 2004 Burt CORN Insects $7,063 2007 Burt CORN Insects $1,053 2008 Burt SOYBEANS Insects $897 2000 Burt CORN Plant Disease $4,675 2000 Burt SOYBEANS Plant Disease $19,532 2004 Burt SOYBEANS Plant Disease $974 2007 Burt SOYBEANS Plant Disease $5,746 2001 Burt CORN Wildlife $64 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.41 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Crop Year County Name Crop Name Cause of Loss COL COL Indemnity Paid $ 2007 Burt CORN Wildlife $10,822 2008 Burt CORN Wildlife $793 Burt Total $70,656 2000 Dakota CORN Insects $6,617 2001 Dakota CORN Insects $5,942 2001 Dakota POPCORN Insects $3,701 2001 Dakota SOYBEANS Insects $5,138 2002 Dakota CORN Insects $316 2003 Dakota CORN Insects $484 2004 Dakota CORN Insects $580 2006 Dakota CORN Insects $6,115 2008 Dakota SOYBEANS Insects $14,557 2000 Dakota SOYBEANS Plant Disease $33 2005 Dakota CORN Plant Disease $10,693 2000 Dakota SOYBEANS Wildlife $1,248 2004 Dakota CORN Wildlife $6,934 2005 Dakota CORN Wildlife $3,635 2006 Dakota CORN Wildlife $8,611 2007 Dakota CORN Wildlife $10,060 2008 Dakota CORN Wildlife $3,363 2008 Dakota SOYBEANS Wildlife $3,014 2009 Dakota I CORN Wildlife $2,371 Dakota Total $93,412 2001 Douglas CORN Insects $4,233 2008 Douglas CORN Insects $6,198 2001 Douglas SOYBEANS Plant Disease $495 2008 Douglas CORN Plant Disease $10,349 2001 Douglas CORN Wildlife $2,095 2001 Douglas SOYBEANS Wildlife $941 2002 Douglas CORN Wildlife $1,063 2004 Douglas SOYBEANS Wildlife $923 2005 Douglas SOYBEANS Wildlife $1,182 2006 Douglas CORN Wildlife $3,425 2006 Douglas SOYBEANS Wildlife $717 2007 Douglas CORN Wildlife $11,292 2007 Douglas SOYBEANS Wildlife $2,148 2008 Douglas SOYBEANS Wildlife $8,085 2009 Douglas I SOYBEANS Wildlife $1,811 Douglas Total $54,956 2000 Sarpy CORN Insects $3,707 2001 Sarpy CORN Insects $1,074 2001 Sarpy SOYBEANS Insects $2,283 2002 Sarpy SOYBEANS Insects $518 2004 Sarpy CORN Insects $1,019 2002 Sarpy SOYBEANS Plant Disease $454 2003 Sarpy SOYBEANS Plant Disease $332 2006 Sarpy SOYBEANS Plant Disease $889 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.42 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Crop Year County Name Crop Name Cause of Loss COL COL Indemnity Paid $ 2000 Sarpy CORN Wildlife $9,454 2000 Sarpy SOYBEANS Wildlife $3,054 2001 Sarpy CORN Wildlife $38,801 2001 Sarpy SOYBEANS Wildlife $11,391 2002 Sarpy CORN Wildlife $1,848 2002 Sarpy SOYBEANS Wildlife $4,485 2003 Sarpy CORN Wildlife $1,581 2004 Sarpy CORN Wildlife $11,668 2004 Sarpy GRAIN SORGHUM Wildlife $8,660 2004 Sarpy SOYBEANS Wildlife $1,323 2005 Sarpy CORN Wildlife $5,289 2005 Sarpy GRAIN SORGHUM Wildlife $2,931 2005 Sarpy SOYBEANS Wildlife $329 2006 Sarpy CORN Wildlife $3,091 2006 Sarpy GRAIN SORGHUM Wildlife $155 2006 Sarpy SOYBEANS Wildlife $4,197 2007 Sarpy CORN Wildlife $51,208 2007 Sarpy GRAIN SORGHUM Wildlife $776 2007 Sarpy SOYBEANS Wildlife $3,737 2008 Sarpy SOYBEANS Wildlife $26,467 2009 Sarpy I CORN Wildlife $65 Sarpy Total $200,785 2001 Thurston CORN Insects $11,329 2001 Thurston SOYBEANS Insects $3,066 2003 Thurston OATS Insects $1,544 2003 Thurston SOYBEANS Insects $5,725 2004 Thurston CORN Insects $1,627 2007 Thurston SOYBEANS Insects $1,214 2008 Thurston CORN Insects $243 2008 Thurston SOYBEANS Insects $10,693 2002 Thurston CORN Mycotoxin (Aflatoxin) $22,022 2003 Thurston OATS Plant Disease $44 2007 Thurston CORN Plant Disease $4,996 2000 Thurston CORN Wildlife $3,159 2000 Thurston SOYBEANS Wildlife $9,022 2001 Thurston CORN Wildlife $22,602 2002 Thurston CORN Wildlife $18,909 2003 Thurston CORN Wildlife $12,069 2003 Thurston SOYBEANS Wildlife $5,725 2005 Thurston CORN Wildlife $2,987 2005 Thurston SOYBEANS Wildlife $7,247 2006 Thurston CORN Wildlife $19,844 2006 Thurston SOYBEANS Wildlife $13,793 2007 Thurston CORN Wildlife $57,519 2008 Thurston CORN Wildlife $19,793 2008 Thurston SOYBEANS Wildlife $9,246 2009 Thurston WHEAT Wildlife $819 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.43 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Crop Year County Name Crop Name Cause of Loss COL COL Indemnity Paid $ 2009 Thurston CORN Wildlife $21,200 2009 Thurston SOYBEANS Wildlife $23,621 Thurston Total $310,056 2000 Washington CORN Insects $1,607 2001 Washington CORN Insects $8,389 2001 Washington SOYBEANS Insects $44 2002 Washington CORN Insects $7,519 2004 Washington CORN Insects $1,471 2006 Washington CORN Insects $1,581 2007 Washington WHEAT Insects $3,768 2000 Washington CORN Plant Disease $10,225 2000 Washington SOYBEANS Wildlife $893 2001 Washington CORN Wildlife $2,116 2001 Washington SOYBEANS Wildlife $471 2002 Washington SOYBEANS Wildlife $3,654 2003 Washington CORN Wildlife $1,825 2003 Washington SOYBEANS Wildlife $610 2004 Washington CORN Wildlife $9,947 2004 Washington SOYBEANS Wildlife $17,468 2005 Washington CORN Wildlife $7,568 2005 Washington SOYBEANS Wildlife $8,707 2006 Washington SOYBEANS Wildlife $4,150 2007 Washington WHEAT Wildlife $19,260 2007 Washington SOYBEANS Wildlife $14,623 2008 Washington SOYBEANS Wildlife $17,543 2009 Washington I SOYBEANS Wildlife $13,998 Washington Total $157,436 Planning Area Grand Total $887,301 Source: USDA Risk Management Agency, 2010 There are no previous occurrences for incidents involving the Emerald Ash Borer as this pest has not been found present in Nebraska. History Rating = High: The event has happened four or more times in 100 years. Probability of Future Occurrence The planning area experiences agricultural losses every year as a result of naturally- occurring plant /crop infestation. Probability Rating = High: Greater than one chance in ten years. Papio- Nlissouri Ricer NRD 3.44 Nlulti- Hazard Nlitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Vulnerability Overview A widespread infestation of plants /crops could seriously impact the economic base of the planning area. According to the NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture, the total value of crops in the planning area was $352,216,000 (see Table 3.12). 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. In an average year, the vulnerability of the planning area to this hazard is considered to be "Low ", less than 1 percent of property damaged or destroyed. Table 3.14 provides the annual insured losses in each county. The insured losses are adjusted to estimate losses to all crops by considering that 88 percent of crops in the State were insured (according to the 2009 Nebraska Crop Insurance Profile from USDA's Risk Management Agency). This adjustment is made by multiplying the amount of crop insurance paid times 1.14 (the inverse of 88 percent). Sarpy and Thurston Counties had the highest percent of estimated loss with 0.06 percent. All counties had less than 1 percent loss. Vulnerability Rating = Low: Less than 1 percent of property damaged or destroyed Table 3.14. Estimated Crop Losses Resulting From Infestation Count Crop Value in 1,000s Crop Insurance Paid -10 yrs Adjusted 10- year Losses Annual Estimated Losses Percent of Total Crop Value Burt $92,177 $70,656 $80,291 $8,029 0.01% Dakota $55,253 $93,412 $106,150 $10,615 0.02% Douglas $43,844 $54,956 $62,450 $6,245 0.01% Sarpy $35,126 $200,785 $228,165 $22,816 0.06% Thurston $60,364 $310,056 $352,336 $35,234 0.06% Washington $65,452 $157,436 $178,905 $17,890 0.03% 352,216 887,301 $1,008,297 $100,830 0.03% Source: Crop Value is from the 2007 Census of Agriculture; Crop Insurance Paid is from the USDA's Risk Management Agency for 2000 -2009. Rough estimates of potential direct losses from a maximum threat event fall in a range of 1 to 50 percent of annual crop receipts. Based on a worst case scenario where 50 percent of crop production is lost in a given year due to agricultural infestations, the total direct costs could approach $176,108,000. Table 3.15 provides the worst -case scenario losses for each county in the planning area. Indirect costs are not estimated in this analysis. Maximum Threat = Medium: 5 percent to 25 percent of community devastated—although the worst case scenario considers a 50 percent loss of crops, this loss would not impact people or Papio- lblissouri Ricer NRD 3.45 Nlulti- Hazard Nlitigation Plan July 2011 other improved property. Therefore, the maximum threat level is considered medium for the planning area as a whole. Table 3.15. Worst -Case Scenario Crop Losses County Burt I Dakota I Douglas I Sarpy I Thurston I Washington Total Land in 275,041 166,555 83,374 100,835 199,689 217,306 1,042,800 Farms Value of $92,177 $55,253 $43,844 $35,126 $60,364 $65,452 $352,216 Crops (in $1,000s) Worst -Case $46,089 $27,627 $21,922 $17,563 $30,182 $32,726 $176,108 Scenario Losses (in 1,000s) The Nebraska Forest Service Estimates there are approximately 4 million Ash trees in the planning area, over 350,000 Ash trees are in Omaha alone. Removal of debris if an infestation would occur would be challenging and costly. The Nebraska Forest Service estimates that 11 percent of Ash trees statewide would be impacted. In the planning area, that translates to 44,000 trees. They also estimate $682 to replace each Ash tree. In the planning area, this translates to just over $3 million. Future Development Future development is not expected to significantly impact the planning area's vulnerability to this hazard. However, if crop production increases, the amount of crops vulnerable to infestation also increases. Regarding the Emerald Ash Borer, the Nebraska Forest Service recommends that other native tree species be planted in lieu of Ash trees to avoid increasing vulnerability to infestation of the Emerald Ash Borer. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.46 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.3.3 Dam Failure Profile Hazard Description Many of Nebraska's community settlements were founded along rivers and streams due to their reliance on water resources. Often, these streams or rivers later needed a dam for flood control or a reservoir for a constant water source. A dam is defined as a barrier constructed across a watercourse for the purpose of storage, control, or diversion of water. Dams are typically constructed of earth, rock, concrete, or mine tailings. Dam failure is the uncontrolled release of impounded water resulting in downstream flooding, affecting both life and property. Dam failure can be caused by any of the following: • Flooding; • Earthquakes; • Flow blockages; • Landslides; • Lack of maintenance; • Improper Operation; • Poor Construction; • Vandalism; or • Terrorism. Dams are classified by the State of Nebraska into three categories based on the potential risk to people and property in the event of failure (see Table 3.16). The NDNR performs annual inspections on all high- hazard dams in the state. High - hazard dams are designed to the Probable Maximum Precipitation event, which is typically three or four times the rainfall expected from a 0.2 percent annual chance flood event. Table 3.16. Dam Hazard Classification Definitions Hazard Class I Definition High Failure expected to result in loss of life and serious damage to residential, industrial, commercial, important public utilities, public buildings, or major transportation corridors. Significant Failure expected to result in damage to important resources, isolated homes, moderately traveled transportation corridors, water supply systems, and other moderate commercial /business uses. Low Failure expected to result in damage to minor resources such as livestock, agricultural land, and lesser used roads. Loss of human life is considered less likely. Source: Nebraska Department of Natural Resources Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.47 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Geographic Location /Extent Upstream Dams Outside the Planning Area Several dams and reservoirs are located in the Missouri River basin upstream from the P- MMNRD boundary. Of these dams and reservoirs, six are located on the main stem of the Missouri River and provide the majority of the flood peak discharge reduction in the NRD counties from the Missouri River. Data on these dams are provided in Table 3.17. Table 3.17. Upstream Missouri River Dams Dam Location Year operational Big Bend Fort Thompson, South Dakota 1964 Fort Peck Fort Peck, Montana 1940 Fort Randall Pickstown, South Dakota 1953 Garrison Riverdale, North Dakota 1955 Gavins Point Yankton, South Dakota 1955 Oahe Pierre, South Dakota 1962 Dams in Plannin( Area According to the dam inventory maintained by the NDNR, there are a total of 152 state - regulated dams within the boundaries of the P- MRNRD. Of those, 102 are low hazard dams, 13 are significant - hazard dams and 36 are high- hazard dams. Table 3.18 provides the distribution of the dams, by hazard class and by county. Table 3.18. Dams in P -MRNRD by County and Hazard Class Source: Nebraska Department of Natural Resources, http: / /dnrdata.dnr.ne.gov /Dams /index.aspx Table 3.19 provides the names, locations, and other pertinent information for all high- hazard dams in the planning area. For those that are shaded blue, a detailed vulnerability analysis has been completed utilizing the dam inundation maps that were developed to determine the inundation areas that could occur in the event of a dam failure or overtopping event. For the high- hazard dams that do not have a detailed vulnerability analysis, the comments column provides an explanation as to why this has not been completed. If data limitations are cited as the reason for not including the analysis, the update to this plan will attempt to resolve the data limitation. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.48 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Adv 2011 Downstream Hazard Potential County Total Number of Dams Low Significant High Burt 37 32 2 3 Dakota 12 10 1 1 Douglas 34 15 2 17 Sarpy 33 14 4 14 Thurston 2 2 0 0 Washington 34 29 4 1 Total 152 102 13 36 Source: Nebraska Department of Natural Resources, http: / /dnrdata.dnr.ne.gov /Dams /index.aspx Table 3.19 provides the names, locations, and other pertinent information for all high- hazard dams in the planning area. For those that are shaded blue, a detailed vulnerability analysis has been completed utilizing the dam inundation maps that were developed to determine the inundation areas that could occur in the event of a dam failure or overtopping event. For the high- hazard dams that do not have a detailed vulnerability analysis, the comments column provides an explanation as to why this has not been completed. If data limitations are cited as the reason for not including the analysis, the update to this plan will attempt to resolve the data limitation. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.48 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Adv 2011 Table 3.19. High Hazard Dams in the P -MRNRD Planning Area Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.49 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 National Max Inventory Distance Max Storage Drain Volume Study of Dams Downstream Downstream Owner Discharge (Acre Area (Sq. (Acre Last Dam Name Comments ID County Stream City to City Type cfs Feet ) Miles Feet EAP Inspection SILVER Dam has not NE03103 BURT TR- SILVER Not Listed 0 L 15,640 1,317 1,408 252,000 Y N/A CREEK 11 been CREEK completed Inundation Map Not Available TEKAMAH- Shapefile NE01597 BURT TR- TEKAMAH 0 L 5,200 499 640 58,416 Y 8/12/2009 MUD CREEK from NDNR TEKAMAH 22 -A CREEK TEKAMAH- Shapefile NE01690 BURT TR- TEKAMAH 4 L 23,370 6,861 6,208 406,986 Y 8/12/2009 MUD CREEK 5- from NDNR TEKAMAH A CREEK HUBBARD Shapefile NE02700 DAKOTA TR- HUBBARD 0 L 2,463 86 128 60,050 Y 10/8/2009 DAM from NDNR PIGEON CREEK BENNINGTON Small NE02631 DOUGLAS TR -BIG BENNINGTON 1 P 4,260 175 512 0 Y 7/16/2009 LAKE BASIN sediment PAPIO NO2 basin in CREEK series with Bennington Lake Dam 6 BENNINGTON NE02585 DOUGLAS TR -BIG BENNINGTON 1 L 12,290 8,855 3,136 0 Y 7/16/2009 LAKE DAM 6 PAPIO CREEK BOYS TOWN NE00307 DOUGLAS HELL OMAHA 1 L 480 243 512 45,000 Y 7/14/2009 DAM NO 1 CREEK BOYS TOWN NE00031 DOUGLAS TR -BIG OMAHA 0 P 1,370 79 128 0 Y 7/14/2009 DAM NO 2 PAPIO CREEK CANDLEWOOD NE00138 DOUGLAS TR -BIG OMAHA 0 L 15,630 1,256 1,408 260,000 Y 7/14/2009 DAM PAPIO CREEK GOODMAN Inundation NE03156 DOUGLAS TR -BIG OMAHA 0 L 48 13 34 0 N 7/14/2009 DAM Map Not PAPILLION Available CREEK HAWKINS DAM Inundation NE03155 DOUGLAS TR -MILL OMAHA 0 P 0 23 128 0 N 8/12/2009 Map Not CREEK Available INDIAN CREEK NE02426 DOUGLAS TR -W RURAL 1 P 5,266 125 704 37,500 Y 10/27/2009 GOLF CRSE 1 PAPIO ELKHORN CREEK Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.49 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.50 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 National Max Inventory Distance Max Storage Drain Volume Study of Dams Downstream Downstream Owner Discharge (Acre Area (Sq. (Acre Last Dam Name Comments ID County Stream City to City Type cfs Feet ) Miles Feet EAP Inspection INDIAN CREEK Indian Creek NE02427 DOUGLAS TR -W RURAL 1 P 3,159 206 384 26,550 Y 10/27/2009 GOLF CRSE 2 1 PAPIO ELKHORN considered CREEK without #2 in series LEGACY DAM Breach Area NE00032 DOUGLAS TR -BOX OMAHA 0 P 51 110 64 0 Y 7/14/2009 insignificant ELDER because it is CREEK adjacent to Zorinsky Lake LONERGAN Located NE00030 DOUGLAS TR- LITTLE OMAHA 3 P 1,253 2,623 576 553,000 Y 7/24/2009 DAM above PAPIO Cunningham CREEK Lake, not modeled in series PAPIO DAM NE02784 DOUGLAS TR -W OMAHA 0 L 14,600 1,770 1,344 342,000 Y 10/27/2009 SITE 13 PAPIO CREEK PAPIO SITE NE01518 DOUGLAS LITTLE OMAHA 1 F 18,500 23,320 11,392 712,800 Y 9/17/2009 11- PAPIO CUNNINGHAM CREEK LAKE PAPIO SITE NE01065 DOUGLAS TR -PAPIO OMAHA 0 F 9,000 7,300 3,840 481,000 Y 9/17/2009 16- STANDING CREEK BEAR LAKE PAPIO SITE NE02185 DOUGLAS BOX OMAHA 0 F 30,000 18,282 10,496 1,613,86 Y 9/18/2009 18- ZORINSKY ELDER 0 LAKE CREEK SACHS- NE02638 DOUGLAS TR -N BR W RURAL 0 L 5,055 352 640 68,895 Y 10/27/2009 PALMER DAM PAPIO ELKHORN CREEK ZORINSKY NE02735 DOUGLAS TR- OMAHA 0 L 19,502 1,423 2,496 155,173 Y 10/27/2009 BASIN NO 3 BOXELDER CREEK Beardmore Inundation NE03254 SARPY TR- PLATTE HANSON 1 P 0 9 64 0 N N/A Dam Map Not RIVER LAKE Available HANSON LAKE NE02653 SARPY TR- PLATTE HANSON 1 L 1,717 56 128 16,280 Y 8/6/2009 DAM RIVER LAKES LAKEWOOD Combined NE02513 SARPY TR -PAPIO BELLEVUE 0 P 2,860 143 576 52,000 Y 8/6/2009 VILLAGES w/ Upper CREEK LOWER DAM Dam LAKEWOOD Combined NE02512 SARPY TR -PAPIO BELLEVUE 0 P 2,860 140 512 52,000 Y 8/6/2009 VILLAGES w/ Lower CREEK UPPER DAM Dam MIDLAND Combined NE02831 SARPY MIDLAND PAPILLION 0 L 6,920 401 576 0 Y 7/1/2009 LAKE DAM w/ Shadow CREEK Lake Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.50 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Source: Nebraska Department of Natural Resources; N /A= Not Available; Owner Type: F= federal, S= state, L =local government, P= Private, U= Public Utility Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.51 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 National Max Inventory Distance Max Storage Drain Volume Study of Dams Downstream Downstream Owner Discharge (Acre Area (Sq. (Acre Last Dam Name Comments ID County Stream City to City Type cfs Feet ) Miles Feet EAP Inspection Oloff Dam Inundation NE03255 SARPY TR- PLATTE HANSON 1 P 0 18 64 0 N N/A Map Not RIVER LAKE Available PAPIO CREEK Inundation NE01818 SARPY TR -PAPIO BELLEVUE 0 L 3,510 51 128 31,626 Y 8/6/2009 S -27 Map Not CREEK Available PAPIO CREEK Inundation NE01751 SARPY TR -S BELLEVUE 0 L 5,763 188 256 50,774 Y 8/6/2009 S -31 Map Not PAPIO Available CREEK PAPIO CREEK Inundation NE00092 SARPY TR -BIG BELLEVUE 0 L 5,066 163 256 53,601 Y 8/6/2009 S -32 Map Not PAPIO Available CREEK PAPIO DAM NE02430 SARPY WALNUT PAPILLION 2 L 8,092 3,347 2,112 215,800 Y 7/1/2009 SITE 21 CREEK PAPIO SITE NE01882 SARPY TR -S BR OMAHA 0 F 17,500 16,929 8,384 767,452 Y 9/18/2009 20- PAPIO WEHRSPANN CREEK LAKE SHADOW Combined NE02830 SARPY MIDLAND PAPILLION 0 L 16,213 1,171 1,472 0 Y 7/1/2009 LAKE DAM w/ Midland CREEK Lake THOMPSON NE02217 SARPY TR -PAPIO LA VISTA 0 L 4,050 122 640 75,000 Y 10/29/2009 CREEK CREEK PROJECT TREGARON Inundation NE03252 SARPY TR- BELLEVUE 0 P 0 33 128 0 N 8/6/2009 DAM Map Not PAPILLION Available CREEK PAPIO CREEK NRD rehab NE01883 WASHINGTON TR -BIG KENNARD 3 L 111 99 256 35,863 N 10/29/2009 W -3 project site PAPIO breach area CREEK will be updated Source: Nebraska Department of Natural Resources; N /A= Not Available; Owner Type: F= federal, S= state, L =local government, P= Private, U= Public Utility Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.51 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 The following figures provide the locations of high -, significant -, and low - hazard dams in each county in the planning area. Those indicated as "unknown" did not have a hazard class assigned in the dam inventory provided by the NDNR. Detailed inundation maps of all high- hazard dams (shaded blue in Table 3.19) are kept on file at the P -MRNRD offices and are available to select users upon request. Available critical facilities data was compared to the available dam inundation areas to determine those critical facilities that could possibly be impacted in the event of dam failure. Table 3.20 provides the names and potential flood depths of the critical facilities determined to be in the inundation areas. Table 3.20. Critical Facilities in Available Dam Inundation Areas Count County Flooded Critical Facility Name Near City Flood Elevation (ft) Douglas Airport Facility Millard Omaha 5.7 Douglas Police Station Omaha Police Department Omaha 3.7 Douglas School Sandoz Elementary School Omaha 1 Douglas School V.J. and Angela Skutt Catholic School Omaha 4.2 Sarpy Communication Facility JCM Broadcasting Co., LLC Bellevue 13.5 Sarpy Communication Facility JCM Broadcasting Co., LLC Bellevue 13.5 Sarpy Fire Station City of Papillion Fire Rescue Department Papillion 3.4 Sarpy Government Civic Facility N/A La Vista 7.7 Sarpy Police Station Police Department Papillion 6.7 Sarpy School Sarpy County Juvenile Justice Center Papillion 5 Sar School Young Adult Transition Program Papillion 6.5 Sarpy School Papillion Junior High School Papillion 3.5 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.52 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Figure 3.15. Dam Locations in Burt County — . T E Wm!i '.: did C ass) f :�y + Las Lpv f Vw PWpo PI RD y : 7 . , �brwrt � y Counties SkIve6am 1 prom W C17ASTI i t a t _ JL + # TEKELWAW t � JL T HL�IAIi1�JQ Qt�ER ' ' + I , If ' I N� Ia�T�91+GT� ' 1 + i — L L TOLS r__w L M ., I • j . PM'$i `y - 4 k%Z*pO l 0W Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.53 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.16. Dam Locations in Dakota County � r + SOUTH CKKQTA DWI*(K$2*td CLMI a a•'ONayS • M L LatA Roads SpgnMant 3 31r9ams ' 1 A Aaanads ■ IJIADMMll F F—� ome'S Pam 0 = = C unties ' Ile _ t i — i I DUCTIL 3 mtk1o# OjaaLW dL A AL 1 5 10 Miles amO � l i i i l i i l A � f '. OL -5r N � Fwd OL�4'` =a. c" Fs P'ar"ryB Purposes only .. . , r d3b &36rM SL3b CO Hatrastia Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.54 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.17. Dam Locations in Douglas County IM eJ i E� D �i Papio- Missouri River NRD 3. Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.18. Dam Locations in Sarpy County i t a � 7 F L S a 4 - C 1 $00 ki a � f J � L r di 41 it dd dd d q .. -f V S 1 9 J M --I If4 s LA J Pa io- Missouri River NRD Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.56 Figure 3.19. Dam Locations in Thurston County Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.57 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Q.$ 3 10 Miles N U110 rrti "I& rmodw1w w" purposes only Figure 3.20. Dam Locations in Washington County 0 w. J Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.58 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Previous Occurrences To determine previous occurrences of dam failure within the P -MRNRD counties, the previous mitigation plan was referenced as well as the Nebraska State Hazard Mitigation and the Stanford University's National Performance of Dams Program ( http: / /npdp.stanford.edu /index.html). No record of dam failure within the P -MRNRD was found. However, in 1999, Summit Lake Dam operators in Burt County were within inches of opening the emergency spillway during the August 1999 flood event. This dam is located on Tekamah Creek approximately three miles west of Tekamah near Highway 32 in Burt County. History Rating = Low: no record of occurrence or a single occurrence of a disaster event in the area in the last 100 years. Probability of Future Occurrence There is an overall low probability of dam failures in the P- MRNRD. There is a rigorous routine inspection and regular maintenance schedule for all state regulated dams. In addition, the dams are designed to the Probable Maximum Precipitation Level. Probability Rating = Low: Less than I chance in 1,000 years. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.59 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Vulnerabilitv Overview Dam failure is typically an additional or secondary impact of another disaster, such as flooding or earthquake. The impacts to the planning area and its municipalities from a dam or levee failure would be similar, in some cases, to those associated with flood events (see the flood hazard vulnerability analysis and discussion). Failure of any of the high- hazard dams could result in loss of life and serious damage to residential, industrial, commercial, important public utilities, public buildings, or major transportation corridors. Catastrophic failure of high hazard dams has the potential to result in greater destruction 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 flood hazards. For each of the high- hazard dams identified in Table 3.19 with blue shading, an analysis has been completed for the inundation areas. This analysis utilized available inundation maps and HAZUS MH MR4. HAZUS -MH provides reports on the number of buildings impacted, estimates of the 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 -MH using a methodology based on the building damage estimates. Building damage is estimated based on the average depth of flooding within a given Census Block. Flood damage is directly related to the depth of flooding. HAZUS -MH uses depth- damage functions to model the losses. 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). To estimate the monetary loss for each city, the flooded Census Blocks were extracted, and the damage costs were totaled using GIS. This was done for each affected city and unincorporated area to illustrate how the risk varies across the planning 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 MR4 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 hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of the HAZUS -MH model. 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. This analysis revealed that the following jurisdictions are vulnerable to dam failure: Bellevue, Bennington, Boys Town, Hubbard, LaVista, Omaha, Papillion, Ralston, Tekamah, and the unincorporated areas of Burt, Dakota, Douglas, and Sarpy Counties. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.60 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.21 provides a combined vulnerability overview for each jurisdiction susceptible to dam failure. This data represents a compilation of the estimated building losses, displaced population, and damaged building count for each of the high- hazard dams analyzed, that would impact the jurisdiction. The total building exposure value, total population and building counts are the totals for the entire jurisdiction, not just the dam inundation areas. The exposure is presented this way to provide a comparison of the potential impact of dam failure as it relates to the entire jurisdiction. Please note that several of the dam inundation areas overlap each other (particularly in the Omaha area) and would therefore impact the same developed areas. The summary data is followed by Table 3.22 which provides details for each high- hazard dam that would impact a vulnerable jurisdiction. In this table, the total estimated damages include: building damage, contents damage, inventory loss, relocation loss, capital related loss, wage losses, and rental income losses. According to this data, the City of Tekamah is most vulnerable in the planning area to damages that could be caused by failure of dams, with 27 percent building economic damages, 75 percent of the population displaced, and 11 percent of the total buildings in the City damaged. The overall planning area has 3 percent of the building value, 7 percent of the population and 3 percent of the total buildings at risk from dam failure. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.61 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.21. Dam Failure Vulnerability Overview Source: HAZUS- MH MR 4 Vulnerability Rating = Medium: 1 to 10 percent of people vulnerable; 1 to 10 percent of property damaged or destroyed. Both the City of Hubbard and the City of Tekamah have damage ratios that exceed 25 percent. In Hubbard, 44 percent of the population is vulnerable to being displaced and in Tekamah, 17 percent of total building value could be damaged and 75 percent of the population is at risk. However, for the planning area as a whole, the displaced population is 7 percent of the total exposure and 3 percent of the building value is at risk. Maximum Threat = Medium: 5 percent to 25 percent of Community Devastated. Papio- Dlissouri Ricer NRD 3.62 Dlulti- Hazard Dlitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 y C N y C O 0 01 O E N N .0 O N O R N` D m y Q. R R C jp 'M M m m O o u r- d N CL O i N CL d —O CO 0 wV 'O a� O �z Estimated R c D a a o a E W 32 Total Building Building W m ~ o a m Jurisdiction Exposure Damages Bellevue $4,336,870,000 $143,933,000 3% 44,017 5,232 12% 16,207 1019 6% Bennington $119,982,000 934 85 9% 444 7 2% $2,204,000 2% Boys Town $110,830,000 830 0 0% 108 0 0% $0 0% Hubbard $19,585,000 $1,577,000 8% 234 102 44% 135 5 4% La Vista $1,130,953,000 $9,129,000 1% 11,699 434 4% 3,508 28 1% Omaha $50,942,888,000 $954,232,000 2% 398,152 22,773 6% 144,439 3,048 2% Papillion $1,984,249,000 $53,566,000 3% 17,964 1811 10% 6,063 168 3% Ralston $688,960,000 $19,314,000 3% 6,065 539 9% 2,413 87 4% Tekamah $227,448,000 1,892 1416 75% 1,271 142 11% $37,608,000 17% Unincorporated $202,708,000 1,588 20 1% 1,480 0 0% Burt $351,000 0% Unincorporated $424,982,000 5,443 0 0% 2,859 0 0% Dakota $0 0% Unincorporated $6,544,150,000 55,064 3607 7% 21,336 582 3% Douglas $92,182,000 2% Unincorporated $4,568,441,000 35,834 3583 10% 13,539 495 4% Sarpy $114,937,000 3% Grand Total $72,067,415,000 $1,430,119,000 2% 588,628 39679 7% 216,026 5581 3% Source: HAZUS- MH MR 4 Vulnerability Rating = Medium: 1 to 10 percent of people vulnerable; 1 to 10 percent of property damaged or destroyed. Both the City of Hubbard and the City of Tekamah have damage ratios that exceed 25 percent. In Hubbard, 44 percent of the population is vulnerable to being displaced and in Tekamah, 17 percent of total building value could be damaged and 75 percent of the population is at risk. However, for the planning area as a whole, the displaced population is 7 percent of the total exposure and 3 percent of the building value is at risk. Maximum Threat = Medium: 5 percent to 25 percent of Community Devastated. Papio- Dlissouri Ricer NRD 3.62 Dlulti- Hazard Dlitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Table 3.22. Dam Failure Vulnerability Details for All Dams Sorted by Jurisdiction Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.63 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 d d E V V1 O 'a O O N C . N R E H N N W 0 N R R R C N W C 0 E C. C. N ame Q- C. H C. N N 'a Da D Number Count Jurisdiction R Hp w x o a o oa o d W azcn o �-m o M m Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Bellevue $87,347,000 4664 1779 1678 1632 352 Cunningham Lake Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Bellevue $86,673,000 4498 1755 1658 1568 351 Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Bellevue $34,093,000 2344 1016 879 804 179 Zorinsky Lake Dam Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy Bellevue $24,118,000 1852 682 585 634 137 Wehrspann Dam Bellevue Total $232,231,000 5232 1019 Bennington NE02585 Douglas Bennington $4,685,000 279 85 59 115 7 Lake Dam 6 Bennington $4,685,000 85 7 Total Boys Town NE00307 Douglas Boys Town $3,000 0 0 0 7 0 Dam No 1 Boys Town $3,000 0 0 Total Hubbard Dam NE02700 Dakota Hubbard $3,043,000 182 102 25 105 5 Hubbard Total $3,043,000 102 5 Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas La Vista $3,412,000 549 121 85 198 15 Cunningham Lake Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas La Vista $1,757,000 437 86 64 163 7 Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas La Vista $10,501,000 371 38 25 152 4 Zorinsky Lake Dam Thompson NE02217 Sarpy La Vista $2,290,000 1621 184 103 550 1 Creek Dam Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy La Vista $9,412,000 286 5 0 123 1 Wehrspann Dam La Vista Total $27,372,000 434 28 Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Offutt AFB $1,299,000 1453 15 4 239 0 Cunningham Lake Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Offutt AFB $1,958,000 2209 48 26 428 0 Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Offutt AFB $321,000 756 14 3 189 0 Zorinsky Lake Dam Offutt AFB Total $3,578,000 77 0 Bennington NE02585 Douglas Omaha $174,302,000 10147 2554 2343 3061 251 Lake Dam 6 Boys Town NE00307 Douglas Omaha $8,090,000 1067 187 119 411 5 Dam No 1 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.63 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Papio-Dlissouri Ricer NRD 3.64 Dlulti- Hazard Dlitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 d � � d V1 O O O N C. N R E H N N W N R N R R C K W C f0 o c E C. C. Q- C. C. N N Dam Name Dam Number Count Jurisdiction - p w a o a a z v m m Boys Town NE00031 Douglas Omaha $2,514,000 427 38 8 208 0 Dam No 2 Candlewood NE00138 Douglas Omaha $38,489,000 4143 457 344 932 16 Dam Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Omaha $1,001,864,000 20375 8301 7172 8493 1283 Cunningham Lake Indian Creek NE02426 Douglas Omaha $0 0 0 0 0 0 Golf Course Dam #1 Lonergan NE00030 Douglas Omaha $1,730,000 10 4 0 11 0 Dam Papio Dam NE02784 Douglas Omaha $3,473,000 279 18 3 88 0 Site 13 Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Omaha $873,733,000 21419 9287 8526 7165 1172 Lake Dam Zorinsky NE02735 Douglas Omaha $0 2 0 0 4 0 Basin No. 3 Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Omaha $187,513,000 6943 1927 1741 2823 321 Zorinsky Lake Dam Omaha Total $2,291,708,000 22773 3048 Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Papillion $3,086,000 838 72 25 337 2 Cunningham Lake Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Papillion $4,662,000 745 40 18 321 2 Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Papillion $48,439,000 2534 668 468 1025 52 Zorinsky Lake Dam Papio Dam NE02430 Sarpy Papillion $11,000 299 3 0 104 0 Site 21 Shadow Lake NE02830/NE02831 Sarpy Papillion $2,629,000 994 87 42 319 0 and Midland Lake Dams Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy Papillion $80,217,000 3118 941 638 1248 112 Wehrspann Dam Papillion Total $139,044,000 1811 168 Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Ralston $26,707,000 697 300 237 328 48 Cunningham Lake Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Ralston $19,502,000 697 239 179 328 39 Lake Dam Ralston Total $46,209,000 539 87 Tekamah 5A NE01690 Burt Tekamah $59,225,000 1219 954 592 808 134 Tekamah 22A NE01597 Burt Tekamah $11,487,000 774 462 272 547 8 Tekamah Total $70,712,000 1416 142 Tekamah 5A NE01690 Burt Unincorporated $389,000 121 13 0 93 0 Burt Tekamah 22A NE01597 Burt Unincorporated $130,000 26 7 1 27 0 Burt Unincorporated $519,000 20 0 Burt Total Papio-Dlissouri Ricer NRD 3.64 Dlulti- Hazard Dlitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Papio-Nlissouri Ricer NRD 3.65 Nlulti- Hazard Nlitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 d � � d V1 O O O N C. N R E H W N R R R C W C o c E C. C. Q- C. C. N N Dam Name Dam Number Count Jurisdiction p w a o a a z v m m Hubbard Dam NE02700 Dakota Unincorporated $0 10 0 0 10 0 Dakota Unincorporated $0 0 0 Dakota Total Bennington NE02585 Douglas Unincorporated $2,722,000 1120 248 176 491 4 Lake Dam 6 Douglas Boys Town NE00031 Douglas Unincorporated $570,000 110 16 2 42 0 Dam No 2 Douglas Candlewood NE00138 Douglas Unincorporated $10,265,000 771 256 241 321 71 Dam Douglas Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Unincorporated $19,867,000 1076 200 136 553 20 Cunningham Douglas Lake Indian Creek NE02426 Douglas Unincorporated $192,000 484 6 0 174 0 Golf Course Douglas Dam #1 Lonergan NE00030 Douglas Unincorporated $1,845,000 65 2 0 31 0 Dam Douglas Papio Dam NE02784 Douglas Unincorporated $3,183,000 1080 113 61 409 5 Site 13 Douglas Sachs - Palmer NE02638 Douglas Unincorporated $19,000 81 1 0 45 0 Dam Douglas Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Unincorporated $16,916,000 1538 391 353 469 28 Lake Dam Douglas Zorinsky NE02735 Douglas Unincorporated $1,587,000 26 3 0 17 0 Basin No. 3 Douglas Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Unincorporated $123,012,000 3808 2371 2162 1317 454 Zorinsky Lake Douglas Dam Unincorporated $180,178,000 3607 582 Douglas Total Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Unincorporated $65,199,000 3431 1050 791 1264 128 Cunningham Sarpy Lake Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Unincorporated $60,895,000 3429 1044 811 1261 119 Lake Dam Sarpy Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Unincorporated $39,741,000 2997 618 455 1231 93 Zorinsky Lake Sarpy Dam Hanson Lake NE02653 Sarpy Unincorporated $94,000 200 14 2 143 0 Dam Sar Lakewood NE02513/NE02512 Sarpy Unincorporated $159,000 667 5 0 250 0 Villages Sarpy Upper and Lower Dams Papio Dam NE02430 Sarpy Unincorporated $172,000 72 4 0 44 0 Site 21 Sar Shadow Lake NE02830/NE02831 Sarpy Unincorporated $0 12 0 0 7 0 and Midland Sarpy Lake Dams Thompson NE02217 Sarpy Unincorporated $0 72 0 0 32 0 Creek Dam Sar Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy Unincorporated $68,942,000 3195 848 690 1219 155 Wehrspann Sarpy Dam Unincorporated $235,202,000 3583 495 Sarpy Total Grand Total $3,234,484,000 39679 5581 Papio-Nlissouri Ricer NRD 3.65 Nlulti- Hazard Nlitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Potential Losses to Existing Development Table 3.23 provides the potential economic losses that result from a failure of high- hazard dams in the planning area. Table 3.24 provides the estimated impact to people in the planning area including the displaced population as well as the population that would need shelter. In this table, the exposed population represents only the portion of the population that exists within the dam failure inundation area. Table 3.25 provides the estimated numbers and types of exposed or potentially damaged buildings in the inundation areas. In this table, the exposed building counts, by type, represent only the number of buildings that exist within the dam failure inundation area. The damaged building counts include all buildings that are estimated to have some degree of damage as a result of dam failure. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.66 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.23. Potential Estimated Economic Losses Due to Failure of High Hazard Dams Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.67 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Capital Rental Dam Building Contents Inventory Relocation Related Wages Income Dam Name Number County Jurisdiction Damage $ Damage $ Loss $ Loss $ Loss $ Loss $ Loss $ Total $ Tekamah 5A NE01690 Burt Tekamah $32,771,000 $25,597,000 $363,000 $50,000 $73,000 $357,000 $14,000 $59,225,000 Tekamah 5A NE01690 Burt Unincorporated $267,000 $122,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $389,000 Burt Tekamah 5A NE01690 Burt Total $33,038,000 $25,719,000 $363,000 $50,000 $73,000 $357,000 $14,000 $59,614,000 Tekamah 22A NE01597 Burt Tekamah $4,837,000 $6,327,000 $116,000 $10,000 $23,000 $169,000 $5,000 $11,487,000 Tekamah 22A NE01597 Burt Unincorporated $84,000 $46,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $130,000 Burt Tekamah 22A NE01697 Burt Total $4,921,000 $6,373,000 $116,000 $10,000 $23,000 $169,000 $5,000 $11,617,000 Hubbard Dam NE02700 Dakota Hubbard $1,577,000 $1,400,000 $18,000 $2,000 $1,000 $45,000 $0 $3,043,000 Hubbard Dam NE02700 Dakota Unincorporated $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Dakota Hubbard Dam NE02700 Dakota Total $1,577,000 $1,400,000 $18,000 $2,000 $1,000 $45,000 $0 $3,043,000 Bennington Lake NE02585 Douglas Bennington $2,204,000 $2,376,000 $72,000 $3,000 $8,000 $22,000 $0 $4,685,000 Dam 6 Bennington Lake NE02585 Douglas Omaha $69,540,000 $100,522,000 $1,984,000 $250,000 $774,000 $1,052,000 $180,000 $174,302,000 Dam 6 Bennington Lake NE02585 Douglas Unincorporated $1,603,000 $1,072,000 $45,000 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $2,722,000 Dam 6 Douglas Bennington Lake NE02686 Douglas Total $73,347,000 $103,970,000 $2,101,000 $254,000 $782,000 $1,075,000 $180,000 $181,709,000 Dam 6 Boys Town Dam NE00307 Douglas Boys Town $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 No 1 Boys Town Dam NE00307 Douglas Omaha $3,065,000 $4,845,000 $111,000 $6,000 $22,000 $39,000 $2,000 $8,090,000 No 1 Boys Town Dam NE00307 Douglas Total $3,065,000 $4,848,000 $111,000 $6,000 $22,000 $39,000 $2,000 $8,093,000 No 1 Boys Town Dam NE00031 Douglas Omaha $1,265,000 $1,224,000 $15,000 $1,000 $6,000 $3,000 $0 $2,514,000 No 2 Boys Town Dam NE00031 Douglas Unincorporated $338,000 $229,000 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $570,000 No 2 Douglas Boys Town Dam NE00031 Douglas Total $1,603,000 $1,453,000 $18,000 $1,000 $6,000 $3,000 $0 $3,084,000 No 2 Candlewood Dam NE00138 Douglas Omaha $14,540,000 $23,199,000 $288,000 $43,000 $191,000 $186,000 $42,000 $38,489,000 Candlewood Dam NE00138 Douglas Unincorporated $5,946,000 $4,262,000 $17,000 $12,000 $13,000 $11,000 $4,000 $10,265,000 Douglas Candlewood NE00138 Douglas Total $20,486,000 $27,461,000 $305,000 $55,000 $204,000 $197,000 $46,000 $48,754,000 Dam Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Bellevue $54,109,000 $31,410,000 $1,586,000 $75,000 $16,000 $133,000 $18,000 $87,347,000 Cunningham Lake Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.67 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.68 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Capital Rental Dam Building Contents Inventory Relocation Related Wages Income Dam Name Number County Jurisdiction Damage $ Damage $ Loss $ Loss $ Loss $ Loss $ Loss $ Total $ Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas La Vista $2,208,000 $1,185,000 $13,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $3,412,000 Cunningham Lake Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Offutt AFB $295,000 $822,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $177,000 $0 $1,299,000 Cunningham Lake Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Omaha $408,632,000 $556,761,000 $26,696,000 $1,067,000 $1,946,000 $6,161,000 $601,000 $1,001,864,000 Cunningham Lake Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Papillion $1,042,000 $1,940,000 $65,000 $1,000 $4,000 $34,000 $0 $3,086,000 Cunningham Lake Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Ralston $11,298,000 $14,160,000 $706,000 $25,000 $41,000 $465,000 $12,000 $26,707,000 Cunningham Lake Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Unincorporated $8,713,000 $10,390,000 $674,000 $11,000 $25,000 $49,000 $5,000 $19,867,000 Cunningham Lake Douglas Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Unincorporated $33,665,000 $29,943,000 $1,058,000 $53,000 $143,000 $313,000 $24,000 $65,199,000 Cunningham Lake Sar Papio Site 11- NE01618 Douglas Total $519,962,000 $646,611,000 $30,803,000 $1,237,000 $2,175,000 $7,332,000 $661,000 $1,208,781,000 Cunningham Lake Indian Creek Golf NE02426 Douglas Omaha $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Course Dam #1 Indian Creek Golf NE02426 Douglas Unincorporated $84,000 $106,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $192,000 Course Dam #1 1 Douglas Indian Creek NE02426 Douglas Total $84,000 $106,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $192,000 Golf Course Dam #1 Lonergan Dam NE00030 Douglas Omaha $620,000 $1,053,000 $37,000 $1,000 $8,000 $10,000 $1,000 $1,730,000 Lonergan Dam NE00030 Douglas Unincorporated $76,000 $39,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,845,000 Douglas Lonergan Dam NE00030 Douglas Total $696,000 $1,092,000 $37,000 $1,000 $8,000 $10,000 $1,000 $3,575,000 Papio Dam Site NE02784 Douglas Omaha $1,102,000 $2,163,000 $187,000 $6,000 $2,000 $8,000 $5,000 $3,473,000 13 Papio Dam Site NE02784 Douglas Unincorporated $1,710,000 $1,432,000 $29,000 $2,000 $2,000 $8,000 $0 $3,183,000 13 Douglas Papio Dam Site NE02784 Douglas Total $2,812,000 $3,595,000 $216,000 $8,000 $4,000 $16,000 $5,000 $6,656,000 13 Sachs - Palmer NE02638 Douglas Unincorporated $11,000 $8,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,000 Dam Douglas Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Bellevue $52,907,000 $31,670,000 $1,811,000 $75,000 $18,000 $173,000 $19,000 $86,673,000 Lake Dam Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas La Vista $1,142,000 $606,000 $6,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,757,000 Lake Dam Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Offutt AFB $577,000 $1,131,000 $6,000 $0 $0 $244,000 $0 $1,958,000 Lake Dam Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Omaha $387,030,000 $462,744,000 $16,075,000 $946,000 $2,219,000 $4,060,000 $659,000 $873,733,000 Lake Dam Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.68 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.69 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Capital Rental Dam Building Contents Inventory Relocation Related Wages Income Dam Name Number County Jurisdiction Damage $ Damage $ Loss $ Loss $ Loss $ Loss $ Loss $ Total $ Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Papillion $1,555,000 $2,951,000 $94,000 $1,000 $9,000 $52,000 $0 $4,662,000 Lake Dam Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Ralston $8,016,000 $10,569,000 $437,000 $18,000 $33,000 $420,000 $9,000 $19,502,000 Lake Dam Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Unincorporated $9,690,000 $7,120,000 $36,000 $13,000 $27,000 $20,000 $10,000 $16,916,000 Lake Dam Douglas Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Unincorporated $31,117,000 $28,405,000 $850,000 $49,000 $143,000 $308,000 $23,000 $60,895,000 Lake Dam Sar Standing Bear NE01066 Douglas Total $492,034,000 $545,196,000 $19,315,000 $1,104,000 $2,449,000 $5,277,000 $721,000 $1,066,096,000 Lake Dam Zorinsky Basin NE02735 Douglas Omaha $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No. 3 Zorinsky Basin NE02735 Douglas Unincorporated $418,000 $1,068,000 $91,000 $3,000 $1,000 $4,000 $2,000 $1,587,000 No.3 Douglas Zorinsky Basin NE02736 Douglas Total $418,000 $1,068,000 $91,000 $3,000 $1,000 $4,000 $2,000 $1,587,000 No. 3 Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Bellevue $21,761,000 $12,158,000 $110,000 $38,000 $4,000 $12,000 $10,000 $34,093,000 Zorinsky Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas La Vista $2,424,000 $7,334,000 $651,000 $24,000 $10,000 $29,000 $29,000 $10,501,000 Zorinsky Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Offutt AFB $214,000 $107,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $321,000 Zorinsky Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Omaha $68,438,000 $107,803,000 $10,163,000 $194,000 $326,000 $488,000 $101,000 $187,513,000 Zorinsky Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Papillion $17,597,000 $29,494,000 $807,000 $42,000 $139,000 $342,000 $18,000 $48,439,000 Zorinsky Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Unincorporated $63,593,000 $57,311,000 $1,462,000 $153,000 $215,000 $211,000 $67,000 $123,012,000 Zorinsky Lake Douglas Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Unincorporated $20,026,000 $18,846,000 $589,000 $36,000 $97,000 $142,000 $5,000 $39,741,000 Zorinsky Lake Sarpy Dam Papio Site 18- NE02186 Douglas Total $194,053,000 $233,053,000 $13,782,000 $487,000 $791,000 $1,224,000 $230,000 $443,620,000 Zorinsky Lake Dam Hanson Lake NE02663 Sarpy Unincorporated $58,000 $36,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $94,000 Dam Sar Lakewood NE02613 Sarpy Unincorporated $82,000 $76,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $159,000 Villages Upper /NE0251 Sarpy and Lower Dams 2 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.69 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Source: HAZUS -MH MR 4 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.70 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Capital Rental Dam Building Contents Inventory Relocation Related Wages Income Dam Name Number County Jurisdiction Damage $ Damage $ Loss $ Loss $ Loss $ Loss $ Loss $ Total $ Papio Dam Site NE02430 Sarpy Papillion $4,000 $7,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,000 21 Papio Dam Site NE02430 Sarpy Unincorporated $76,000 $85,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $172,000 21 Sar Papio Dam Site NE02430 Sarpy Total $80,000 $92,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $183,000 21 Shadow Lake and NE02830 Sarpy Papillion $1,520,000 $1,095,000 $9,000 $0 $1,000 $4,000 $0 $2,629,000 Midland Lake /NE0283 Dams 1 Shadow Lake and NE02830 Sarpy Unincorporated $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Midland Lake /NE0283 Sarpy Dams 1 Shadow Lake NE02830 Sarpy Total $1,520,000 $1,095,000 $9,000 $0 $1,000 $4,000 $0 $2,629,000 and Midland /NE0283 Lake Dams 1 Thompson Creek NE02217 Sarpy La Vista $1,316,000 $958,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $4,000 $0 $2,290,000 Dam Thompson Creek NE02217 Sarpy Unincorporated $12,000 $10,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Dam I Sar Thompson Creek NE02217 Sarpy Total $1,328,000 $968,000 $6,000 $4,000 $3,000 $4,000 $0 $2,290,000 Dam Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy Bellevue $15,156,000 $8,840,000 $78,000 $27,000 $3,000 $6,000 $8,000 $24,118,000 Wehrs ann Dam Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy La Vista $2,039,000 $6,686,000 $613,000 $22,000 $8,000 $27,000 $17,000 $9,412,000 Wehrs ann Dam Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy Papillion $31,848,000 $46,336,000 $1,203,000 $63,000 $208,000 $529,000 $30,000 $80,217,000 Wehrs ann Dam Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy Unincorporated $29,901,000 $35,115,000 $3,627,000 $57,000 $94,000 $119,000 $29,000 $68,942,000 Wehrs ann Dam Sar Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy Total $78,944,000 $96,977,000 $5,521,000 $169,000 $313,000 $681,000 $84,000 $182,689,000 Wehrs ann Dam Source: HAZUS -MH MR 4 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.70 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.24. Potential Estimated Impact to People Due to Failure of High Hazard Dams Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.71 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Population Exposed Displaced Needing Dam Name Dam Number County Jurisdiction Population Population Shelter Tekamah 5A NE01690 Burt Tekamah 1219 954 592 Tekamah 5A NE01690 Burt Unincorporated Burt 121 13 0 Tekamah 5A NE01690 Burt Total 1340 967 592 Tekamah 22A NE01597 Burt Tekamah 774 462 272 Tekamah 22A NE01597 Burt Unincorporated Burt 26 7 1 Tekamah 22A NE01597 Burt Total 800 469 273 Hubbard Dam NE02700 Dakota Hubbard 182 102 25 Hubbard Dam NE02700 Dakota Unincorporated Dakota 10 0 0 Hubbard Dam NE02700 Dakota Total 192 102 25 Bennington Lake NE02585 Douglas Bennington 279 85 59 Dam 6 Bennington Lake NE02585 Douglas Omaha 10147 2554 2343 Dam 6 Bennington Lake NE02585 Douglas Unincorporated Douglas 1120 248 176 Dam 6 Bennington Lake NE02585 Douglas Total 11546 2887 2578 Dam 6 Boys Town Dam NE00307 Douglas Boys Town 0 0 0 No 1 Boys Town Dam NE00307 Douglas Omaha 1067 187 119 No 1 Boys Town Dam NE00307 Douglas Total 1067 187 119 No 1 Boys Town Dam NE00031 Douglas Omaha 427 38 8 No 2 Boys Town Dam NE00031 Douglas Unincorporated Douglas 110 16 2 No 2 Boys Town Dam NE00031 Douglas Total 537 54 10 No 2 Candlewood Dam NE00138 Douglas Omaha 4143 457 344 Candlewood Dam NE00138 Douglas Unincorporated Douglas 771 256 241 Candlewood NE00138 Douglas Total 4914 713 585 Dam Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Bellevue 4664 1779 1678 Cunningham Lake Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas La Vista 549 121 85 Cunningham Lake Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Offutt AFB 1453 15 4 Cunningham Lake Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Omaha 20375 8301 7172 Cunningham Lake Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Papillion 838 72 25 Cunningham Lake Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Ralston 697 300 237 Cunningham Lake Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Unincorporated Douglas 1076 200 136 Cunningham Lake Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Unincorporated Sarpy 3431 1050 791 Cunningham Lake Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Total 33083 11838 10128 Cunningham Lake Indian Creek Golf NE02426 Douglas Omaha 0 0 0 Course Dam #1 Indian Creek Golf NE02426 Douglas Unincorporated Douglas 484 6 0 Course Dam #1 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.71 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Papio-Missouri Ricer NRD 3.72 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Population Exposed Displaced Needing Dam Name Dam Number County Jurisdiction Population Population Shelter Indian Creek NE02426 Douglas Total 484 6 0 Golf Course Dam #1 Lonergan Dam NE00030 Douglas Omaha 10 4 0 Lonergan Dam NE00030 Douglas Unincorporated Douglas 65 2 0 Lonergan Dam NE00030 Douglas Total 75 6 0 Papio Dam Site NE02784 Douglas Omaha 279 18 3 13 Papio Dam Site NE02784 Douglas Unincorporated Douglas 1080 113 61 13 Papio Dam Site NE02784 Douglas Total 1359 131 64 13 Sachs - Palmer NE02638 Douglas Unincorporated 81 1 0 Dam Douglas Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Bellevue 4498 1755 1658 Lake Dam Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas La Vista 437 86 64 Lake Dam Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Offutt AFB 2209 48 26 Lake Dam Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Omaha 21419 9287 8526 Lake Dam Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Papillion 745 40 18 Lake Dam Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Ralston 697 239 179 Lake Dam Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Unincorporated Douglas 1538 391 353 Lake Dam Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Unincorporated Sarpy 3429 1044 811 Lake Dam Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Total 34972 12890 11635 Lake Dam Zorinsky Basin NE02735 Douglas Omaha 2 0 0 No. 3 Zorinsky Basin NE02735 Douglas Unincorporated Douglas 26 3 0 No. 3 Zorinsky Basin NE02735 Douglas Total 28 3 0 No. 3 Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Bellevue 2344 1016 879 Zorinsky Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas La Vista 371 38 25 Zorinsky Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Offutt AFB 756 14 3 Zorinsky Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Omaha 6943 1927 1741 Zorinsky Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Papillion 2534 668 468 Zorinsky Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Unincorporated Douglas 3808 2371 2162 Zorinsky Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Unincorporated Sarpy 2997 618 455 Zorinsky Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Total 19753 6652 5733 Zorinsky Lake Dam Hanson Lake NE02653 Sarpy Unincorporated Sarpy 200 14 2 Dam Papio-Missouri Ricer NRD 3.72 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Source: HAZUS -MH MR 4 Papio-Dliyyouri Ricer NRD 3.73 Dltilti- Hazard Dlitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Population Exposed Displaced Needing Dam Name Dam Number County Jurisdiction Population Population Shelter Lakewood NE02513/NE02512 Sarpy Unincorporated Sarpy 667 5 0 Villages Upper and Lower Dams Papio Dam Site NE02430 Sarpy Papillion 299 3 0 21 Papio Dam Site NE02430 Sarpy Unincorporated Sarpy 72 4 0 21 Papio Dam Site NE02430 Sarpy Total 371 7 0 21 Shadow Lake and NE02830/NE02831 Sarpy Papillion 994 87 42 Midland Lake Dams Shadow Lake and NE02830/NE02831 Sarpy Unincorporated Sarpy 12 0 0 Midland Lake Dams Shadow Lake NE02830/NE02831 Sarpy Total 1006 87 42 and Midland Lake Dams Thompson Creek NE02217 Sarpy La Vista 1621 184 103 Dam Thompson Creek NE02217 Sarpy Unincorporated Sarpy 72 0 0 Dam Thompson Creek NE02217 Sarpy Total 1693 184 103 Dam Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy Bellevue 1852 682 585 Wehrs ann Dam Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy La Vista 286 5 0 Wehrs ann Dam Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy Papillion 3118 941 638 Wehrs ann Dam Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy Unincorporated Sarpy 3195 848 690 Wehrs ann Dam Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy Total 8451 2476 1913 Wehrs ann Dam Source: HAZUS -MH MR 4 Papio-Dliyyouri Ricer NRD 3.73 Dltilti- Hazard Dlitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Table 3.25. Potential Estimated Numbers and Types of Exposed / Potentially Damaged Buildings Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.74 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 —° °_ ? a�u a�'� a'� :° a :° a :° in o2 �= °•o ;o E ;a R ;a s p oQ_ s= R d siy R s: R a s= 75 so sE E R R R �� — y �� xm E� R(U EE R E E R� E,� R Ea' R a Ea R> E� R� �E- R W W 0� U 0 c Da 0Q� 00 Ow 000 Dam (0 Dam Name I Number I County I Jurisdiction Tekamah 5A NE01690 Burt Tekamah 753 30 7 6 7 3 2 808 133 1 0 0 0 0 0 134 Tekamah 5A NE01690 Burt Unincorporated 91 0 1 0 1 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burt Tekamah 5A NE01690 Burt Total 844 30 8 6 8 3 2 901 133 1 0 0 0 0 0 134 Tekamah 22A NE01597 Burt Tekamah 492 31 6 7 5 4 2 547 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Tekamah 22A NE01597 Burt Unincorporated 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burt Tekamah 22A NE01697 Burt Total 518 32 6 7 5 4 2 574 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Hubbard Dam NE02700 Dakota Hubbard 100 3 0 0 1 1 0 105 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Hubbard Dam NE02700 Dakota Unincorporated 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dakota Hubbard Dam NE02700 Dakota Total 110 3 0 0 1 1 0 115 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Bennington Lake NE02585 Douglas Bennington 98 7 9 0 0 0 1 115 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Dam 6 Bennington Lake NE02585 Douglas Omaha 258 362 67 17 14 7 11 3061 223 28 0 0 0 0 0 251 Dam 6 3 Bennington Lake NE02585 Douglas Unincorporated 451 25 8 5 1 0 1 491 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Dam 6 Douglas Bennington Lake NE02686 Douglas Total 313 394 84 22 15 7 13 3667 234 28 0 0 0 0 0 262 Dam 6 2 Boys Town Dam NE00307 Douglas Boys Town 0 3 2 1 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No 1 Boys Town Dam NE00307 Douglas Omaha 356 40 9 0 3 1 2 411 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 No 1 Boys Town Dam NE00307 Douglas Total 356 43 11 1 4 1 2 418 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 No 1 Boys Town Dam NE00031 Douglas Omaha 177 26 3 0 1 1 0 208 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No 2 Boys Town Dam NE00031 Douglas Unincorporated 37 4 1 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No 2 Douglas Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.74 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.75 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 U R 7 O y N d '� d U d .�? d d 7 d d d O d 01 O '- O E 7 E .Y E '� E G) E E = a ul ul 0� R v R � o = R oa R a 0� R > o� R � OLu R coo Dam ij Dam Name I Number I County I Jurisdiction Boys Town Dam NE00031 Douglas Total 214 30 4 0 1 1 0 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No 2 Candlewood Dam NE00138 Douglas Omaha 811 93 16 6 3 0 3 932 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 16 Candlewood Dam NE00138 Douglas Unincorporated 304 15 1 0 0 0 1 321 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 Douglas Candlewood NE00138 Douglas Total 111 108 17 6 3 0 4 1253 80 7 0 0 0 0 0 87 Dam 5 Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Bellevue 157 32 15 4 1 4 1 1632 352 0 0 0 0 0 0 352 Cunningham Lake 5 Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas La Vista 194 3 1 0 0 0 0 198 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Cunningham Lake Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Offutt AFB 164 4 3 1 1 64 2 239 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cunningham Lake Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Omaha 724 893 21 47 51 20 26 8493 126 18 3 0 0 0 0 1283 Cunningham Lake 3 3 2 Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Papillion 277 41 9 3 5 1 1 337 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Cunningham Lake Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Ralston 286 30 8 1 1 2 0 328 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 Cunningham Lake Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Unincorporated 473 51 20 5 3 1 0 553 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Cunningham Lake Douglas Papio Site 11- NE01518 Douglas Unincorporated 114 78 21 13 3 1 2 1264 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 Cunningham Lake Sarpy 6 Papio Site 11- NE01618 Douglas Total 113 113 29 74 65 93 32 1304 182 18 3 0 0 0 0 1848 Cunningham 58 2 0 4 7 Lake Indian Creek Golf NE02426 Douglas Omaha 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Course Dam #1 Indian Creek Golf NE02426 Douglas Unincorporated 150 14 6 1 1 1 1 174 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Course Dam #1 Douglas Indian Creek NE02426 Douglas Total 150 14 6 1 1 1 1 174 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Golf Course Dam #1 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.75 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.76 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 U R 7 O y N d '� d U d .�? d d 7 d d d O d a7 O 7 '- O R E R � E .Y R E '� R a E G) R > E R � E R = a ul ul 0� v o = oa 0� o� OLu coo Dam ij Dam Name I Number I County I Jurisdiction Lonergan Dam NE00030 Douglas Omaha 3 5 2 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lonergan Dam NE00030 Douglas Unincorporated 29 1 0 1 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Douglas Lonergan Dam NE00030 Douglas Total 32 6 2 2 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Papio Dam Site NE02784 Douglas Omaha 85 2 0 0 1 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Papio Dam Site NE02784 Douglas Unincorporated 367 28 9 1 1 1 2 409 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 13 Douglas Papio Dam Site NE02784 Douglas Total 452 30 9 1 2 1 2 497 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 13 Sachs - Palmer NE02638 Douglas Unincorporated 39 1 3 2 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dam Douglas Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Bellevue 150 36 16 4 0 4 0 1568 350 0 1 0 0 0 0 351 Lake Dam 8 Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas La Vista 158 4 1 0 0 0 0 163 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Lake Dam Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Offutt AFB 353 4 3 1 1 64 2 428 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake Dam Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Omaha 612 765 16 36 37 17 22 7165 113 35 0 0 0 0 0 1172 Lake Dam 6 2 7 Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Papillion 268 35 9 3 5 1 0 321 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Lake Dam Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Ralston 286 30 8 1 1 2 0 328 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 Lake Dam Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Unincorporated 427 28 7 3 2 0 2 469 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Lake Dam Douglas Standing Bear NE01065 Douglas Unincorporated 114 76 21 13 2 1 2 1261 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 Lake Dam Sarpy 6 Standing Bear NE01066 Douglas Total 102 978 22 61 48 89 28 1170 168 35 1 0 0 0 0 1718 Lake Dam 72 7 3 2 Zorinsky Basin NE02735 Douglas Omaha 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. 3 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.76 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.77 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 U R 7 O y N d '� d U d .�? d d 7 d d d O d 01 O 7 '- O R E R � E .Y R E '� R a E G) R > E R � E R = a ul ul 0� v o = oa 0� o� OLu coo Dam ij Dam Name I Number I County I Jurisdiction Zorinsky Basin NE02735 Douglas Unincorporated 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. 3 Douglas Zorinsky Basin NE02736 Douglas Total 17 4 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. 3 Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Bellevue 775 18 8 3 0 0 0 804 179 0 0 0 0 0 0 179 Zorinsky Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas La Vista 140 10 2 0 0 0 0 152 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 Zorinsky Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Offutt AFB 189 0 0 0 0 0 0 189 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zorinsky Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Omaha 247 240 77 14 12 0 8 2823 311 3 7 0 0 0 0 321 Zorinsky Lake 2 Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Papillion 899 84 20 5 12 1 4 1025 51 1 0 0 0 0 0 52 Zorinsky Lake Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Unincorporated 124 54 15 2 3 0 0 1317 453 1 0 0 0 0 0 454 Zorinsky Lake Douglas 3 Dam Papio Site 18- NE02185 Douglas Unincorporated 990 85 27 14 1 1 113 1231 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 Zorinsky Lake Sarpy Dam Papio Site 18- NE02186 Douglas Total 670 491 14 38 28 2 125 7541 109 6 7 0 0 0 0 1103 Zorinsky Lake 8 9 0 Dam Hanson Lake NE02663 Sarpy Unincorporated 135 5 2 1 0 0 0 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dam Sarpy Lakewood NE02513/ Sarpy Unincorporated 236 10 3 1 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Villages Upper NE02612 Sarpy and Lower Dams Papio Dam Site NE02430 Sarpy Papillion 95 6 2 0 0 0 1 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Papio Dam Site NE02430 Sarpy Unincorporated 36 3 3 2 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Sarpy Papio Dam Site NE02430 Sarpy Total 131 9 5 2 0 0 1 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.77 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Source: HAZUS -MH MR 4 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.78 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 U R 7 O y N d '� d U d .�? d d 7 d d d O d 01 O 7 '- O R E R � E .Y R E '� R a E G) R > E R � E R = a ul ul 0� v o= oa 0� o� OW coo Dam ij Dam Name I Number I County I Jurisdiction Shadow Lake and NE02830/ Sarpy Papillion 296 14 5 1 1 0 2 319 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Midland Lake NE02831 Dams Shadow Lake and NE02830/ Sarpy Unincorporated 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Midland Lake NE02831 Sarpy Dams Shadow Lake NE02830/ Sarpy Total 302 14 5 2 1 0 2 326 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 and Midland NE02831 Lake Dams Thompson Creek NE02217 Sarpy La Vista 534 13 2 0 1 0 0 550 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Dam Thompson Creek NE02217 Sarpy Unincorporated 26 3 1 2 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dam Sarpy Thompson NE02217 Sarpy Total 560 16 3 2 1 0 0 582 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Creek Dam Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy Bellevue 611 14 7 2 0 0 0 634 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 Wehrspann Dam Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy La Vista 112 8 3 0 0 0 0 123 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Wehrspann Dam Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy Papillion 110 93 23 6 12 1 4 1248 111 1 0 0 0 0 0 112 Wehrspann Dam 9 Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy Unincorporated 106 101 31 16 2 0 0 1219 152 2 1 0 0 0 0 155 Wehrspann Dam Sarpy 9 Papio Site 20- NE01882 Sarpy Total 290 216 64 24 14 1 4 3224 400 4 1 0 0 0 0 405 Wehrspann Dam 1 Source: HAZUS -MH MR 4 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.78 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Future Development Future development in areas located downstream from dams, in floodplains, or in inundation zones would increase the planning area's vulnerability to this hazard. When inundation maps are available, they should be consulted when determining areas of fixture development in order to minimize vulnerability. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.79 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 3.3.4 Drought Profile Hazard Description Drought is generally defined as a condition of moisture levels being significantly below normal for an extended period of time, over a large area, that adversely affects plants, animal life, and humans. It can also be defined in terms of meteorology, agriculture and hydrology. Meteorological drought is defined on the basis of the degree of dryness (in comparison to some "normal" or average amount) and the duration of the dry period. A meteorological drought must be considered as region - specific since the atmospheric conditions that result in deficiencies of precipitation are highly variable from region to region. Hydrological drought is associated with the effects of periods of precipitation (including snowfall) shortfalls on surface or subsurface water supply (i.e., streamflow, reservoir and lake levels, ground water). The frequency and severity of hydrological drought is often defined on a watershed or river basin scale. Although all droughts originate with a deficiency of precipitation, hydrologists are more concerned with how this deficiency plays out through the hydrologic system. Hydrological droughts are usually out of phase with, or lag the occurrence of, meteorological and agricultural droughts. It takes longer for precipitation deficiencies to show up in components of the hydrological system such as soil moisture, streamflow, and ground water and reservoir levels. As a result, these impacts are out of phase with impacts in other economic sectors. Agricultural drought links various characteristics of meteorological (or hydrological) drought to agricultural impacts, focusing on precipitation shortages, differences between actual and potential evapotranspiration, soil water deficits, reduced ground water or reservoir levels, and so forth. Plant water demand depends on prevailing weather conditions, biological characteristics of the specific plant, its stage of growth, and the physical and biological properties of the soil. Deficient topsoil moisture at planting may hinder germination, leading to low plant populations per hectare and a reduction of final yield. However, if topsoil moisture is sufficient for early growth requirements, deficiencies in subsoil moisture at this early stage may not affect final yield if subsoil moisture is replenished as the growing season progresses, or if rainfall meets plant water needs. The three different definitions all represent significant things in Nebraska. A meteorological drought is the easiest to determine based on rainfall data and is an easier drought to monitor from rain gauges and reports. An agricultural drought represents difficulty for Nebraska's agricultural -based economy and is also relatively easy to monitor based on crop viabilities for different regions. A hydrological drought means that stream and river levels are low, which also has an impact for surface water and ground water irrigators. In addition, in- stream discharges that fall below a pre- required level also place the state in regulatory difficulty with U.S. Fish and Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.80 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Wildlife and with neighboring states over cross - border flowage rights. Hydrologic drought is somewhat more difficult to monitor since it requires some field verification of stream levels. Nebraska is fortunate to have the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) on the campus of the University of Nebraska in Lincoln. The NDMC provides drought monitoring and technical assistance to all areas of the world. NDMC's website is found at http: / /www.drought.unl.edu /. Specific drought impacts by county are recorded at http: / /droughtreporter.unl.edu /. The impacts of drought can be categorized as economic, environmental, or social. Many economic impacts occur in agriculture and related sectors, including forestry and fisheries, because of the reliance of these sectors on surface and subsurface water supplies. In addition to obvious losses in yields in both crop and livestock production, drought is associated with increases in insect infestations, plant disease, and wind erosion. Droughts also bring increased problems with insects and disease to forests and reduce their growth. The incidence of forest and range fires increases substantially during extended droughts, which in turn, places both human and wildlife populations at higher levels of risk. Income loss is another indicator used in assessing the impacts of drought because so many sectors are affected. Although environmental losses are difficult to quantify, increasing public awareness and concern for environmental quality has forced public officials to focus greater attention and resources on these effects. Environmental losses are the result of damages to plant and animal species, wildlife habitat, air and water quality, forest and range fires, degradation of landscape quality, loss of biodiversity, and soil erosion. Some of the effects are short-term and conditions quickly return to normal following the end of the drought. Other environmental effects linger for some time or may even become permanent. Wildlife habitat, for example, may be degraded through the loss of wetlands, lakes, and vegetation. However, many species will eventually recover from this temporary aberration. The degradation of landscape quality, with increased soil erosion, may lead to a more permanent loss of biological productivity of the landscape. Social impacts mainly involve public safety, health, conflicts between water users, reduced quality of life, and inequities in the distribution of impacts and disaster relief. Many of the impacts specified as economic and environmental have social components as well. Although drought is not predictable, long -range outlooks may indicate an increased chance of drought, which can serve as a warning. 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. Periods of drought are normal occurrences in all parts of Nebraska. Drought in Nebraska is caused by severely inadequate amounts of precipitation that adversely affect farming and ranching, surface and ground water supplies, and uses of surface waters for navigation and recreation. Because of these impacts, drought can have significant economic and environmental impacts. Drought can also lead to increased probability and severity of wildfires and wind erosion. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.81 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Geographic Location /Extent The entire planning area is at risk to drought. Figure 3.21 is the isohyet map of the State of Nebraska which shows the average rainfall across the state. Eastern Nebraska receives more abundant rainfall than the west, and in the P -MRNRD area, average rainfall is 26 to 30 inches per year. In average years, this represents enough rainfall to prevent drought; however, it is during successive years of below - average rainfall that droughts impact this area. Figure 3.21. Nebraska Average Annual Rainfall in Inches ( Isohyet Map) Previous Occurrences Historical Droughts According to the NDMC's Drought Impact Reporter, during the period from January 1950 to July 2010, the counties in the planning area had between 97 and 101 reported drought impacts. Agricultural impacts were the most frequent type of reported impact for all counties in the planning area (See Table 3.26). Table 3.26. Drought Impacts Reported to the National Drought Mitigation Center's Drought Impact Reporter (January 1950 to July 2010) County Agricultural Impacts Fire Impacts Water /Energy Impacts Environmental Impacts Social Impacts Other Impacts Total Burt 35 2 23 4 5 28 97 Dakota 35 2 23 4 5 29 98 Douglas 35 4 23 4 5 30 101 Sarpy 35 2 25 4 5 30 101 Thurston 35 2 23 4 5 29 98 Washington 36 2 22 4 5 30 99 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.82 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 • 1950s Drought— Drought during this period (worst in 1953) caused more than $160 million in crop and livestock losses to Nebraska farmers. • 1987 -1989 Drought—As a result of this drought period, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation paid out over $15 million to Nebraska farmers who suffered drought- induced agriculture losses. The entire state of Nebraska was eligible for emergency cattle haying and feeding on idle federal lands. • 2000—Drought during this year was one of the worst in recorded history in Nebraska. The estimated losses to the economy were $1.15 billion, $600 million of which was lost from the agriculture industry. • 2001—Continued drought conditions along the Missouri River caused low water flows and related decrease in dam energy production at hydroelectric dams that supply a portion of Nebraska's electric power. • 2002 —All counties in Nebraska were declared federal disaster areas due to the drought. Drought conditions in 2002 reduced corn production in Nebraska by 17 percent, to the lowest figure since 1995. • 2003—During 2003, the USDA designated 92 Nebraska counties agricultural disaster areas due to losses stemming from continued drought conditions. Sustained drought conditions resulted in clogged sewer lines, as tree roots invaded sewer space in search of water. As a result, some water supply problems were experienced. • 2005-2009—Available data on recent drought periods in the P -MRNRD was obtained from the HPRCC. Specifically, the last five -years were analyzed by yearly quarters: January to March, April to June, July to September and October to December to determine periods of time in which there was a negative departure in precipitation that impacted the planning area. During the five -year period from 2005 to 2009 and the first quarter of 2010, at least some portion of the planning area experienced a negative departure from normal precipitation in 13 out of 21 quarters With the exception of 2007, there was negative departure from normal precipitation in the planning area during at least one quarter of all other years (NOAA Regional Climate Center, http: / /www.hprcc.unl.edu). – From January to March 2005, Dakota, Thurston, Burt, and Washington Counties experienced a negative departure from normal precipitation. – From April to June 2005, the extreme western edges of both Douglas and Sarpy County experienced a negative departure from normal precipitation. – From July to September 2005, the entire planning area experienced negative departure from normal precipitation. – From October to December 2005, Burt, Washington, Douglas and Sarpy Counties were 0.75 to 2.25 inches below normal precipitation. The very southern portion of Thurston County was right at or just below normal. Dakota County had above normal precipitation during this period. – From January to March 2006, Washington, Douglas, and Sarpy Counties had slightly below normal rainfall in portions of these counties. – From April to June 2006 all counties in the planning area experienced three to four inches below normal rainfall. Burt, Douglas, Thurston, and Washington Counties all had areas Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.83 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 that experienced more than a four -inch negative departure from normal rainfall. During this year, the sustained drought impacted the water supply for City of Blair in Washington County. According to the USDA's Risk Management Agency, payments for insured crop losses in the planning area as a result of drought conditions from 2000 to 2009 totaled $24,673,400. Insurance payments were the highest in Burt County followed by Sarpy and Washington. According to the 2009 Crop Insurance Profile from USDA's Risk Management Agency, 88 percent of cropland in Nebraska was insured. Table 3.27. Crop Insurance Claims Paid in P -MRNRD as a Result of Drought, 2000 to 2009 Crop Year County Name Crop Name COL Description COL Indemnity Paid 2000 Burt CORN Drought $473,327 2000 Burt SOYBEANS Drought $340,264 2001 Burt CORN Drought $202,942 2001 Burt SOYBEANS Drought $15,569 2002 Burt OATS Drought $498 2002 Burt CORN Drought $2,281,354 2002 Burt SOYBEANS Drought $487,997 2003 Burt CORN Drought $248,997 2003 Burt SOYBEANS Drought $423,187 2004 Burt CORN Drought $20,134 2004 Burt SOYBEANS Drought $69,828 2005 Burt CORN Drought $141,583 2005 Burt SOYBEANS Drought $139,517 2006 Burt CORN Drought $1,385,382 2006 Burt SOYBEANS Drought $81,787 2007 Burt CORN Drought $84,210 2007 Burt SOYBEANS Drought $42,025 2008 Burt CORN Drought $7,036 2008 Burt SOYBEANS Drought $383,983 2009 Burt SOYBEANS Drought $6,554 Burt Total $6,836,173 2000 Dakota OATS Drought $1,963 2000 Dakota CORN Drought $282,323 2000 Dakota POPCORN Drought $318 2000 Dakota SOYBEANS Drought $234,145 2001 Dakota CORN Drought $98,108 2001 Dakota SOYBEANS Drought $14,356 2002 Dakota CORN Drought $40,253 2002 Dakota SOYBEANS Drought $39,321 2003 Dakota CORN Drought $53,164 2003 Dakota SOYBEANS Drought $648,365 2004 Dakota CORN Drought $21,775 2004 Dakota SOYBEANS Drought $127,942 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.84 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Crop Year County Name Crop Name COL Description COL Indemnity Paid 2005 Dakota CORN Drought $28,094 2005 Dakota SOYBEANS Drought $2,040 2006 Dakota CORN Drought $545,753 2006 Dakota POPCORN Drought $2,229 2006 Dakota SOYBEANS Drought $26,863 2007 Dakota CORN Drought $53,334 2007 Dakota SOYBEANS Drought $3,724 2008 Dakota CORN Drought $144,858 2008 Dakota SOYBEANS Drought $173,656 2009 Dakota SOYBEANS Drought $1,383 Dakota Total $2,543,966 2000 Douglas WHEAT Drought $390 2000 Douglas CORN Drought $7,035 2000 Douglas SOYBEANS Drought $6,916 2001 Douglas CORN Drought $58,166 2001 Douglas SOYBEANS Drought $26,417 2002 Douglas CORN Drought $380,848 2002 Douglas SOYBEANS Drought $107,024 2003 Douglas CORN Drought $96,665 2003 Douglas GRAIN SORGHUM Drought $2,623 2003 Douglas SOYBEANS Drought $217,296 2004 Douglas SOYBEANS Drought $3,677 2005 Douglas CORN Drought $6,491 2005 Douglas SOYBEANS Drought $10,031 2006 Douglas CORN Drought $62,660 2006 Douglas SOYBEANS Drought $20,658 2007 Douglas CORN Drought $12,191 2007 Douglas SOYBEANS Drought $25,448 2008 Douglas CORN Drought $2,615 2008 Douglas SOYBEANS Drought $126,192 Douglas Total $1,173,343 2000 Sarpy WHEAT Drought $98 2000 Sarpy CORN Drought $217,772 2000 Sarpy SOYBEANS Drought $187,737 2001 Sarpy CORN Drought $280,711 2001 Sarpy SOYBEANS Drought $46,449 2002 Sarpy CORN Drought $2,923,589 2002 Sarpy GRAIN SORGHUM Drought $189 2002 Sarpy SOYBEANS Drought $304,108 2003 Sarpy CORN Drought $491,999 2003 Sarpy GRAIN SORGHUM Drought $12,882 2003 Sarpy SOYBEANS Drought $563,481 2004 Sarpy CORN Drought $763 2004 Sarpy SOYBEANS Drought $56,736 2005 Sarpy CORN Drought $26,433 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.8� Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Crop Year County Name Crop Name COL Description COL Indemnity Paid 2005 Sarpy GRAIN SORGHUM Drought $2,931 2005 Sarpy SOYBEANS Drought $11,609 2006 Sarpy WHEAT Drought $8,964 2006 Sarpy CORN Drought $193,177 2006 Sarpy GRAIN SORGHUM Drought $1,451 2006 Sarpy SOYBEANS Drought $31,472 2007 Sarpy CORN Drought $125,091 2007 Sarpy GRAIN SORGHUM Drought $11,923 2007 Sarpy SOYBEANS Drought $12,887 2008 Sarpy CORN Drought $64,842 2008 Sarpy SOYBEANS Drought $104,406 Sarpy Total $5,681,700 2000 Thurston OATS Drought $12,519 2000 Thurston CORN Drought $992,306 2000 Thurston SOYBEANS Drought $516,633 2001 Thurston OATS Drought $609 2001 Thurston CORN Drought $116,344 2001 Thurston SOYBEANS Drought $8,454 2002 Thurston OATS Drought $5,200 2002 Thurston CORN Drought $404,844 2002 Thurston SOYBEANS Drought $122,182 2003 Thurston CORN Drought $21,836 2003 Thurston SOYBEANS Drought $80,640 2004 Thurston CORN Drought $66,957 2004 Thurston SOYBEANS Drought $213,721 2005 Thurston CORN Drought $68,059 2005 Thurston SOYBEANS Drought $11,133 2006 Thurston OATS Drought $11,434 2006 Thurston CORN Drought $513,634 2006 Thurston POPCORN Drought $2,162 2006 Thurston SOYBEANS Drought $13,375 2007 Thurston CORN Drought $31,631 2008 Thurston CORN Drought $79,655 2008 Thurston SOYBEANS Drought $447,624 2009 Thurston SOYBEANS Drought $12,312 Thurston Total $3,753,264 2000 Washington CORN Drought $58,599 2000 Washington SOYBEANS Drought $89,482 2001 Washington CORN Drought $44,581 2001 Washington GRAIN SORGHUM Drought $1,155 2001 Washington SOYBEANS Drought $10,278 2002 Washington CORN Drought $1,079,419 2002 Washington SOYBEANS Drought $182,442 2003 Washington CORN Drought $472,532 2003 Washington SOYBEANS Drought $832,872 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.86 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Crop Year County Name Crop Name COL Description COL Indemnity Paid 2004 Washington CORN Drought $3,529 2004 Washington SOYBEANS Drought $23,054 2005 Washington CORN Drought $87,795 2005 Washington SOYBEANS Drought $30,405 2006 Washington WHEAT Drought $494 2006 Washington CORN Drought $181,076 2006 Washington SOYBEANS Drought $27,475 2007 Washington WHEAT Drought $64,271 2007 Washington SOYBEANS Drought $8,092 2008 Washington WHEAT Drought $191 2008 Washington CORN Drought $109,969 2008 Washington SOYBEANS Drought $1,370,670 2009 Washington SOYBEANS Drought $6,572 Washington Total $4,684,954 Grand Total $24,673,400 Source: USDA Risk Management Agency, 2010; COL =Cause of Loss History Rating = High: The event has happened four or more times in 100 years. Probability of Future Occurrence Lack of precipitation for a given area is the primary contributor to drought conditions. Since precipitation levels cannot be predicted long -term, it is difficult to determine the probability of fixture occurrences of drought. Figure 3.22 shows the Palmer Drought Severity Index for the U.S. from 1895 to 1995. The planning area is in a region of Nebraska that experienced severe and extreme drought 10 to 14.9 percent of the time during that 100 year period. Papio- Nlissouri Ricer NRD 3.87 Nlulti- Hazard Nlitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Figure 3.22. United States Percent of Time in Drought, 1985 -1995 Palmer Drought Severity Index 1895-1996 of tiFm PDSI j 3 0 18% in I -m ■ 1m. to I!-W. W AMR ar � P&Aar SrU U14 It T W Kee vi -1, tli 01),111? &A JfM r. Nidh PMawm A 6olanaM Clmite � drrw+w i 0161 AM a qwpAt*r Prufolwti, j: prepsrod at Lfte Mh it or m M Ormgla Mru gaowi t~ all-W Note: Blue rectangle is the approximate location of the planning area Probability Rating = High: Greater than 1 chance in ten years. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.88 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Phni July 2011 P efc �nt ar tlrn a to % evem 3 rid extrern -e OML119M Vulnerabilitv Overview Negative impacts of drought are primarily economic and environmental. Table 3.28 provides the acreage of farmland in each county in the planning area according to the 2007 Census of Agriculture. Approximately 76 percent of all land area in the P -MRNRD is used for agricultural purposes, meaning the planning area has a high exposure to this hazard. 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. Table 3.28. Farmland in the P -MRNRD County Farmland (acres) Total Acres Percent of Farmland Burt 275,041 315,520 87% Dakota 166,555 171,520 97% Douglas 83,374 217,600 38% Sarpy 100,835 158,720 64% Thurston 199,689 253,440 79% Washington 217,306 252,160 86% Total 1,042,800 1,368,960 76% Source: Land in Farms is from the 2007 Census of Agriculture: Total Acres is from city - data.com reported square miles converted to acres. Potential Losses to Existing Development Areas associated with agricultural use are vulnerable to drought conditions, which could result in a decrease in crop production or a decrease in available grazing area for livestock. According to the USDA's Risk Management Agency, (see Table 3.29) the average amount of annual claims paid for crop damage as a result of drought in the planning area was $2,467,300 for the ten -year period. According to the 2009 Nebraska Crop Insurance Profile from USDA's Risk Management Agency, 88 percent of the crops in Nebraska are insured with USDA Crop Insurance. The adjusted ten -year drought losses were calculated by multiplying the inverse of 88 percent (1.14) to the ten -year indemnity paid. From this data, annualized losses to crops as a result of drought were estimated to be $2,803,795. Using the value of crops from the 2007 Census of Agriculture as baseline, the annual percent of crops loss due to drought during the ten -year period from 2000 to 2009 was estimated to be 0.80 percent for the planning area. According to this estimate, Sarpy County is the most vulnerable to crop loss due to drought, with an estimated 1.84 percent annual loss. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.89 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.29. Estimated Crop Loss Resulting From Drought County Name 10 -Year Drought Indemnity Paid Adjusted 10 -Year Drought Losses (considering 88% insured) Estimated Annualized Losses 2007 Value of Crops Estimated Annual Percentage of Crops Lost Burt $6,836,173 $7,768,378.41 $776,837.84 $92,177,000 0.84% Dakota $2,543,966 $2,890,870.45 $289,087.05 $55,253,000 0.52% Douglas $1,173,343 $1,333,344.32 $133,334.43 $43,844,000 0.30% Sarpy $5,681,700 $6,456,477.27 $645,647.73 $35,126,000 1.84% Thurston $3,753,264 $4,265,072.73 $426,507.27 $60,364,000 0.71% Washington $4,684,954 $5,323,811.36 $532,381.14 $65,452,000 0.81% Total $24,673,400 $28,037,954.55 $2,803,795.45 $352,216,000 0.80% Vulnerability Rating = Low: Less than 1 percent of property damaged or destroyed. Maximum Threat Rating = Medium: 5 percent to 25 percent of community devastated. Future Development Increases in acres of planted crops would increase the exposure to drought- related agricultural losses. In addition, increases in population add additional strain on water supply systems to meet the growing demand for treated water, which also increases the potential for drought- related losses. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.90 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.3.5 Earthquakes Profile Hazard Description An earthquake is a sudden motion or trembling that is caused by a release of strain accumulated within or along the edge of Earth's tectonic plates. The severity of these motions is dependent on the amount of energy released from the fault or epicenter. Nebraska experiences small earthquakes on a routine basis, but few are of a magnitude that causes damage to buildings or infrastructure. Geographic Location /Extent The southeastern part of Nebraska is more at susceptible to earthquakes. Figure 3.23 shows the locations of seismic faults in Nebraska and Figure 3.24 that follows shows the Seismic Hazard Map for Nebraska. Figure 3.23. Fault Lines in Nebraska ,_r_ . rt a Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.91 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 ;c r-W IKP BOY cod.: a. LWSaI�# L4 in Orr %..I. F � 1 ' le m r -JLkIRS LITI] BsshrL _ Np ka 4�1 SIIN R FEATURES r� F�hn■Ip L,4R y ��f LFtt b r y 115 DirW In �atM1 I' � LU4ae Fiuk rr� W imw� d J i n om + � ■ � Y F } Lwb A * + ■ H U b�alot i.at -cnr. FaUIN ULM Source: "Earthquakes in Nebraska" by Raymond R. Burchett, "Educational Circular #ra" supported by contract NRC -04 -76 -315 U Nuclear Regulatory commission, First Edition 1979, Section edition [expanded] 1990, Conservation and Survey Division, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska - Lincoln Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.91 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.24. Nebraska Seismic Hazard Map 47 ' N % 42 40 N PD.nk Acceleration ( %9) with 2 Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years site: NEHRP B -C boundary National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project (2008) Source: United States Geological Survey, http: / /earthquake.usgs.gov /earthquakes /states /nebraska /hazards.php 30 2C 1la 11 116 191 1 10 8 0 4 2 Q The extent or severity of earthquakes is generally measured in two ways: 1) Magnitude Measurement utilizes the Richter Magnitude Scale and 2) Severity Measurement utilizes the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Richter Magnitude Scale The Richter magnitude scale was developed in 1935 by Charles F. Richter, of the California Institute of Technology, as a mathematical device to compare the size of earthquakes. The magnitude of an earthquake is determined from the logarithm of the amplitude of waves recorded by seismographs. Adjustments are included for the variation in the distance between the various seismographs and the epicenter of the earthquakes. On the Richter Scale, magnitude is expressed in whole numbers and decimal fractions. For example, a magnitude 5.3 might be computed for a moderate earthquake, and a strong earthquake might be rated as magnitude 6.3. Because of the logarithmic basis of the scale, each whole number increase in magnitude represents a tenfold increase in measured amplitude; as an estimate of energy, each whole number step in the magnitude scale corresponds to the release of about 31 times more energy than the amount associated with the preceding whole number value. Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale The effect of an earthquake on the Earth's surface is called the intensity. The intensity scale consists of a series of certain key responses such as people awakening, movement of furniture, damage to chimneys, and finally, total destruction. Although numerous intensity scales have been developed over the last several hundred years to evaluate the effects of earthquakes, the one Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.92 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 1D4 W 102`W ' 9�3W 9eW currently used in the United States is the Modified Mercalli (MM) Intensity Scale. It was developed in 1931 by the American seismologists Harry Wood and Frank Neumann. This scale, composed of 12 increasing levels of intensity that range from imperceptible shaking to catastrophic destruction, is designated by Roman numerals. It does not have a mathematical basis; instead it is an arbitrary ranking based on observed effects. The Modified Mercalli Intensity value assigned to a specific site after an earthquake has a more meaningful measure of severity to the nonscientist than the magnitude because intensity refers to the effects actually experienced at that place. The lower numbers of the intensity scale generally deal with the manner in which the earthquake is felt by people. The higher numbers of the scale are based on observed structural damage. Structural engineers usually contribute information for assigning intensity values of VIII or above. Previous Occurrences The following accounts of historical earthquakes in Nebraska are from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The only account that specifically mentions the planning area is the November 15, 1877 quake. • 1867. The first significant earthquake felt in Nebraska occurred in 1867, the year that statehood was achieved. The tremor occurred on April 24, 1867, and was apparently centered near Lawrence, Kansas. It affected an area estimated at 780,000 square kilometers including much of Nebraska. Since 1867, at least seven earthquakes of intensity V or greater have originated within Nebraska's boundaries. Several strong earthquakes centered in neighboring States have also been felt over limited portions of Nebraska. None of these caused damage. • 1877. Probably the strongest earthquake in Nebraska history occurred on November 15, 1877 There were two shocks 45 minutes apart; the second was the strongest. In North Platte the shock was reported to have lasted 40 seconds and intensity VII effects were noted. Buildings rocked in Lincoln, and walls were damaged in Columbus. The shock was strongly felt in Omaha. Cracked walls were reported in Sioux City, Iowa. The total felt area covered approximately 360,000 square kilometers including most of Nebraska and portions of Iowa, Kansas, the Dakotas, and northwestern Missouri. • 1902. On July 28, 1902, a moderate earthquake (intensity V) occurred near Battle Creek in northeastern Nebraska. The limited reports available indicate that this shock was felt at Yankton, South Dakota, and in a number of places in western Iowa. No damage was noted, although the tremor was reported "sufficient to rattle dishes and shake bell towers" at several points. • 1910. Several small earthquakes shook houses (intensity IV -V) in Columbus, Nebraska, on February 26, 1910. The shocks were apparently felt in the local area only. • 1934. On July 30, 1934, a strong earthquake centered in Dawes County, in the Nebraska Panhandle, affected a total area of about 60,000 square kilometers in Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming. The tremor damaged a few chimneys in Chadron, Nebraska (intensity Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.93 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 VI). In addition, some plaster fell and dishes and canned goods were thrown from shelves and cupboards. The shock was reportedly felt at about 125 places, including Sterling, Colorado, about 240 kilometers away. 1935. Two earthquakes, 4 minutes apart, the first strong, the second weak, shook the area near Tecumseh (Johnson County, Nebraska) and adjacent portions of Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri on March 1, 1935. In Tecumseh some chimneys were cracked and a few collapsed (intensity VI). A few windows were also broken and cracks appeared in plaster and stone walls. Some damage also occurred in Humboldt, Pawnee City, Peru, Shubert, Stella, and St. Marys, Nebraska, and in Riverton, Iowa. The total felt area covered approximately 130,000 square kilometers. 1964. About 233,000 square kilometers of western Nebraska, South Dakota, and border areas of Montana and Wyoming were jolted by a magnitude 5.1 earthquake shortly after 3: 00 AM, March 28, 1964 Six hours earlier, a mild shock centered near Van Tassell, Wyoming, had been felt over a small portion of the same area. The early morning shock of March 28th caused many cracks in a road about 16 kilometers south of Merriman, Nebraska. Some steep banks along the Niobrara River tumbled (intensity VII). Plaster fell in at Rushville, and part of a chimney toppled in Alliance. Slight damage was also reported in Martin and Deadwood, South Dakota. Broken goods in homes and stores were reported from various towns. The press reported that this shock was felt as far north as Alzada, Montana. • 1972. A magnitude 3.7 earthquake occurred in the north- central part of Nebraska on October 15, 1972. Intensity V effects were reported in Bassett but no damage occurred. The earthquake was also felt in Ainsworth and Newport. History Rating = Medium: The event has occurred more than once, but less than four times in the past 100 years Probability of Future Occurrence Figure 3.25 demonstrates that the probability of an earthquake with a magnitude greater than 5.0 in the P -MRNRD planning area in a 100 -year time period. The red oval shows the approximate NRD boundary. As shown in this graphic, the probability of a 5.0 Magnitude or greater earthquake in the next 100 years is between 0.00 and 0.02 percent. The probability converts to an estimated maximum recurrence interval of 5,000 years. The probability of a significant earthquake in any given year is unlikely. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.94 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.25. Probability of Magnitude 5.0 or greater within 100 Years -Omaha YrotmWAy p1 e2e1hlgt.ake with M > 5.0 within 100 y ews & 60 km U S G*ok" Suva 2]B 1 Model MMM&C I i P Yrna ie E 42 42 41'30 41' 00' CIO&M Probability $.W! axe t� 041 km 54 IOWA -98'00' -97'3V -97'00' 98'W 9' D(Yr -W W , 94 . 30 NJ =710h 11318: 11:99 ) Ea0"Umm pvb&W-* —UW4 DFYY dk. ftim *. E*k m 4 btwA ebeln; rWm blow. Source: United States Geological Survey hhttp: / /geohazards.usgs.gov /eqprob /2009 /index.php Probability Rating = Low: Less than 1 chance in 1,000 years. Site: ftpudm w Pd. . Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.95 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Vulnerabilitv Overview As discussed under the probability section, the probability of a 5.0 Magnitude or greater earthquake in the next 100 years is between 0.00 and 0.02 percent. Although a damaging event is unlikely, the potential impacts could be costly in the more urbanized areas of the P- MRNRD. Even a low- magnitude earthquake might cause damage to foundations and chimneys and could cause significant damages in areas with high housing density, particularly in Omaha. Potential Losses to Existing Development An analysis of a worst -case, probabilistic, 2,500 -year, 6.7 magnitude event, estimates that the total building related losses would be $369,347,000. The estimated loss amounts are shown by location in Table 3.30. Figure 3.26 through Figure 3.31 provide maps for each county showing the locations of earthquake losses. The darker shaded areas indicate higher levels of loss. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.96 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.30. Estimated Building Losses - 2,500 -Year, 6.7 Magnitude Earthquake Event Jurisdiction Cost Structural Damage $ Cost Non- Structural Damage $ Contents Dama e $ Inventory Loss $ Relocation Loss $ Capital Related Loss $ Wages Loss $ Rental Income Loss $ Total Burt County $651,000 $1,350,000 $440,000 $20,000 $403,000 $153,000 $178,000 $163,000 $3,358,000 Dakota County $1,069,000 $2,511,000 $776,000 $43,000 $790,000 $270,000 $351,000 $396,000 $6,206,000 Douglas Count $43,754,000 $117,570,000 $40,659,000 $1,538,000 $31,016,000 $15,077,000 $18,180,000 $17,281,000 $285,075,000 Sarpy County $10,101,000 $28,509,000 $9,335,000 $335,000 $6,550,000 $2,511,000 $3,208,000 $3,257,000 $63,806,000 Thurston Count $351,000 $830,000 $294,000 $23,000 $267,000 $86,000 $166,000 $110,000 $2,127,000 Washington Count $1,483,000 $3,709,000 $1,286,000 $64,000 $939,000 $374,000 $477,000 $443,000 $8,775,000 Total $57,409,000 $154,479,000 $52,790,000 $2,023,000 $39,965,000 $18,471,000 $22,560,000 $21,650,000 $369,347,000 Source: HAZUS -MH MR4 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.97 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.26. Burt County Estimated Building Losses - 2,500 -Year, 6.7 Magnitude Earthquake Event Sl -MqS) r' MT. - •till G17 �D1 • 1.71E id7 �+r= IL 1 I?JM jpr -5 I FIi IL h I - L ' 1 h I 1 y� • I �� fi��'OTr� 5a1�L I, �.OIl11tI6S NF 1 3s 1 Q ; t 1D Miles 1 �4 L L L I I J _xa �ti•� .e: SutR of ■+rv,.r.. '}W _ "-k— Iwa Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.98 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Phni July 2011 Figure 3.27. Dakota County Estimated Building Losses - 2,500 -Year, 6.7 Magnitude Earthquake Event f 11 I mw RtAds IDS -6,M[? - 1341,441 5trrar T341,4CI-I, Y;E tam VT w zA eaw AM63 ?J A OPM 1] SOUTH DAKOTA I .a L 0 4 M a� 7 IL O G4�s+� + L 4J�rs41* r Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.99 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.28. Douglas County Estimated Building Losses - 2,500 -Year, 6.7 Magnitude Earthquake Event I 0 %N a t a c � n� oz —o 0 G F J- f P21 io- Missouri River NRD 3.100 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Phni July 2011 Figure 3.29. Sarpy County Estimated Building Losses - 2,500 -Year, 6.7 Magnitude Earthquake Event 7 N N O u7 47 [+I 4 0 U Q) Q M _a i 0 �F Pa io- Missouri River NRD 3.101 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.30. Thurston County Estimated Building Losses - 2,500 -Year, 6.7 Magnitude Earthquake Event � r ' r �-^ O"Orx r I L tF a , 6G5AOc L=W Kres EM 00 or Greater -- _ S bca m - Papia W _ q o - 1 Li ti t, 4J�G y 1 _ �I - I L I 1 '1 OLTO N I . . - 0 SOUPDr. S� aw Nearaa►a Okk err+ Lq4+ OWA A Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.102 Figure 3.31. Washington County Estimated Building Losses - 2,500 -Year, 6.7 Magnitude Earthquake Event Z N G7 0 4 u2 Ci c J 1'. 8 i Z i } Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.103 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 According to this analysis, the planning area would have 0.48 percent damage to the total building /contents exposure in the planning area. Table 3.31. Earthquake Loss Ratio — 2,500 -Year, 6.7 Magnitude Earthquake Event Jurisdiction Total Earthquake Scenario Losses $ Building Exposure $ Loss Ratio Burt County $3,358,000 $508,265,000 0.66% Dakota County $6,206,000 $1,827,723,000 0.34% Douglas County $285,075,000 $58,760,034,000 0.49% Sarpy County $63,806,000 $13,258,677,000 0.48% Thurston County $2,127,000 $285,611,000 0.74% Washington County $8,775,000 $2,158,794,000 0.41% Papio Total $369,347,000 $76,799,104,000 0.48% Table 332 provides the anticipated numbers of buildings, by type and damage category, that would be damaged by this event according to the HAZUS analysis. Table 3.32. Expected Building Damage by Building Type — 2,500 -Year 6.7 Magnitude Earthquake Event County Building Type Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Totals Agriculture 13 7 1 0 21 Commercial 18 8 1 0 27 Education 1 0 0 0 1 Burt Government 1 1 0 0 2 Industrial 4 2 0 0 6 Other Residential 150 57 6 1 214 Religion 2 1 0 0 3 Single Family 140 29 4 0 173 Totals 329 105 12 1 447 Agriculture 7 3 1 0 11 Commercial 34 14 2 0 50 Education 1 0 0 0 1 Dakota Government 1 1 0 0 2 Industrial 11 5 1 0 17 Other Residential 253 105 9 1 368 Religion 2 1 0 0 3 Single Family 228 48 6 1 283 Totals 537 177 19 2 735 Agriculture 55 30 6 0 91 Commercial 902 424 80 6 1,412 Education 31 16 3 0 50 Douglas Government 16 7 1 0 24 Industrial 240 121 23 2 386 Other Residential 1,770 685 88 9 2,552 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.104 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 County Building Type Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Totals Religion 62 30 6 1 99 Single Family 7,506 1,630 222 24 9,382 Totals 10,582 2,943 429 42 13,996 Agriculture 21 12 2 0 35 Commercial 199 96 19 1 315 Education 6 3 1 0 10 Government 9 4 1 0 14 Sarpy Industrial 68 34 7 0 109 Other Residential 381 152 19 2 554 Religion 12 6 1 0 19 Single Family 2,159 473 65 7 2,704 Totals 2,855 780 115 10 3,760 Agriculture 1 1 0 0 2 Commercial 7 3 1 0 11 Education 1 0 0 0 1 Government 1 1 0 0 2 Thurston Industrial 2 1 0 0 3 Other Residential 66 23 3 0 92 Religion 1 0 0 0 1 Single Family 98 21 3 0 122 Totals 177 50 7 0 234 Agriculture 16 8 2 0 26 Commercial 40 18 3 0 61 Education 2 1 0 0 3 Government 1 0 0 0 1 Washington Industrial 15 7 1 0 23 Other Residential 159 61 7 1 228 Religion 3 1 0 0 4 Single Family 303 64 1 9 1 1 377 Totals 539 160 22 2 723 Grand Totals 15,019 4,215 604 57 19,895 Source: HAZUS -MH MR4 Vulnerability Rating = Low: Less than 1 percent of property damaged or destroyed. Maximum Threat = Low: Less than 5 percent of community devastated Future Development Overall the planning area has a low vulnerability to earthquake risk. Future development is not expected to increase this risk, other than contributing to the overall exposure of what would be damaged as a result of this unlikely event. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.10 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 3.3.6 Flooding Profile Hazard Description Flooding has been a major problem for many of the communities in the P- MRNRD. Many of the communities were settled and developed largely because of their proximity to water resources. A flood is partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas. Heavy precipitation can cause flooding either in the region of precipitation or in areas downstream. Heavy accumulations of ice or snow can also cause flooding during the melting stage. These events are complicated by the freeze /thaw cycles characterized by moisture thawing during the day and freezing at night. There are four main types of flooding in the planning area: riverine flooding, flash flooding, sheet flooding, and ice jam flooding. Riverine Flooding Riverine flooding is defined as the overflow of rivers, streams, drains, and lakes due to excessive rainfall, rapid snowmelt or ice melt. The areas adjacent to rivers and stream banks that carry excess floodwater during rapid runoff are called floodplains. A floodplain is defined as the lowland and relatively flat area adjoining a river or stream. The terms "base flood" and "100 - year flood" refer to the area in the floodplain that is subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Floodplains are part of a larger entity called a basin or watershed, which is defined as all the land drained by a river and its tributaries. Flash Flooding Flash flooding is characterized by rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source. This type of flooding impacts smaller rivers, creeks, and streams and can occur as a result of dams being breached or overtopped. Because flash floods can develop in a matter of hours, most flood - related deaths result from this type of event. Sheet Flooding In some cases, flooding may not be directly attributable to a river, stream, or lake overflowing its banks. Rather, it may simply be the combination of excessive rainfall or snowmelt, saturated ground, and inadequate drainage. With no place to go, the water will find the lowest elevations —areas that are often not in a floodplain. This type of flooding, often referred to as sheet flooding, is becoming increasingly prevalent as development exceeds the capacity of the drainage infrastructure, therefore limiting its ability to properly carry and disburse the water flow. Flooding also occurs due to combined storm and sanitary sewers being overwhelmed by the tremendous flow of water that often accompanies storm events. Typically, the result is water backing into basements, which damages mechanical systems and can create serious public health and safety concerns. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.106 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Ice Jam Flooding Ice jams occur when ice breaks up in moving waterways, and then stacks on itself where channels narrow or man -made obstructions constrict the channel. This creates an ice dam, often causing flooding within minutes of the dam formation. Ice formation in streams occurs during periods of cold weather when finely divided colloidal particles called "frazil ice" form. These particles combine to form what is commonly known as "sheet ice" (particularly in the Platte and Elkhorn Rivers). This type of ice covers the entire river. The thickness of this ice sheet depends upon the degree and duration of cold weather in the area. On the Platte River, especially, this ice sheet can freeze to the bottom of the channel in places. During spring thaw, the Platte and Elkhorn Rivers frequently become clogged with this winter accumulation of ice. Because of relatively low stream banks and channels blocked with ice, these rivers overtop existing banks and flow overland. Ice formation in the Missouri River is somewhat different from that in the Platte and Elkhorn Rivers. In the Missouri River, because of relatively fast velocities, "frazil ice" is not able to form "sheet ice." Instead, the "frazil ice" particles gradually enlarge and combine forming pads of ice commonly known as "pad ice." As this ice floats downstream, snags, bridge piers, or other obstructions or constrictions create conditions where ice pads may accumulate or stop flowing. Once this occurs, other ice pads may accumulate, gradually covering the entire river with "pad ice." This is commonly known as an "ice bridge." This condition can result in severe stage fluctuation as the "ice bridge" forms, as it consolidates, or breaks up. As additional "pad ice" floats downstream, the "ice bridge" grows in an upstream direction. As the "ice bridge" continues to form, it may thicken to the point where an "ice gorge" blocks the flow of the river in the channel. This can result in extremely rapid increases in upstream water surface elevations (WSELs) and resultant overbank flooding. Flooding caused by dam and levee failure is discussed in Section 3.3.3 and Section 3.3.6 respectively. Geographic Location /Extent Main Sources of Flooding in Planning Area The P -MRNRD has the distinction of having the three of Nebraska's major rivers within its boundary: the Platte River, Missouri River, and Elkhorn River. Missouri River Before large, Missouri River main stem dams were completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in the 1940s to 1960s, Nebraska communities' situation on the Missouri River had an extensive history of flooding. These communities include South Sioux City, Dakota City, Decatur, Blair, and Omaha. The entire reach of the Missouri River from the northwest corner of Dakota County to the southeast corner of Sarpy County is under the P- MRNRD's administration, which means that the P -MRNRD bears responsibility to manage the stormwater issues associated with the steep tributaries draining to the Missouri River bottomlands. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.107 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Platte River The second major Nebraska river which impacts the P -MRNRD is the Platte River, which flows along Sarpy County's southern border. Problems with the Platte River in the planning area have not been significant when compared to other communities outside the planning area that are on the Platte River, such as North Bend, Columbus, and Grand Island. However, Valley, Waterloo, and unincorporated areas of Sarpy County have historically been impacted by Platte River flooding. The most devastating and frequent flood events have been the result of ice jams typically forming just above highway or railroad bridges crossing the river. Elkhorn River The third major Nebraska river to impact the P -MRNRD is the Elkhorn River, which acts as the NRD's western border for Washington County. Like the Platte River, the Elkhorn's flood history is not as significant in the P -MRNRD as in other upstream locations such as Norfolk, West Point, Hooper, and Nickerson. However, the communities on the Elkhorn located in the P- MRNRD boundary that have experienced flooding include Arlington, Valley, Waterloo, and King Lake. The Elkhorn River can experience extreme flooding from both riverine and ice jam events. Large areas located in between the Platte and Elkhorn Rivers in Douglas and Sarpy County are especially prone to inundation. Other Rivers In addition to the three major Nebraska rivers, the Papillion Creek and its tributaties, which drains the majority of the Omaha metropolitan area, is within the P- MRNRD. The Papillion Creek Wastershed is moderately sloped compared to other Missouri River tributaries, but is capable of causing extreme flash flooding due to its shape and extent of urbanization. Jurisdictional Flood Hazard Maps and Descriptions For Burt County, Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMS) have not been produced. Therefore, the best available data for depicting the flood hazard and generating loss estimates for this county is a modeled floodplain using HAZUS-MH MR4. In the absence of DFIRM data, HAZUS was used to generate a 1 percent annual fl ood, or 100 -year fl ood, event for major rivers and creeks in this county (those with a 10 square mile minimum drainage area). A USGS 30 meter resolution digital elevation model (DEM) was used as the terrain base in the model. The software produces flood polygon and flood depth grids that represent the 1 percent annual chance flood. While not as accurate as official flood maps these floodplain boundaries are for use in GIS -based loss estimation. Effective DFIRMs were available for Douglas, Sarpy, and Thurston Counties. For Dakota and Washington Counties, preliminary DFIRMs were available during the development of this mitigation plan. Although these maps were not effective at the time of this planning effort, they were utilized in this risk assessment as the best available data. For the five counties, with either effective or preliminary DFIRMs, floodplain depth grids were generated using the hydrology and hydraulic models and the digital terrain models from which the DFIRM was derived. The Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.108 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 DFIRM depth grids for these counties were integrated into FEMA's HAZUS -MH MR4 loss estimation software to generate maps, as well as loss estimates which will be discussed in greater detail in the vulnerability assessment. Figure 3.32 to Figure 3.64 provide the HAZUS 1 percent annual chance floods for all counties and cities in the planning area. The maps are provided in alphabetical order first by county and then by city within each county. Locations of available critical facilities inventoried are included on the city -level maps. These will be discussed in greater detail in the vulnerability section. For Dakota, Douglas, Sarpy, Thurston, and Washington, Counties, the DFIRM depth grids are incorporated. Preceding each map is a general description of the flooding issues. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.109 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Burt County Combination Ditch runs from north to south in the County and the Missouri River runs along the eastern boundary. These rivers and their tributaries are the primary sources of flooding within the County. Figure 3.32. Burt County HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood t -eves War I � ' — IL I i - !h 17WEL 1 I � r �-- I.fl -Lr� 1 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.110 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Decatur The Missouri River floodplain follows the eastern boundary of city limits. In addition, Elm Creek and its floodplain cross the southeast corner of city limits. Figure 3.33. Decatur HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood o z ° u7 " .� 2 LO C y p 2 a a C] N LL H 4 y Y o' -W, 8 �i � ix Tekamah a� A r 4 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.111 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Tekamah Creek is the primary source of flooding for the City of Tekamah. The low -lying areas on the east side of town are subject to shallow flooding from Tekamah Creek and Tekamah Creek North Branch. North of the city, Mud Creek was largely eliminated as a source of flooding by the construction of an earthen dam. According to FEMA, this dam provides a 0.5 percent annual chance flood level of protection. Several topographic features contribute to the unusual flooding characteristics of the City of Tekamah. Tekamah is located on an alluvial delta, which was formed by the deposition of sediment transported from the hills west of the City. This sediment has accumulated for thousands of years and has resulted in a condition known as a perched stream. The deposition of post flood sediment has raised the channel banks to a higher elevation than the surrounding terrain. Therefore, when flooding occurs, water leaving the creek flows overland in sheet flow and never re- enters Tekamah Creek. A second hydraulic phenomenon occurs when the above condition is coupled with the extensive development of agricultural levees on Tekamah Creek to the east of town. These levees are capable of accommodating a 2 percent annual chance flood. However, because of water loss in upstream reaches, no flow greater than a 12 -year flood can reach these levees. Flows in excess of the 12 -year frequency are transported through sheet flow to a network of small surface drainage channels to the south of Tekamah Creek. To the north, floodwater is transported by sheet flow through Tekamah to the confluence of Tekamah and Mud Creeks. Here it is transported by inverted siphons beneath Tekamah Creek and then flows through surface drainage channels out of the area. Tekamah Creek North Branch has a steep gradient that is a major factor in the nature of flooding in this area. Another potential cause of flooding is debris such as dead trees, branches and logs under bridges and culverts east of the city, particularly on Tekamah Creek North Branch. The most severe flooding of Tekamah generally occurs in May and June and is caused by heavy rains west of the city (2006 Mitigation Plan). Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.112 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.34. Tekamah HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood Op' CD 0 8 � {� O " 4 x .1 s I m l I it + N- -■- x A .I r R 7 s + P r r o w u T � F A y Y J Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.113 Dakota County Dakota County is divided into two distinct topographic areas; first, the bottomlands along the Missouri River and secondly, the loess- covered upland hills west of the river. Historically, the Missouri River in this region has been a meandering stream subject to an extreme variety of discharges from a few hundred cubic feet per second (cfs) in the fall and winter to 100,000 cfs or more in the spring and early summer. The adjacent valley was subjected to frequent flooding and erosion damage. The construction of six large, upstream dams on the Missouri River in the Dakotas and Montana, the construction of a navigable channel as far upstream as Sioux City, Iowa, and the construction of levee systems, has transformed the stream into a stable channel with relatively uniform discharges throughout the year. The threat of flooding has been reduced considerably but not eliminated. Please refer to Table 3.17 for the locations of the six upstream dams. Flooding from the Crystal Lake bed is caused by surface runoff that collects in the lake bed. This is a local drainage problem that produces ponding water in the lake bed. Elk Creek and Pigeon Creek also are sources of flooding in Dakota County. Pigeon Creek has a deep sinuous bed upstream of Hubbard. Flooding is caused by locally intense rain storms of relatively short duration which are more or less centered over the basin. About a mile below Hubbard, Pigeon Creek enters the Missouri River bottomlands and becomes a bermed ditch. Elk Creek above Jackson also has a deep, sinuous channel in a floodplain which, in some areas is up to 2,000 feet wide. Flooding is caused by intense rain storms as described above, although the intensity of a storm which covers the basin is lower than on Pigeon Creek due to the greater size of the Elk Creek Basin. The Missouri River has bank stabilization works along this reach. These works protect Dakota County from bank erosion along the Missouri River. There are also levees or berms on the portions of Pigeon and Elk Creeks which are in the bottomlands. Characteristically, these levees have narrow top widths (less than ten feet), steep side slopes (greater than 1:3), and generally do not meet federal levee standards (Dakota County Flood Insurance Study, 1996). Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.114 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.35. Dakota County HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.115 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Phm July 2011 D 5 t¢ R0 i L i i —i � 5Uh r EwaJi:?C ; K7 p&" ■mWmnQ * - ■ 0,90 of %*M kr Lam. O,.1` III Dakota City The Missouri River follows the eastern boundary of city limits. Figure 3.36. Dakota City HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) L, q I� x 0 jr Lw41%Wtwd C�S, H40 Lix*;- Papio NRD "qy — Fes Smi i Per Wwkr r *rnrj Highways i 0 Er9RgWitCt -C E E MWE *MR Scamp Loco Boad7 + Lak + h," N" teams 4dFOEORM * OKM POW f i"10111% i } +• M RIO N!" a : r Ca vbn 0 d OA 0 -8 Mika N Vp 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A F., ., ChMSO.WtawdMM&"3W1H,LJSSWHMR4 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.116 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Homer The flooding source for Homer is Omaha Creek, which has caused serious flooding in the past. Figure 3.37. Homer HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) P r . '6 - 1� __ 2 DwA oftw cool - 5 HA,- UX~S Papio NRD Hop P* RYA 5naw i =:ith16E Wff*r'acMbfta - Mghways Sqlrfl[ilifit 0 E•rtrrrI)i �EMMM IP Akwft A � F*Abft Wa Roads & AJOW ■ &%WE FIW Cm- l ife — 1kreams + LIHIaSillia -a P pre 112 FlFaAb" .t 3 y--• Rslroads s PON 380Mr C* 0Uft ~ F11W#+ � Cies 05 Counties y 0 0,125 025 0.5 Miles �� � a��dl � rir'JeC for plyti+rg pvpdses only GdD y}.yhhF SM 4111111 NAYAka DNk K US4A'' f i Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.117 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Hubbard There is a small section of floodplain in the southeast portion of city limits. Figure 3.38. Hubbard HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) IF JIL /I - 11 O ID. 1 0.1 02 Miles I +I I l r I r l I oL sopl dhwMa18r xurposes only Jackson Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.118 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 f l d++ ❑ Tj • CWTH +Fta--N'3 C 06 - imrrw Lcub %s p6w r1R0 * F" S� j Aci2t�r Mbr Famourt -- ""kft Yf .L s Envwim'&r Crrier. _ V.U" ~Fspkam taq fly i Law ■ ID -bw DOO IV — SU*Vm* L .1 f4tMit �F R1�z � i ++ F& 1 A&&n SI�1 X' �/y j"A L dw_ O ID. 1 0.1 02 Miles I +I I l r I r l I oL sopl dhwMa18r xurposes only Jackson Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.118 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 No additional information. Figure 3.39. Jackson HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) 1 4 5 - 1 Diris (Hazard C d ria,�rrw L oc~s papa 1-m High — F+YS d& 0 041P 'ti44'1VrF4kG *4# * s W. * EmmNwntr Cemerm _ 'Aimmi p Ater Facilities Tara Pndds a Ll�fw ■ $rdwk C � Qw1h !do SartF7M Lklbri3m i T GIF P*&" Fft#hti Pare e�la4or� L¢n*f+ JW n FWAOM g a s Qa�es rS� ID 925 125 1 Miles an7ft oL�150N 'ILM °8"r"ra c zoo r.r,sr, .•.+,,4 �rpa�i South Sioux City Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.119 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 South Sioux City lies partially within the floodplain of the Missouri River and the old Crystal Lake bed. Flooding from these sources can occur as a result of rapid snowmelt, heavy rainfall, or a combination of both. Ice effects can also influence flooding along the Missouri River. Flooding from Crystal Lake bed is caused by surface runoff that collects in the lake bed. This is a local drainage problem that produces ponding water in the lake bed. Just north of the Crystal Lake area, Old Silver Lake Creek is a half natural /half artificial channel which drains northward to the Missouri River. This Creek collects a large amount of urban runoff from the west side of South Sioux City. In order to alleviate the extent of the flooding, South Sioux City has constructed a series of off -line detention basins along the creek. These detention basins are reflected in the latest Preliminary DFIRMs. South Sioux City is situated on a bend where the Missouri River meanders from flowing east to flowing south. Before the main -stem dams of the Missouri River were constructed in the 1950's and 1960s, flooding from the Missouri River was a significant problem. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.120 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.40. South Sioux City HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.121 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 G a 5 1 2 Miles amKII-0 IF I I A. Douglas County Historically, the Missouri River has been a major flood problem for the eastern edge of Omaha. This, however, has changed considerably since the construction of the six dams and reservoirs on the Missouri River in the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana, please see Table 3.17 for the location of the upstream dams. The completion of the Omaha levee and floodwall along the Missouri River protects the part of Omaha located between Missouri River miles 611.6 and 625.0 from flooding. These flood control structures provide flood protection to portions of eastern Omaha in excess of the 0.2 percent annual chance flood landward of the levee and floodwall. However, due mainly to tributary inflow downstream from the main stem dams and ice conditions, those areas of Omaha riverward of the levee and floodwall system are subject to flooding. The low lying areas of Valley and the unincorporated areas of Douglas County are subject to periodic flooding caused by the overflow of the Platte and Elkhorn Rivers. The most severe flooding has occurred in the early spring, as a result of snowmelt and heavy rains in conjunction with ice jams. Most floods in the Platte River basin occur from April to June, usually as the result of rapid snowmelt and rainfall runoff. These floods are often aggravated by ice jams on the Platte River and its tributaries. The tributary floods are generally of short duration, since many of these streams have steep gradients, which cause rapid runoff. Conversely, the floods that occur along the Platte River are prolonged because of the wide, shallow valley slopes. (Douglas County Flood Insurance Study, May 2010). Floods on the Elkhorn River and its tributaries are most frequent during the period of normally heavy and sustained runoff from March through early summer, but can occur earlier or later in the year. General floods are caused by rapid melting of the winter's accumulation of ice and snow, general rains, or a combination of both. Local flooding, particularly on tributary streams, are the result of intense local storms. Early spring floods are often caused or intensified by ice jams, which block the stream channels. Low ground between the Platte and Elkhorn Rivers slopes generally from the Platte downward to the Elkhorn. This condition leads to shallow sheet flow, with an average depth of about two feet, as estimated by field inspection and high water marks. Along the Elkhorn River, there are two unincorporated communities subject to flooding. The community of King Lake, north of Waterloo, has neither flood protection measures, nor floodplain regulations. As a result, all of King Lake is in the 1 percent annual chance floodplain and parts of the community are in the floodway. Riverside Lakes, the other community, was constructed on elevated ground so that residences would be protected from the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain water surface elevations. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.122 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.41. Douglas County HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) 4 K a kn A � a f a Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.123 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Bennington Big Papillion Creek flows west to east across the southern limits of Bennington. Figure 3.42. Bennington HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) i I, 4 04 C5 4 2^ o rc 47 Z _ J Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.124 Boys Town Hell Creek runs through Boys Town from north to south. Figure 3.43. Boys Town HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) 4 1 n 4 'J F r a k r� EE nD Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.12 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Omaha In this large metropolitan area, stormwater runoff causes flooding issues as intense rainfalls occasionally surpass the capabilities of the stormwater management systems. In addition to stormwater runoff flooding, there are several riverine flood sources which impact the city. These include the Missouri River, Big Papillion Creek, Little Papillion Creek, Hell Creek, Cole Creek, Thomas Creek, and Boxelder Creek. Additional details and previous flood occurrences are provided in the "Previous Occurrences" Section of this plan. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.126 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.44. Omaha HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) I C3 E� !z 3 T 1 1 � �V N Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.127 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Ralston The low -lying areas of Ralston are subject to periodic flooding from the Big Papillion Creek and Ralston Creek. The most severe flooding stems from locally intense thunderstorms during the spring thaw. Flooding issues in the upper reaches are due to the inability of the storm sewer systems to handle large flood events. Additionally, the trees and branches washing into the stream and blocking culverts present a problem. The nature of the soils along the creek makes it prone to soil erosion and bank sloughing. The primary flood threat for Ralston is not from a river or stream, but from stormwater management issues related to intense rain events. Since Ralston's corporate limits are entirely surrounded by Omaha and LaVista, continued development will increase runoff to streams outside of its jurisdiction. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.128 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.45. Ralston HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) -- J i 5 I 3 f in N 7 i 12 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.129 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Phm July 2011 Valley The Platte River flows from northwest to southeast about 1.5 miles southwest of the City of Valley. Using the current Flood Insurance Rate Map as a guide, it appears the vast majority of Valley is in a regulated floodplain area. One of the worst ice jams occurred in 1978 when ice conditions caused the Platte River to overtop the Union Dike. As a result, the entire city of Valley was flooded. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.130 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.46. Valley HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) w I a F• Z C, i � a aA q U1 �8 r Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.131 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Phm July 2011 Waterloo The City of Waterloo is protected from flooding from the Elkhorn River by a levee. This is discussed in greater detail in Section 3.3.7. Figure 3.47. Waterloo HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) fl 43 s Ij H . 4 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.132 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Sarpy County Flooding due to the Missouri River, the Platte River, and the Elkhorn River can occur in Sarpy County as a result of heavy rainfall, snowmelt, or combinations thereof. Ice conditions can also aggravate the flooding situation. Flooding on these streams without ice - affected conditions would normally be of relatively long duration with ample warning prior to the peak. Flooding along Big Papillion Creek, Buffalo Creek, Papillion Creek, South Branch Papillion Creek, Springfield Creek, and West Papillion Creek normally occurs due to heavy rainfall. Flooding due to Big Papillion Creek and Papillion Creek would normally allow adequate warning prior to the peak. Flooding due to South Branch Papillion Creek, Buffalo Creek, and Springfield Creek could result from heavy rainfall on a relatively local basis, creating short duration flooding with little or no warning prior to the peak. With this variation in peaking time and flood duration within the unincorporated areas of Sarpy County, and the variation in flooding along each particular stream, flood countermeasures and evacuation procedures will also vary in Sarpy County during flood periods. The Missouri River historically has been a major flood source for Sarpy County. This, however, has changed considerably since the construction of six dams and reservoirs on the Missouri River in the Dakotas and Montana, please see Table 3.17 for the locations of the upstream dams. The completion of Missouri River Levee Unit R -616 in May 1979 protects the area of Sarpy County located downstream from the City of Bellevue extraterritorial zoning limits to Papillion Creek. Missouri River Levee Unit R -613 is located between Papillion Creek and the Platte River. These flood control structures eliminated the threat of a 0.2 percent annual chance flood from the Missouri River for those areas of Sarpy County and the City of Bellevue on the landward side of these levee systems. However, due mainly to tributary inflow downstream from the main stem dams and ice conditions, those areas of Sarpy County and Bellevue riverward of the levee system are subject to flooding. These areas include agricultural areas, recreational areas, residential areas, and barge terminals. The Platte River has also historically been a major flood problem for Sarpy County. Unfortunately, unlike the Missouri River, few flood control structures exist along the Platte River to reduce flood damages. Ice conditions on the Missouri River, Platte River, and Elkhorn River can have a significant effect on the degree of flooding and frequency of flooding in Sarpy County. Table 3.33 is a summary of the streams in Sarpy County. The column on the right indicates the communities affected during flood conditions. Table 3.33. Sarpy County Flooding Sources and Communities Affected Flooding Source Communities Affected West Papillion Creek Bellevue, Papillion, La Vista Hell Creek La Vista Midland Creek Papillion South Papillion Creek La Vista Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.133 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Flooding Source Communities Affected Unnamed South Papillion Creek Tributary La Vista, Papillion Unnamed West Papillion Creek Tributary Papillion Walnut Creek Papillion Platte River Sarpy County Elkhorn River Sarpy County Papillion Creek/Big Papillion Creek Papillion, Bellevue, La Vista Betz Road Ditch Bellevue South Midland Creek Papillion West Midland Creek Papillion Buffalo Creek Sarpy County Squaw Creek Bellevue Mud Creek Bellevue Missouri River Bellevue, Sarpy County Springfield Creek Springfield Source: Sarpy County Flood Insurance Study. May 2010 Missouri River The drainage area of the Missouri River at Sarpy County is approximately 322,800 square miles. The Missouri River floodplain within the limits of the Sarpy County unincorporated areas is utilized primarily for agricultural and recreational activities. Some commercial, industrial, and residential uses, however, are present in some areas of the floodplain. Platte River The Platte River drains an area of approximately 8 1, 100 square miles at the Sarpy- Douglas County line and approximately 90,000 square miles at the confluence with the Missouri River. The Platte River, in the Sarpy County vicinity, is a broad, relatively shallow stream. It has characteristics typical of a braided stream having several channels with intermittent islands. The flow is erratic, varying from a few cfs to several thousand cfs depending upon the time of year and the climatic conditions. Flows of more than 100,000 cfs occur during a large flood. The main channel is continually changing location throughout the braided pattern. Elkhorn River The Elkhorn River drains an area of approximately 7,000 square miles in northeastern Nebraska beginning near Bassett, Nebraska. The Elkhorn River, in its natural state, can be classified as a meandering stream with one main, somewhat sinuous channel. The adjacent floodplain is scarred with abandoned channels that, depending upon age, vary from lakes to marshes to lower farmland. These abandoned channels, especially along the lower Elkhorn River, resulted from artificial straightening of the river. The stream banks are typically bordered by stands of timber and associated flora except where this type of vegetation has been removed and replaced by modern agriculture. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.134 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Buffalo Creek Buffalo Creek drains moderately sloping land in south - central Sarpy County. Land use in the basin is almost entirely agricultural, although some urbanization is beginning to take place. Buffalo Creek flows in a general southeasterly direction to the Platte River. Springfield Creek Springfield Creek drains approximately 16.5 square miles in south - central Sarpy County. Land use in the basin is primarily agricultural with the exception of the City of Springfield and scattered residential development. Papillion Creek Papillion Creek drains approximately 402 square miles of moderately to steeply sloping land in eastern Nebraska. It begins at the confluence of Big Papillion Creek and West Papillion Creek approximately eight miles upstream from its confluence with the Missouri River. It follows a general southeastern direction to the Missouri River throughout Sarpy County. Floodplain uses in the unincorporated areas of Sarpy County are primarily agricultural with small amounts of residential, commercial, and recreational uses. Big Papillion Creek Big Papillion Creek begins in Washington County, southwest of Blair. It drains approximately 264 square miles of moderate to steep sloping land in eastern Nebraska. It flows generally in a southwestern direction to its confluence with West Papillion Creek. West Branch Papillion Creek West Branch Papillion Creek begins near Elkhorn. It drains approximately 138 square miles in eastern Nebraska. The basin is predominantly moderately sloping land experiencing rapid urbanization. The floodplain land uses in the Bellevue area are primarily agricultural. Betz Road Ditch Betz Road Ditch begins in the northern portion of Bellevue flowing generally in a southwestern direction to Papillion Creek just west of the Bellevue corporate limits. The drainage area of Betz Road Ditch is approximately 1.8 square miles. The basin is almost entirely urbanized and consists predominantly of residential development. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.13 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Mud Creek Mud Creek begins in the southeastern portion of Omaha, draining an area of approximately 10.7 square miles. Flowing in a southerly direction, it joins Papillion Creek west of the Bellevue corporate limits. Land use in the basin is primarily residential, commercial, and industrial. Squaw Creek Squaw Creek, located approximately two miles west of the Bellevue corporate limits, drains an area of approximately 1.7 square miles. It begins in the extreme northwest corner of the Bellevue zoning jurisdiction. The stream flows in a general southerly direction to its confluence with Papillion Creek. The basin is approximately 30 percent urbanized with primary uses being agricultural and residential. Midland Creek Midland Creek has begins approximately three miles south of downtown Papillion. From its source it flows in a northeasterly direction draining an area of approximately 3.6 square miles at its confluence with West Papillion Creek. The basin is experiencing urbanization. Walnut Creek Walnut Creek drains an area of approximately 4.2 square miles generally located southwest from downtown Papillion. This stream flows generally in a northeastern direction to West Papillion Creek from its source near Richfield. Floodplain use is primarily agricultural. Urbanization is adjacent to the basin. Hell Creek Hell Creek begins in Douglas County near of Boys Town. From its source, it flows in a southeasterly direction, draining an area of approximately 5.7 square miles at its confluence with West Papillion Creek. The basin is highly urbanized with residential development continuing. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.136 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.48. Sarpy County HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) � S [J U %rl rd E I ii 3i 1s ,5 me �+1«, Z Qp i Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.137 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Bellevue The City of Bellevue is situated in the vicinity of Betz Road Ditch, Big Papillion Creek, the Missouri River, Mud Creek, Papillion Creek, Squaw Creek, and West Branch Papillion Creek. Topography in the area ranges from steep hills, to rolling plains, to flat valleys. The Kennedy Expressway runs parallel to Papillion Creek, in the left overbank, and in the floodplain. Numerous city streets, highways, and rail lines cross the floodplain in Bellevue. Continuing economic development within the study area is expected and pressures leading to intensified floodplain use will undoubtedly accompany such development. Like other communities in Sarpy County, the City of Bellevue exercises its territorial jurisdiction approximately two miles beyond its corporate limits. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.138 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.49. Bellevue HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) N 01 N z Q FA LA n � � r J. G � � fJ G � d n 9 y v e] x C m G � V v '• v v � a a N i.l s Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.139 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Gretna There is no identified floodplain within the city limits of Gretna. Figure 3.50. Gretna HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) r x a - ri ti � 5 1 - � � —• 'fir � „ �1 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.140 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 La Vista La Vista is situated in the vicinity of Big Papillion Creek, Hell Creek, South Papillion Creek, Thompson Creek, and West Papillion Creek, as well as other tributaries to these streams. Figure 3.51. La Vista HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) W. z i 7 F ! i� r N Q j� i.5 1 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.141 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Papillion The City of Papillion is situated in the vicinity of Big Papillion Creek, Midland Creek, South Midland Creek, Walnut Creek, West Midland Creek, and West Papillion Creek as well as other tributaries to these streams. Papillion has substantial recreational facilities, as well as commercial and agricultural activities located into the floodplain. Figure 3.52. Papillion HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) - r N C N 4 N IA 0 0 t 4 BR a f f Y Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.142 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Springfield The City of Springfield is drained by Springfield Creek, which flows along the western edge of the city. The creek is paralleled on the east by the Missouri Pacific Railroad and on the west by Nebraska State Highway 50. Springfield Creek is a tributary to the Platte River approximately two miles downstream of Springfield. Springfield Creek flows past the city in a deep -cut channel. Small gullied tributaries, with drainage areas ranging in size from approximately 0.1 to 3.1 square miles, join Springfield Creek throughout the watershed. Figure 3.53. Springfield HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) 7 ri 0 0 d 1 I ;... «.19f., }4 1 Igo Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.143 Thurston County The most severe riverine flooding in Thurston County occurs in spring and early summer from snowmelt, and /or heavy precipitation. Sudden, intense thunderstorms may produce flash flooding on the smaller streams. Middle Creek originates in Dixon County in northeastern Nebraska. The Creek generally flows in a south - southeastern direction until the confluence with Logan Creek approximately six miles downstream from the Village of Emerson. An unnamed tributary originates in the high ground approximately one mile northeast of the Village of Emerson. This tributary flows south - southwest through the central portion of the town along the alignment of the former Chicago and Northwestern Railroad (C &NW). Logan Creek flows in a southeastern direction along the northwest boundary of Pender's city limits. An unnamed tributary meets the creek just north of State Highway 16. Low -lying areas of the Village of Pender are subject to periodic flooding caused by the overflow of Logan Creek and its tributary (Thurston County Flood Insurance Study, January 2010). Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.144 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.54. Thurston County HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.145 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 mmo F I I 1 1 C P \OL55ON ww G"-"!jr m,errec fcr pArnf6 purprsses only _ . , . O.Ar S�[,a�c phi d Neprasjw DN.z HAZJS MH R1�4 Macy North Blackbird Creek and its narrow floodplain flows along the southwest and southern boundary of city limits. Figure 3.55. Macy HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) D&M gNWM i C7AW Iraq y atcn - f ftve :..tile- - F N.Wr w F1 �� Ra�oads �5 CAN P*" "D des .. r , I 8 T SON �" o+ nrr.�.a Ilse- wr+tir��+ +++� . I • - = t WL* &W-1E U" d NMLO- MR k& YAM Papio- Missouri River NRD 3+146 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Walthill South Omaha Creek runs along the eastern edge of city limits. The relatively wide floodplain extends into city limits and inundates both sides of the railroad tracks. Figure 3.56. Walthill HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) Dams tHa=r4 C am) F rp 5 , ations -IV Cmv Facirbes sgm r scykDds a 1.8E a Bmk?s UnkF srn Fm.-41 DXAW* PQIK4 E [CWnnrwcahN s FaCf e,e - -- } 7 - 7;1 Sh'i�la W**r FM[ : - A-s Highwa" a"4 Local Raads 4 3T4 5trearis Re o N RD L r t , .-I Q SPE dr . *� cf10 Pr4dU Ell H+LtikirJ 1 0° 4 4 l7 5fir'," '�I I A 1 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.147 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Winnebago Omaha Creek and its floodplain are located along the western edge of city limits. Figure 3.57. Winnebago HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) Dams gKuj ldCLira a MCI S�rMllt�s W FAr*MEF - f r4 sftns ih C.Me fac r SD*& i frvtda CDFwMw&A0Wffl '+qKre 4 waft Water Fae lities = Sys F�S+d o ft} CHO Reads Peps �iY?� CLJrbn Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.145 �J 1 'Ales � i -0( aT�liL7 Washington County Historically, the Missouri River in this region has been characterized by a meandering stream subjected to an extreme variety of discharges, ranging from a few hundred cfs in the fall and winter to 100,000 cfs or more in the spring and early summer. The adjacent valley was subjected to frequent flooding and erosion damage. The construction of six dams on the Missouri River in the Dakotas and Montana, the construction of a navigable channel as far upstream as Sioux City, Iowa, and the construction of levee systems has transformed the river into a stable channel with relatively uniform discharges throughout the year. The threat of flooding has been reduced considerably, but not eliminated. Please refer to Table 3.17 for the locations of the six upstream dams. Although flooding can occur during any month of the year, there are two typical flooding timeframes. The first occurs in March and April when the plains begins experiencing snowmelt. The second typical flood timeframe is around June, when mountain snowmelt is typically heaviest and the plains rainfall amounts are typically heaviest. Runoff from the plains snowmelt downstream from the main stem dams may occur at a time when there is still ice on the Missouri River. The result is that abnormally high stages can be produced by these ice effects. Occasionally, large mountain snowmelt runoff coincides with large plains rainfall runoff, which results in higher demand for flood storage in the main stem reservoirs. In order to maintain the reservoir pool elevations and to allow adequate storage volume for subsequent flood events, higher than average discharges from the reservoirs may be required (Washington County Flood Insurance Study). Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.149 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.58. Washington HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) CA w .n r. N 4a J� i6 �r ler Pa io- Missouri River NRD 3.150 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 a � w E Z 4x H Ri 4f1 Arlington Low -lying areas of Arlington are subject to periodic flooding from the overflow of the Elkhorn River and Bell Creek. The cause of most floods along Bell Creek is primarily intense summer thunderstorms, but snowmelt runoff can produce damaging floods when excessive snow, rapid spring melting, and heavy rainfall coincide. Flooding from rapid snowmelt and heavy rainfall has been the cause of the majority of flood events on the Elkhorn River. There are two potential flood sources which could impact Arlington: the Elkhorn River on the Village's western boundary, and Bell Creek on the east. Comparing the two, Bell Creek contributes much more to the flood risk in Arlington. The Elkhorn floodplain includes the fairgrounds on the north side of Highway 30 and on the west side of town. Between 1920 and 1940 nearly all of Bell Creek through Washington County was straightened. This was performed for various reasons, mostly related to agriculture and flood control. Farmers and land owners in years past did not understand the implications of straightening a stream. As a result, Bell Creek has developed severe problems related to erosion and head cut that continues to progress (Arlington Flood Insurance Study, 1980). Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.151 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.59. Arlington HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) N pl U1 O 47 N v ui N_ O 4 Z � a i r. v T S w L J Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.152 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Blair Aside from the Missouri River, there are three other watercourses which could cause flooding in or around Blair: Cameron Ditch, Unnamed Creek, and Cauble Creek. Cameron Ditch is a combination of a drainage ditch and levee, which was constructed to drain the flat topography east of the Missouri River bluff line. Since Cameron Ditch runs north to south through Burt and Washington Counties, it drains a relatively large area (2006 Hazard Mitigation Plan). Cameron Ditch has a total drainage area of 70 square miles above its confluence with the Missouri River. The peak flow to be expected from a drainage basin of this size is approximately 21,500 cfs, as computed using the USGS regression equations. The channel capacity is only about 3,500 cfs along the entire reach from Tekamah to Blair. Consequently, most of the flow from the upstream reaches will be stored in overbanks. Only the flow that remains in the channel (approximately 3,500 cfs) will be conveyed through the culvert upstream of C &NW railroad bridge in Blair. The severity of flooding in the overbanks upstream of the railroad bridge is expected to be minimal. This is due to the large area available for storage and the rapid infiltration of floodwaters (Blair Flood Insurance Study, July, 1995). Unnamed Creek flows mostly west to east along the southern side of Blair. Its path has been changed to flow around an old landfill before it joins with Cameron Ditch. Unnamed Creek does not have an especially large drainage area; however, the topography in the basin is steep, which tends to create more of a flash flood scenario (2006 Hazard Mitigation Plan). Cauble Creek flows mostly south to north on the western side of Blair. Cauble Creek flows north of Highway 73 for just more than one mile before its confluence with Cameron Ditch. The primary hazard related to Cauble Creek is erosion instead of flooding. One property on Cauble Creek was acquired utilizing FEMA funds in 2001 because the structure was in danger of being undermined due to erosion along the stream. Like Unnamed Creek, the drainage basin for Cauble Creek is not large, but the topography in the basin creates flash floods. This type of flooding may still not directly impact structures, but does exacerbate the erosion problem (2006 Hazard Mitigation Plan). Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.153 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.60. Blair HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) N IP 2 LO �1] 4 a i iI � r Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.154 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Fort Calhoun While the Missouri River floodplain takes up a portion of the City's extra - territorial zoning boundary, the community is situated on higher ground in between the bluffs and the flatland. The primary risk of flooding comes from an unnamed tributary of the Missouri River which drains the bluffs above town, then flows west to east through town along its southern edge. There is a tributary which joins this unnamed tributary from the north at about 9 th and Madison Streets. The risk for flooding along these two tributaries is from extreme rainfall events which overwhelm the City's storm drainage system. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.155 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.61. Fort Calhoun HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) { ■ r VA 6] Ln O ti. N 4 CV O d L 0 N � Z U S � C C 4 Q u — a� Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.156 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Herman A small portion of the floodplain extends into the southern portion of the city. Figure 3.62. Herman HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) N 61 N d 0 i Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.157 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Kennard There are two potential flood sources which could impact Kennard: the Big Papillion Creek on the city's eastern boundary, and Northwest Branch/Southwest Branch on the south. Aside from riverine flooding the hilly topography in the Kennard corporate limits may present some stormwater problems as intense rains flow downhill toward the central business district. Figure 3.63. Kennard HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) r 9* to fV d • n .! d � a x } i # tg +t r a w in I 90 Pa io- Missouri River NRD 3.158 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Village of Washington A tributary of Big Papillion creek flows along the southern boundary of city limits and a tributary branch flows diagonally across the eastern portion of town. Figure 3.64. Village of Washington HAZUS 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood (With Integrated DFIRM) r N Ol N O 4 LO O O Jl Papio - Missouri River NRD 3.159 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Previous Occurrences Presidential Declarations for Flooding in Planning Area Since 1999 there have been seven Presidential Disaster Declarations that involved flooding in the P- MRNRD: • August 1999 (DR -1286) Burt, Douglas and Washington • August 2001 (DR -1394) Dakota • May 2004 (DR -1517) Douglas, Sarpy, Thurston, & Washington • May 2008 (DR -1770) Burt, Douglas & Sarpy • June 2008 (DR -1779) Douglas & Sarpy • April 2010 (DR -1902) Dakota & Thurston • July 2010 DR -1924) Burt, Douglas, Sarpy, & Washington FEMA -DR -1286 (Incident Period August 6 -9, 1999), Declared August 20, 1999: Individual and Public Assistance for three counties, all within the P -MRNRD (Burt, Douglas, and Washington). Damages in Burt County were estimated at $500,000. Damages in Douglas County were estimated to be $11 million and damages in Washington County were estimated at $4 million. Additional details are provided in the sections that follow for each county in the planning area. FEMA -DR -1394 (Incident Period August 17 -18, 2001), Declared October 12, 2001: In the early evening hours of August 17, 2001, a tornado struck the Village of Jackson. It was on the ground for one mile, destroying several homes, damaging City Hall, and temporarily closing all major roadways due to tree and building debris. The community's only elementary school building, built in 1887, was destroyed. Although the declaration included some flood impacts, the primary hazard impacts were related to wind and tornado damages. Therefore, this declaration is described in additional detail in Section 3.3. 10 Tornadoes FEMA -DR -1517 (Incident Period May 20-25,2004), Declared May 23,2004: Severe storms moved across eastern and central Nebraska, spawning heavy rain, flooding, hail, and multiple tornadoes FEMA -DR 1770 and FEMA -DR -1779: The primary hazard impacts in the planning area from the May and June 2008 declarations were related to wind and tornado damages. Therefore, these declarations are described in additional detail in Section 3.3.9 Thunderstorms/High Winds/Lightning/Hail and Section 3.3. 10 Tornadoes FEMA -DR -1902 (Incident Period March 6 -April 3, 2010), Declared April 21,2010: Public Assistance for 35 counties including Dakota and Thurston Counties within the P- MRNRD. Total Public Assistance cost estimate: $10,758,830; Countywide per capita impact: Dakota County ($10.30), Thurston County ($21.97) FEMA -DR -1924 (Incident Period June 1, 2010 and continuing), Declared July 15, 2010: Public assistance for 53 counteis including Burt, Douglas, Sarpy, and Washington Counties Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.160 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 within the P- MRNRD. Statewide damage estimates exceeded $16 million for public infrastructure such as roads and bridges. Prior to 1994, some of the significant flood events which impacted communities in the P- MRNRD area were (* denotes floods of record): Other Historical Flood Events in the Planning Area • Missouri River: 1881, 1943, 1947, 1950, 1952 *, 1978, 1984 Communities Impacted: South Sioux City, Dakota City, Blair, Omaha, Bellevue • Elkhorn River: 1881, 1917, 1920, 1940, 1944 *, 1960, 1962, 1970, 1978, 1990 Communities Impacted: Waterloo, Valley, Arlington, King Lake • Platte River (at Louisville): 1881, 1882, 1912, 1936, 1944, 1947, 1952, 1960* (highest stage from ice jam), 1962, 1967, 1970, 1978, 1984, 1993 * (highest flow volume) • Big Papillion Creek: 1950, 1952, 1959, 1964 *, 1965 Communities Impacted: Omaha, Irvington, Fort Crook, Papillion, Millard, Ralston, Bennington, Bellevue • Little Papillion Creek: 1960, 1964, 1965 Communities Impacted: Omaha • West Branch Papillion Creek: 1948, 1959, 1964 *, 1965 Communities Impacted: Elkhorn, Papillion • Omaha Creek: 1922, 1940 *, 1954, 1957, 1967, 1993 Communities Impacted: Homer • Tekamah Creek: 1904, 1915, 1944 *, 1963, 1974 Communities Impacted: Tekamah Agricultural Impacts Flooding and excess moisture take a toll on crop production in the planning area. According to the USDA's Risk Management Agency, payments for insured crop losses in the planning area as a result of excess moisture and flood conditions from 2000 -2009 totaled $10,833,662. Insurance payments were the highest in Burt County followed by Sarpy and Washington. Table 3.34. Crop Insurance Claims Paid in P -MRNRD as a Result of Excess Moisture and Flood Crop Year County Name Crop Name COL Description COL Indemnity Paid 2000 Burt SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $4,998 2000 Burt CORN Flood $1,402 2001 Burt OATS Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $1,418 2001 Burt CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $505,989 2001 Burt SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $276,727 2001 Burt CORN Flood $10,132 2001 Burt SOYBEANS Flood $9,957 2002 Burt CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $28,508 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.161 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Crop Year County Name Crop Name COL Description COL Indemnity Paid 2002 Burt SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $56,803 2002 Burt CORN Flood $3,451 2002 Burt SOYBEANS Flood $6,231 2003 Burt CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $109,956 2003 Burt SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $125,040 2003 Burt CORN Flood $484 2003 Burt SOYBEANS Flood $2,753 2004 Burt CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $14,768 2004 Burt SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $133,254 2004 Burt CORN Flood $1,135 2004 Burt SOYBEANS Flood $282 2005 Burt CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $319,010 2005 Burt SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $530,525 2006 Burt CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $6,117 2006 Burt SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $667 2007 Burt CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $353,350 2007 Burt GRAIN SORGHUM Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $10,728 2007 Burt SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $17,469 2007 Burt CORN Flood $21,906 2008 Burt CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $1,881,900 2008 Burt GRAIN SORGHUM Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $6,011 2008 Burt SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $1,215,968 2008 Burt CORN Flood $25,398 2008 Burt SOYBEANS Flood $5,489 2009 Burt CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $290,438 2009 Burt SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $122,274 Burt Total 2001 Dakota CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $42,640 2001 Dakota POPCORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $48 2001 Dakota SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $3,587 2002 Dakota CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $6,365 2003 Dakota CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $5,114 2003 Dakota SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $20,892 2003 Dakota SOYBEANS Flood $270 2004 Dakota CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $24,835 2004 Dakota SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $13,367 2004 Dakota SOYBEANS Flood $1,662 2005 Dakota CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $33,791 2005 Dakota SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $2,282 2006 Dakota CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $311 2007 Dakota CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $15,091 2007 Dakota SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $7,484 2007 Dakota CORN Flood $682 2008 Dakota CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $140,373 2008 Dakota SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $147,536 2009 Dakota CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $3,341 2009 Dakota SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $116 Dakota Total Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.162 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Crop Year County Name Crop Name COL Description COL Indemnity Paid 2000 Douglas CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $3,649 2000 Douglas SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $1,092 2001 Douglas CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $35,773 2001 Douglas SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $15,576 2002 Douglas CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $1,920 2003 Douglas CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $6,389 2003 Douglas SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $852 2004 Douglas SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $3,931 2005 Douglas CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $9,171 2005 Douglas SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $7,530 2006 Douglas CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $192 2006 Douglas SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $7,781 2007 Douglas CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $27,262 2007 Douglas SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $10,583 2008 Douglas WHEAT Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $4,080 2008 Douglas CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $251,520 2008 Douglas SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $369,094 2008 Douglas CORN Flood $51,353 2008 Douglas SOYBEANS Flood $3,648 2009 Douglas CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $7,515 2009 Douglas SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $1,337 Douglas Total 2001 Sarpy CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $32,367 2001 Sarpy SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $22,688 2001 Sarpy CORN Flood $16,984 2003 Sarpy SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $2,265 2004 Sarpy SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $492 2005 Sarpy CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $20,178 2005 Sarpy SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $9,264 2006 Sarpy CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $559 2006 Sarpy SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $1,372 2007 Sarpy CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $125,084 2007 Sarpy SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $33,112 2007 Sarpy SOYBEANS Flood $6,800 2008 Sarpy CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $626,915 2008 Sarpy SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $566,401 2008 Sarpy CORN Flood $12,626 2008 Sarpy SOYBEANS Flood $55,283 2009 Sarpy CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $65 2009 Sarpy SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $3,692 Sarpy Total 2000 Thurston CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $6,544 2000 Thurston SOYBEANS Flood $2,501 2001 Thurston CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $12,295 2001 Thurston SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $6,817 2001 Thurston CORN Flood $421 2002 Thurston CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $8,485 2002 Thurston SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $270 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.163 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Crop Year County Name Crop Name COL Description COL Indemnity Paid 2003 Thurston CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $1,084 2003 Thurston SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $8,409 2003 Thurston SOYBEANS Flood $694 2004 Thurston CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $8,534 2004 Thurston SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $18,764 2004 Thurston CORN Flood $792 2004 Thurston SOYBEANS Flood $1,988 2005 Thurston CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $29,784 2005 Thurston SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $4,483 2005 Thurston CORN Flood $3,826 2006 Thurston CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $1,570 2007 Thurston CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $9,558 2008 Thurston OATS Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $2,070 2008 Thurston CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $85,671 2008 Thurston SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $137,738 2008 Thurston SOYBEANS Flood $601 2009 Thurston CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $20,426 2009 Thurston SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $9,440 Thurston Total 2000 Washington CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $709 2000 Washington SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $1,038 2001 Washington CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $178,774 2001 Washington SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $128,619 2001 Washington CORN Flood $8,696 2001 Washington SOYBEANS Flood $22,242 2002 Washington CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $710 2002 Washington SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $1,411 2003 Washington CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $8,056 2003 Washington SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $3,484 2004 Washington CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $17,617 2004 Washington SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $27,597 2004 Washington CORN Flood $396 2005 Washington CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $81,195 2005 Washington SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $50,303 2005 Washington SOYBEANS Flood $407 2006 Washington CORN Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $663 2006 Washington SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $890 2007 Washington WHEAT Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $85,268 2007 Washington SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $5,477 2007 Washington WHEAT Flood $4,494 2008 Washington CORN Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $282,065 2008 Washington SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Preci /Rain $583,324 2008 Washington CORN Flood $12,749 2008 Washington SOYBEANS Flood $4,633 2009 Washington I SOYBEANS Excess Moisture /Precip /Rain $13,363 Washington Total $1,524,181 Grand Total $10,833,662 Source: USDA Risk Management Agency. 2010: COL =Cause of Loss Papio- Dlissouri Ricer NRD 3.164 ylulti- Hazard ylitigation Plan July 2011 Jurisdictional Previous Occurrence Details The following section provides previous occurrences for each county and city within the planning area. First, historical events for the county are described, followed by the recent events recorded by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) from 1994 to 2009. The NCDC events are summarized in a table followed by a brief description of each event. After the county -level descriptions, historical flood events are provided for each city within the county where data is available. Burt County Table 3.35 provides flood events recorded in the NCDC database from 1994 to 2009. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.165 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.35. Burt County Floods 1994 to 2009, NCDC Location Date Time Type Property Dama es Burt County 2/18/1997 6:00 PM Flood $620,000 Tekamah 8/7/1999 2:30 AM Flash Flood $500,000 Oakland 4/30/2003 3:00 AM Flash Flood $0 Tekamah 5/5/2007 19:30 PM Flash Flood $1,000 Oakland 5/29/2008 19:19 PM Flash Flood $0 Total $1,121,000 Source: National Climatic Data Center February 18, 1997, Flood. This flood occurred in extreme western Burt County closer to Nickerson. This area is outside of the P -MRNRD boundary. August 7, 1999, Flash Flood. This flood, recorded in Tekamah, was a federally- declared disaster (FEMA- 1286). Maximum recorded rainfall was ten inches in less than twelve hours. Although only officially listed as impacting Tekamah, the entire eastern portion of Burt County witnessed similar flood problems, especially in valleys and low -lying areas adjacent to creeks. Some homes near Tekamah Creek along 8 th Street and 9 th Street sustained some damage, and additional homes were damaged due to sewer back -ups caused by high floodwater. • April 30, 2003, Flash Flood. Rainfall of 4 to 6'/2 inches was reported three to four miles west of Oakland, with 537 inches measured in town. The rain flooded several tributaries of Logan Creek and flooded across several county roads, but otherwise caused very little damage. • May 5, 2007, Flash Flood. Heavy rain caused flash flooding across Highway 75, near Tekamah, briefly closing it. A warm front near the Kansas and Nebraska border lifted north bringing widespread heavy rain and severe weather, including tornadoes, to eastern Nebraska and southwest Iowa. The warm front was part of a large upper level system that brought several days of severe weather and flooding to the region. • May 29, 2008, Flash Flood. Heavy rain flooded across Highway 77, near Oakland, prompting its brief closure. Rainfall in Oakland was measured at 3.5 inches, which also caused significant ponding of water in parts of Oakland. This area is outside the P- MRNRD. • July 2010, Flash Flood. This event resulted in Presidential Declaration DR -1924. Decatur No additional data Tekamah Tekamah has a Iong history of flooding from Tekamah Creek. According to the City of Tekamah Flood Insurance Study, major floods have occurred in Tekamah in 1904, 1915, and 1944, with extensive damage to businesses, homes, streets, bridges, and utilities. During the Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.166 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 1944 flood, water was four to five feet deep at 13 and L Street. This flood event also took one life and was estimated to have a 135 -year recurrence interval. The flood mitigation plan (1999) for Tekamah also notes flood events in 1963, 1974, 1975, 1984, 1986, and two floods in 1987. In 1974, a small amount of flooding in Tekamah was attributed to debris blocking the drainage ditches and creek on the east side of town. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.167 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Dakota County The Missouri River has historically been a major flood problem for residents of its valley. Prior to the construction of the six Missouri River dams in the Dakotas and Montana, the Missouri River frequently inundated portions of Dakota County. However, by 1954 the Missouri River dams were becoming operational, significantly reducing the annual peak discharges. Prior to 1954, the events reaching a peak discharge of 100,000 cfs or greater are indicated. After 1954, the events reaching a peak discharge of 50,000 cfs or greater are indicated. The source gaging station is located on the right bank upstream from U.S. Highway 77 Bridge and has a period of record from 1929 to 1976. Table 3.36 provides flood events recorded in the NCDC database from 1994 to 2009. Table 3.36. Dakota County Floods 1994 to 2009, NCDC Location Date Time Type Property Damages Jackson 7/16/1996 9:20 PM Flash Flood $1,000,000 Dakota City 7/2/1999 8:40 AM Flash Flood $0 West Portion 5/17/2000 9:30 PM Flash Flood $0 Hubbard 6/25/2000 12:00 PM Flood $0 Willis 6/7/2002 6:50 PM Flash Flood $0 South Sioux City 6/9/2003 8:10 PM Flash Flood $0 South Sioux City 6/16/2004 10:00 AM Flash Flood $0 South Sioux City 4/20/2005 5:00 AM Flash Flood $0 Hubbard 10/4/2005 5:50 PM Flash Flood $0 South Sioux City 6/16/2006 5:17 PM Flash Flood $0 South Sioux City 6/16/2007 16:30 PM Flash Flood $0 Homer 8/22/2007 9:15 AM Flash Flood $0 Laketon 8/25/2009 12:30 AM Flash Flood $0 Total $1,000,000 Source: National Climatic Data Center March 7 -11, 1993. Flood. As a part of the unprecedented Great Midwest Flood of 1993, Dakota County witnessed flooding, similar to other Nebraska counties and all counties in Iowa. July 16, 1996. Flash Flood. Heavy rain of six to ten inches caused flash flooding of lowlands and creeks in northern and eastern Dakota County. Roads were closed due to the flooding and damage occurred to some roads. Several motorists were stranded and had to be rescued during the early morning hours. Basement flooding was widespread, with resulting damage. Flooding of cropland may have damaged crops, but any damage caused by flooding could not be separated from extensive hail damage which also occurred with the storm. July 2, 1999. Flash Flood. Rainfall of three inches in a half -hour flooded streets and basements in Dakota City. The amount of damage was not known. May 17, 2000. Flash Flood. Heavy rain caused flooding of streets and lowlands across western Dakota County. June 25, 2000. Flood. Very heavy rain caused flooding of lowlands and roads, including part of Highway 35 which was closed due to this event. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.168 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 August 17 -18, 2001. Flash Flood. This event resulted in Presidential Declaration DR -1394. Most damages were as a result of a tornado and high winds in Jackson. However, there were some associated flood damages. • June 7, 2002. Flash Flood. Heavy rain caused flooding of rural roads and lowlands along Elk Creek in the Willis unincorporated area, which is approximately 3'/2 miles west of Jackson on Highway 20. • June 9, 2003. Flash Flood. Very heavy rain caused widespread flooding of streets and other low areas in South Sioux City. Several vehicles were stranded, but no damage estimate is available. • June 16, 2004. Flash Flood. Heavy rain caused widespread street flooding in South Sioux City, stalling numerous vehicles. April 20, 2005. Flash Flood. Runoff from heavy rain caused street flooding, including water ponding on Dakota Avenue in South Sioux City. • October 4, 2005. Flash Flood. Heavy thunderstorm rain caused street flooding, but caused no damage. • June 16, 2006. Flash Flood. Heavy rain caused flash flooding of streets and other low areas. Several vehicles were stranded, and manhole covers were blown off in South Sioux City. August 22, 2007. Flash Flood. A thunderstorm produced large hail and heavy rain produced flooding of roads in and near Homer in Dakota County. Access to some businesses was blocked. • August 25, 2009. Flash Flood. Heavy rain caused flash flooding of streets in the towns of South Sioux City and Dakota City. • June -July 2010. Flood. This event resulted in Presidential Declaration DR -1924. Dakota City No additional data. Homer In a report written in 1949, the USACE identified 24 historical floods: five major, eight moderate, and 11 minor. The worst of these floods occurred on June 3, 1940, but no records of the extent of damage could be found. At 51,000 cfs (cfs), the magnitude of this flood was greater than a 0.2 percent annual chance flood. The next most severe flood took place on May 31, 1922 when Omaha Creek flooded to a depth of eight feet. A report from local newspapers stated that the entire village was evacuated during the record flooding on the Missouri River in April of 1952. Hubbard No additional data Jackson Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.169 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Newspaper reports indicate that half of Jackson was inundated by Elk Creek due to heavy rains on June 19, 1951. A late season ice jam on Elk Creek lead to 15 to 25 families needing to be evacuated on March 25, 1962. On July 16, 1996, heavy rain of six to ten inches caused flash flooding of lowlands and creeks in northern and eastern Dakota County. Widespread basement flooding was reported, and property damage from flooding and hail was estimated at $1 million in the area from north of Jackson to Homer. South Sioux City The first documented flood event occurred in March of 1881 when an ice jam broke free in Cedar County, causing major flooding all the way to Rulo and beyond. South Sioux City was completely inundated. Three people and "thousands" of livestock were killed due to this flood, with "millions" in untold damage. In Omaha, the Missouri flowed five miles wide and people had to be rescued from the roofs of their homes. The stage at South Sioux City for this event was 22.5 feet. During the flooding of April 1943, a crest of 18.7 feet was recorded, also due to an ice jam. In April of 1950, a dike was breached in four places and 100 families had to be evacuated. The flood of record on the Missouri took place on April 7 to 19, 1952 when, the City was again completely inundated. All 5,557 residents were urged to evacuate as one -third of town was under eight feet of water on April 13 The crest passed on April 14 at 24.38 feet. Damage for South Sioux City was estimated at $2.5 million. After the main stem dams were completed, large Missouri River floods were no longer viewed as the primary flood hazard. Currently, the main flood concern is more storm -water related and deals with lowland ponding and flooding. Since South Sioux City is very flat, intense warm season rainfalls fill up certain low -lying areas of the city flooding roadways and potentially inundating basements of structures. The NCDC reports more stormwater - related flood events in the summers of 1999, 2002, 2003, and 2004. Some of the identified road intersections where this is a problem include: East 16 and B Streets, 31st and C Streets, 31 and G Streets, 9 th and F Streets, West 13 Street and 1 st Avenue, and along various locations of Colonial Drive and Wedgewood Drive. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.170 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Douglas County The following description of previous flood events was taken from the Douglas County Flood Insurance Study, dated May 2010: Platte River Table 3.37 lists historical river stages, dates, discharges, and discharge frequency relationships for the Platte River. The March 1960 flood was considered the flood of record. All of the floods listed, with the exception of the June 1967 flood, include backwater from ice in their maximum stages. Table 3.37. Flood History at North Bend Gage Date Maximum Stage (feet) Maximum Discharge (cfs) I Discharge Frequency (years) March 1960 1,272.8 112,000 83 March 1962 1,270.5 39,000 4 June 1967 1,272.2 73,600 20 March 1971 1,275.0 28,000 2 March 1972 1,272.9, 12,600 1 March 1978 1,278.1 80,000 25 Source: Douglas County Flood Insurance Study, May, 2010 The flood of record on the Platte River occurred on March 30, 1960, when a discharge of approximately 112,000 cfs was measured at the North Bend gage. The most damaging flood, however, occurred in March 1978, when high stages were produced by ice jams along the river. Flooding along the Platte River under open channel conditions (not ice affected) would normally be of relatively long duration with ample warning prior to the peak. The majority of the floods on the Platte River have been the result of rapid snowmelt in conjunction with ice jams in the early spring. Elkhorn River The flood of record on the Elkhorn River occurred in June 1944, with a discharge of approximately 100,000 cfs measured at Waterloo. On this occasion, the Elkhorn River remained within one foot of peak stage for 35 hours. Big Papillion Creek Flood records along the Big Papillion Creek date back to 1932. Prior to 1932, flooding undoubtedly occurred along the Big Papillion Creek, but as the lands were mostly crops or pasture, damages were probably not sufficient enough to record the event. Flooding has also occurred in 1936, 1943, 1946, 1959, 1960, 1964, and 1965. The floods of 1964 and 1965 were the largest of record. These floods had discharges of approximately 45,900 cfs and approximately 31,200 cfs, respectively, downstream from the West Papillion Creek confluence and discharges of approximately 15,500 cfs and 16,500 cfs at 80th and F Streets (in Omaha) in Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.171 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 1964 and 1965, respectively. The following table lists discharges for past floods reported by the USACE. Table 3.38. Peak Discharges on Big Papillion Creek near "F" Street Date Peak Discharge (cfs) August 2, 1956 10,900 June 20, 1960 9,500 May 26, 1964 9,500 June 16, 1964 15,500 September 7, 1965 16,500 Source: Douglas County Flood Insurance Study. May 2010 Ralston Creek Flooding on Ralston Creek is usually simultaneous with that of the Big Papillion Creek especially near the confluence of Ralston Creek and Big Papillion Creek with Papillion Creek. Due to this trend, it is difficult to differentiate flood damages from those of the Big Papillion Creek and Papillion Creek. There is no recorded history or gage data for Ralston Creek. Flood records on Little Papillion Creek date back to 1932. Prior to urban development, flood damages were minimal, resulting in the lack of documentation for flood events. Flooding has occurred in 1943, 1944, 1946, 1947, 1950, 1951, 1957 -1959, 1960, 1964, and 1965. The 1960 flood appears to be the largest of record on Little Papillion Creek, having a discharge of 15,300 cfs and 10,000 cfs in Irvington and near Cass Street (in Omaha), respectively. Discharges of 8,500 cfs and 12,800 cfs occurred near the mouth of Little Papillion Creek in 1964 and 1965, respectively. West Papillion Creek Flood records on West Papillion Creek are limited. According to existing records, floding has occurred in 1948, 1950, 1959, 1964, and 1965. The flood of record on West Papillion Creek occurred in June 1964, having an approximate discharge of 40,800 cfs at the USACE gaging station, located approximately seven miles upstream from the mouth near Giles Road, and 31,500 cfs at the mouth. The flood of September 7, 1965, had a discharge of 17,500 cfs at the mouth. Hell Creek Flood records on Hell Creek are very limited. The flood of June 16 to 17, 1964, exceeded the 0.2 percent annual chance flood discharge. On September 7, 1965, after some channel improvements had been made along Hell Creek, flooding nearly equaled that of the 1964 flood event. Other Streams Flood records on Boxelder Creek, Cole Creek, North Branch West Papillion Creek, Rockbrook Creek, and Thomas Creek are not available. Since these streams are located in the vicinity of Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.172 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 other streams that have records of flooding, it is probable that flooding has also occurred on these streams. In 1919, a levee was built along the left bank of the Platte River. The levee begins near Fremont, and extends downstream for approximately 11 miles. The primary purpose of the levee was to provide flood protection to the Union Pacific Railroad tracks in the area, hence the name "Union Dike." The Union Dike continues to provide flood protection for a large portion of western Douglas County. Until it dissolved in 1976, the Union Dike Board was responsible for maintenance and protection of the dike. Since then, the P -MRNRD has assumed these responsibilities. In 1964, portions of the Union Dike were reconstructed to make the levee taller and wider. In addition, an inspection road was constructed. Another improvement project, which included filing low areas along the dike and planting grass, was completed in 1976. According to historical records, when ice jams are present, river stages high enough to over -top existing levees can be the result, even with river flows less than the one - percent event. In particular, stages ranging from three to five feet above the predicted 1 percent annual chance flood water surface elevations (WSELs) have resulted due to these ice jams. Historically, major ice jams in the area have occurred in several locations simultaneously or in varied locations from one event to another. Future flooding from the Platte River due to ice blockage is highly probable, but is also highly unpredictable as to the precise location of the ice blockage and the resulting severity of flooding. It should be assumed that ice jams may form anywhere along the Platte River near Valley and in the event of an ice jam, stages that may be sufficiently high to cause levee overtopping or failure. There is an existing spoil -bank levee on the left bank of the Platte River, south of the Union Dike, to State Highway 92. This levee is expected to contain the 1 percent annual- chance flood. However, like the Union Dike, this levee may not withstand an ice jam condition. There is a levee on the Saunders County side of the Platte River, which is intermittent. Where the levee exists, flood flows are contained by the levee. At the locations where the levee does not exist, the ground surface generally rises rapidly, and flood flows will be contained by the natural bluff line along the west side of the Platte River. Although the Saunders County levee is not in the study area, the levee was considered in the analysis as it affects the WSELs. At the downstream end of the Platte River study reach, the Clear Creek Drainage District levee is located on the right bank. Upstream from State Highway 92, locally built levees are located along parts of both the left (east) and right (west) banks of the river in the Douglas County reach. A spoil bank levee extends upstream from near State Highway 92 on the left bank. The No -name Dike is located on the Douglas County (east) side of the river, from approximately three miles upstream of State Highway 92 at the City of Venice, to the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge near Valley. The Union Dike and the right bank levees have breached numerous times in past floods. Following the 1978 flood event, substantial improvements to the Union Dike system were completed in 1990. Due to these improvements, the levee withstood the March 1993 flood. The Fremont Dike was reportedly overtopped and damaged near the upstream end during the 1960 flood. Along the Elkhorn River, there are two unincorporated communities subject to flooding. The community of King Lake, north of Waterloo, has neither flood protection measures nor floodplain regulations. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.173 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 As a result, all of King Lake is in the 1 percent annual chance floodplain and a portion of the community is in the floodway. Riverside Lakes, the other community subject to flooding, was constructed on elevated ground, so that residences were protected from the 0.2 percent annual chance flood elevations. The Village of Waterloo is protected from floods up to and including the 0.2 percent annual chance flood by a ring levee. Channel straightening occurred on the Big Papillion Creek, Cole Creek, Hell Creek, Rockbrook Creek, and the West Papillion Creek. The USACE has constructed two dams and reservoirs on tributaries of Big Papillion Creek. These dams are located near the upstream limits of the extraterritorial zoning limits for Omaha. Dam Site 16 (Standing Bear Lake) is on a tributary of Big Papillion Creek near Military Road. Dam Site 11 (Glen Cunningham Lake) is on the Little Papillion Creek near State Street. The USACE also constructed two dams that affect the West Papillion Creek. Dam Site 20 (Wehrspann Lake) was completed in 1983 and is south of the Douglas -Sarpy County line on a South Papillion Creek tributary. Dam Site 18 (Zorinsky Lake), completed in 1984, is on Boxelder Creek. Dam Sites 16, 18, and 20 will provide flood protection on the respective streams downstream of the dam in the event of a 1 percent annual chance flood. Local interest groups have constructed two dams and reservoirs in the Omaha study area. One of these dams is on Hell Creek, upstream of Pacific Street, near Boystown. The other dam is on a right, descending bank tributary of Big Papillion Creek, upstream of West Dodge Road in the Candlewood subdivision (Lake Candlewood). This dam is located at Site 17 of the USACE flood protection project. The USACE has also constructed levee and channel improvements within Omaha along the Little Papillion Creek. This improvement extends from the mouth of the Little Papillion Creek, near L Street, upstream to an abandoned railroad bridge approximately 3,500 feet upstream of Maple Street. The levee and channel improvements along the Little Papillion Creek provide the City of Omaha some degree of protection against flooding. However, it has been ascertained that this levee and channel may not protect the community from rare events such as the 1 percent annual chance flood. The criteria used to evaluate protection against the 1 percent annual chance flood are: 1) adequate design, including freeboard, 2) structural stability, and 3) proper operation and maintenance. Levees that do not protect against the 1 percent annual chance flood are not considered in the hydraulic analysis of the 1 percent annual chance floodplain. The Omaha levee and floodwall along the Missouri River, from river mile 611.6 to 625.0, provides protection in excess of the 0.2 percent annual chance flood landward of the levee and floodwall. The six dams and reservoirs on the Missouri River in the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana have reduced flood problems on the Missouri River within Omaha. Table 3.39 provides flood events recorded in the NCDC database from 1994 to 2009. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.174 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.39. Douglas County Floods 1994 to 2009, NCDC Location Date Time Type Property Damages Douglas County 6/22/1994 6:30 Flash Flood $0 Douglas County 2/18/1997 6:00 PM Flood $620,000 Douglas County 4/2/1997 12:00 PM Flood $0 Missouri River 5/1/1997 12:00 AM Flood $0 Douglas County 9/2/1997 1:35 AM Flash Flood $0 Platte River 3/16/1998 2:52 PM Flood $23,000 Omaha 8/7/1999 1:15 AM Flash Flood $11,000,000 Platte River 2/6/2000 12:30 PM Flood $0 Platte River 3/14/2001 5:00 PM Flood $0 Omaha 5/24/2004 4:07 PM Flash Flood $0 Omaha 7/22/2004 3:50 AM Flash Flood $0 Douglas County 7/22/2004 6:30 AM Flood $0 Valley 2/22/2007 22:00 PM Flood $0 Valley 5/30/2008 1:30 AM Flood $0 Waterloo 5/30/2008 2:00 AM Flash Flood $0 Elkhorn 6/11/2008 18:56 PM Flash Flood $0 Gibson 6/27/2008 16:10 PM Flash Flood $0 Elkhorn 7/15/2008 21:40 PM Flash Flood $2,000 Total $11,645,000 Source: National Climatic Data Center • June 22, 1994, Flash Flood. Two to five inches of rain fell in a short amount of time, which forced Cole Creek out of its banks in Omaha. The flood water affected a car dealership, residential yards, baseball fields, and a golf course. Approximately 150 vehicles had water damage at the car dealership, and widespread street flooding was reported. • February 18, 1997, Flood. Mild temperatures melted snow cover in a short time period, allowing for a sudden runoff into streams and rivers, which were still covered with thick ice. The runoff into the streams and rivers was sufficient enough to break up the ice. Ice jams formed at many locations, causing serious flooding on the Lower Loup River and Platte River. A 2'/2 mile ice jam on the Platte River caused the worst flooding along a stretch between the mouth of the Elkhorn River downstream to the Highway 6 bridge near Linoma Beach /Beacon View. Thomas Lakes was severely impacted with ice jam flooding, and Beacon View homes were also flooded. Nearly 3,000 acres of farmland in western Sarpy county were flooded when the local levee was overtopped upstream of Beacon View. Two to three days of dynamiting of the Platte River ice jam near Beacon View beginning on the 20th helped to break up the strongest ice jam. • April 2 — May 20, 1997, Flood. Flooding on the Missouri River resulted from snowmelt runoff from the James, Vermillion, Big Sioux, Little Sioux, and Floyd rivers in South Dakota and northwest Iowa. In addition, record high releases from Gavins Point Dam added to the flooding. Lowland flooding of agricultural bottomlands, boat marinas, and some local parks was common along the river east of Blair and points further south. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.17 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 • September 2, 1997, Flash Flood. Strong storms dumped three to five inches of rain in the Papillion Creek Basin in and around Omaha. This caused pockets of urban flooding and closed streets in several locations in Douglas County and within the Omaha city limits. • March 16, 1998, Flood. Ice bridging was evident near the confluence of the Platte and Elkhorn rivers near Vencils Island. Most of the flooding occurred on the west side of the Platte River. Demolition experts used dynamite to open up channels near Vencils Island and Woodcliff. The dynamiting was successful and water levels receded. • August 7, 1999, Flash Flood. Record rains that resulted in Presidential Declaration DR- 1286 caused extensive flooding over the Omaha metropolitan area and surrounding counties. Rainfall at Eppley Airfield in Omaha totaled 10.46 inches in a 24 -hour period, which was the most rainfall recorded in a 24 -hour period in Omaha since 1900. The rain caused extensive flooding along Cole Creek in the east - central part of Omaha. One man drowned after his basement wall washed out. Flooding on the Big Papillion Creek caused substantial damage to two golf courses and a nursery. The Metro Area Transit Headquarters was hit by an eight - foot wall of water which flooded equipment and numerous buses, and caused around $4.5 million of damage. More than 1,000 homes, eight apartment complexes, and over 30 businesses sustained significant damage from flooding, with total damage estimated at approximately $11 million. Douglas, Burt, and Washington counties of east central Nebraska were declared Federal disaster areas. • February 6 -9, 2000, Flood. An extensive ice jam from just upstream of Leshara downstream to near the Highway 92 bridge caused lowland flooding along the Platte River. The Union Dike prevented more significant flooding from occurring. However, an access road for residences on County Road T, just east of Leshara, flooded. Overall, a ten -mile stretch of the river was flooded due to this ice jam. March 14 -16, 2001, Flood. A one -mile ice jam and other smaller ice jams caused considerable flooding along the Platte River, especially southwest of Valley near Sokol Camp and Vencils Island. The higher river level and ice jams were the result of several warm days that caused snow melt and ice breakup. The ice was around 12 to 18 inches thick. Sokol Camp was evacuated due to water that came over a local dike that protected the mainly summer -type cabins, and an evacuation by boat was needed for a residence at Vencils Island. May 24, 2004, Flash Flood. This resulted in Presidential Declaration DR -1517. Flash flooding was reported across sections of central and eastern Omaha. The flooding was caused by heavy rain of two to three inches which fell across much of the central, eastern and southern sections of the city over a several hour period, during the late afternoon hours. 2.28 inches was reported at Eppley Airfield. The ground, over much of the area, was already nearly saturated from a two to three inch rain that fell two days earlier. Four foot deep flood waters stranded cars in the Saddle Creek and Farnam areas, and a health center reported that floodwater flooded a wing of the unit. July 22, 2004, Flash Flood. Heavy rainfall in the Omaha metropolitan area caused areas of flash flooding, especially near the Saddle Creek and Center Street areas, near the intersections of 96 & Q Streets, 17 t11 Street & Ames Avenue, and 108 & Q Streets. It was near that last location where a 29 year old male apparently drowned after his car stalled in flood waters and he was swept away in a nearby drainage ditch as he was walking for help. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.176 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Other flooding occurred when a pool of water six feet deep near the Saddle Creek location carried off several vehicles and flooded at least one apartment complex. Several businesses were flooded, and sewers backed up into properties. Eppley Airfield reported 2.66 inches of rain from the storm in two to three hours, while some locations in midtown Omaha received almost 3.5 inches of rain. After the flash flooding subsided, flooding was reported along the Big Papillion Creek. The creek at Fort Crook was above flood stage for around 2'/2 hours. Another person drowned during this event when his kayak flipped over in high water on one of the branches of the Papillion Creek system. February 22, 2007, Flood. Ice jams and rising water due to snow melt on the Platte River caused flooding. Very large slabs of ice were pushed onto the banks along the Platte River from west of Valley to southwest of Waterloo. The water flooded near several cabins and onto county roads near the river. The areas most affected included the Loup River west of Columbus, the Cedar River near Cedar Rapids, the Platte River from Schuyler to the Sarpy and Cass county border, the Elkhorn River from just southeast of Norfolk to near Crowell and Bazile, Ponca and Bow Creeks across Knox county. • May 30, 2008, Flood. Heavy rain produced flash flooding that closed a few county roads and partially flooded four homes, mostly along Rawhide Creek, north of Valley. Heavy rain caused flooding across part of the Two Rivers Campground and roads in the area forcing several campers to evacuate their campsites. • June 11, 2008, Flash Flood. Rainfall of two to five inches fell in a two to three hour period across sections of Omaha. The heavy rain produced flash flooding across roads and highways in the metro area which trapped vehicles in high water or forced road closures. Areas which experienced more significant flooding included West Maple in Elkhorn, Interstate 480 and Martha Street, the I street ramp onto Interstate 80, 12th and Cuming Streets, 48th and Ames Avenue, locations near the Creighton campus and near 50th Street and Interstate 80. Many of these locations had water high enough that vehicles became trapped. However, there were no reported injuries and damages were mainly to the vehicles. There were also numerous other reports of flooded streets in the Omaha area and along sections of Cole Creek and a few branches of the Papillion Creek watershed. June 27, 2008, Flash Flood. Rainfall of an inch or so in approximately 15 minutes caused flash flooding of streets and other low areas across parts of Omaha. The flooding was brief and aided by both the intensity of the rainfall, plus the fact that large amounts of smaller hail and debris from the strong wind helped clog storm drains. The flooding was most pronounced in midtown Omaha where several cars were flooded near Saddle Creek and Dodge Streets, and also near the Creighton campus. July 15, 2008, Flash Flood. Several county roads were closed briefly in western Douglas County near the Valley area due to flash flooding. Also cars reportedly stalled as they encountered deep water near 208th and Maple in west Elkhorn. Three to five inches of rain was reported in the area. Reported damage was minimal. • June 2010, Flooding. This event resulted in a Presidential Declaration DR -1924. Bennington Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.177 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 The damaging floods of 1964 and 1965 on the Big Papillion Creek occurred downstream in the City of Omaha corporate limits. Bennington is situated in the area of northern Douglas County which received some of the heaviest rainfall from the severe storm of August 6 to 7, 1999. From this event, Douglas County to Burt County were declared federal Disaster areas. Although there are structures in the Big Papillion Creek floodplain in Bennington, no record of flood damage was found. Boys Town No additional information Omaha Much of the following descriptions of previous occurrences are from the Douglas County Flood Insurance Study dated May 2010: Missouri River The first record of flooding that was found was dated April 6, 1881, and was a major flood caused by a large ice jam being breached in Cedar County. This flood swept away entire towns and the Missouri was five miles wide near Omaha. People were forced to evacuate to the roofs of their homes on 9th Street. Along the Missouri River, there was a total of three people killed, thousands of livestock perished, and damage was estimated to be in the "many millions ". Another major flood occurred in 1943. Near Omaha, the river crested at 22.45 feet and had a discharge of 200,000 cfs. 3,000 men helped fight the flood, but after a week, the Missouri River found a weak spot in the temporary dike and the battle was lost. 100 homes were flooded when the river also breached a new levee near Locust Street. The industrial section on Grace Street was flooded, and businesses were closed for several days. 1,000 people were evacuated from Carter Lake and East Omaha as the old Lake Florence bed filled and inundated the airport with seven feet of water in 18 hours. One person was killed in Omaha, and the damage estimate there was approximately $1.4 million. A $6 million floodwall was constructed as a result of the 1943 flood, which protected Omaha during major floods in 1947 and 1950. The flood of record on the Missouri River took place on April 16, 1952 with a recorded discharge of 396,000 cfs with a record stage of 40.2 feet (flood stage at Omaha is 29 feet). Emergency freeboard was added to the top of the floodwall in order to keep Omaha from being flooded. The severe flooding on the Missouri River in the 1940s and 50s lead to the authorization for the construction of six large dams by the USACE. These dams were completed in the early 1960s, and flooding on the Missouri has not been a significant problem since. The USACE also constructed a levee /floodwall system in Omaha which provides protection from the 0.2 percent annual chance flood. The only significant flooding in Omaha after the completion of the dams took place in 1993, the year that produced record flooding over the entire Midwest. In 1993 flooding along the Missouri River was much more pronounced south of Omaha, below the confluence with the Platte River and other large rivers from Iowa. Big Papillion Creek Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.178 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 The two largest floods of record along the Big Papillion Creek took place in 1964, which produced a discharge of 45,900 cfs, and 1965 which produced a discharge of 31,200 cfs. The flood of June 16 -17, 1964, killed seven people and caused $5 million in damage, not including losses to personal property. 95 trailer homes were destroyed, with several being swept more than a half -mile downstream by the torrent. Flood damages were recorded in the Big Papillion Creek watershed from the consistent heavy downpours in the summer of 1993. Many homeowners had problems with foundations or retaining walls bowing or collapsing Little Papillion Creek The flood of record for the Little Papillion Creek took place on June 21, 1960. Intense localized thunderstorms in the watershed led to a discharge of 15,300 cfs at Irvington Street and 10,000 cfs at Cass Street. The severe thunderstorm of September 6, 1965 caused a discharge of 12,800 cfs near the confluence of the Big Papillion Creek. West Papillion Creek The largest flood on West Papillion Creek occurred in June 1964 having an approximate discharge of 40,800 cfs in the Elkhorn area and 31,500 cfs near the confluence of the Big Papillion Creek. Mobile homes were swept away by this flood in the Millard area. Hell Creek Hell Creek flows from Boys Town to its confluence with West Papillion Creek. The flood of June 16 -17, 1964, was caused by eight inches of rain falling in three hours. The 0.2 annual chance flood discharge was exceeded, and reports indicated that Hell Creek was 50 feet wide and had five foot high waves. Houses were moved from their foundations and garages were destroyed by these floodwaters. After channel improvements were constructed prior to the 1965 flood event, the September 7, 1965, flood event on Hell Creek nearly equaled the severity of the 1964 event. Cole Creek Up to ten inches of rain fell overnight on August 6 to 7, 1999, forcing Cole Creek out of its banks. Cole Creek flows through the fully- urbanized watershed in northern Omaha, near the Debolt and Benson neighborhoods, before joining the Little Papillion Creek near 77th & Dodge. One man was killed as a result of the 1999 flood due to a basement wall caving in on him. Thomas Creek Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.179 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Thomas Creek flows primarily north to south, past Irvington before joining the Little Papillion Creek at Blair High Road. The Thomas Creek watershed has seen rapid development in the last ten years, and due to this, downstream flood issues have resulted. During the August 1999 storm, one property owner was trapped by the rising water and nearly lost her life while trying to open the fences for her horses. Boxelder Creek The majority of west Omaha is drained by Boxelder Creek. As a result of the rapid development in this watershed, it should be expected that runoff rates have increased over time and will travel to the creek in less time due to the increase in impervious area. Zorinsky Lake is a flood control structure on Boxelder Creek which will help minimize flooding. Ralston There is no record of flooding or gage data for Ralston Creek. During the major June 1964 flood of Big Papillion Creek, water was up to five feet deep in the city, which caused an unreported amount of "heavy" business damage. Valley Valley has a long history of flooding with the first recorded flood dating back to 1872. Records document that floods have occurred in 1881, 1903, 1912, 1936, 1944, 1947, 1948, 1950, 1960, 1962, 1966, 1967, 1971, 1978, 1984, and 1993. Flooding did not necessarily occur in Valley corporate limits during all of these events since the nearest USGS stream gage station, number 06796000, operated on the Platte River is located near North Bend. The North Bend gage has been in operation since 1949. There is a gage station located closer to Valley at the Highway 64 bridge near Leshara, but operation only dates back to 1994. Due to the geomorphology of the Platte River channel, the primary flood threat for Valley is from ice jam flooding in the winter and early spring months. The flood of 1912 took place on March 29 when an ice jam more than five miles northwest of town flooded the entire town. Water was three to four feet deep on the southwest side of town, and several miles of Union Pacific Railroad tracks were washed out. It was this flood which led to the construction of the Union Dike in 1919. An ice jam caused the flood of 1936, and an ice jam in February/March of 1948 breached Union Dike and flooded a considerable portion of the city. The March 29, 1960 ice jam flood is recorded as the second largest flood of in Valley and is estimated to have been a 60 -year recurrence interval. Once again, Union Dike was breached and most of the town was flooded. One -third of the population was evacuated, and one person died. On March 24, 1962, about 90 percent of the city was inundated after an ice jam overtopped Union Dike. The record flood in Valley occurred in March of 1978, after a period of rapid warming caused ice jams at the same time as a high volume of water was generated by snowmelt. Union Dike overtopped in several locations, and the record flood height indicated several feet of water made it into the city. Based on elevation, not discharge values, this flood was estimated to have had an 83 -year Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.180 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 recurrence interval, and caused more than $60 million in damage in Valley and western Douglas County. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.181 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Sarpy County The following descriptions of previous occurrences are taken from the Sarpy County Flood Insurance Study dated May 2010: Platte River Flood records in the Sarpy County area due to the Platte River date back to 1940. Flooding also occurred in 1944, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1960, 1962, 1966, 1967, 1971, 1978, and 1993. The majority of these floods occurred in February and March as a result of rapid snowmelt and ice jams. The 1971 flood occurred in February but resulted from rainfall over frozen ground. The largest flood of record occurred in July 1993, having a discharge at the USGS gaging station near Nebraska Highway 50 in Louisville of 160,000 cfs. Two other significant floods occurred in 1960 and 1978, resulting in discharges at the USGS stream gaging station near South Bend of 124,000 cfs and 110,000 cfs, respectively. The recurrence interval of the 1960 flood near South Bend was approximately 25 years. Both of these floods resulted from record cold temperatures followed by warmer temperatures, which caused rapid snowmelt. Ice jams aggravated the flood situation considerably. The resultant flood damages varied considerably depending upon the location and severity of the ice jams. Elkhorn River The Elkhorn River, like the Platte River, has historically caused flooding in Sarpy County. Since 1940, flooding along the Elkhorn River in Sarpy County has occurred in 1944, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1960, 1962, 1966, 1967, 1971, 1978, and 1993. Approximately half of these floods were due to rapid snowmelt, augmented by ice jams, with the remaining half resulting from heavy rainfall. The 1944 flood was the largest recorded to date, having an approximate recurrence interval of 160 years, based on the discharge near Waterloo, Nebraska. Flood records on Papillion Creek and Big Papillion Creek are available from 1929 to the present. The data prior to the establishment of the Fort Crook gaging station near Capehart Road by the USACE in 1946 are limited. Flooding prior to 1929 undoubtedly occurred but no records are available. From 1929 to the present, flooding occurred in 1929, 1932, 1936, 1941, 1943, 1948, 1950, 1959, 1960, 1964, and 1965. The largest flood of record at the Fort Crook stream gage occurred on June 17, 1964, having a discharge of 32,300 cfs. This flood had an approximate recurrence interval of ten years. Springfield Creek Flooding along Springfield Creek usually results from intense rainfall. Floods occurred in 1959, 1964, and 1965. Of these events, the flood of June 16 -17, 1964, was reported as the largest. State Highway 50 was overtopped in places, and several residences and the fairgrounds in the City of Springfield were flooded. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.182 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Buffalo Creek Floods have undoubtedly occurred on Buffalo Creek. However, due to the lack of development within the floodplain, little data are available documenting past floods. Papillion Creek Flooding due to Papillion Creek is of much shorter duration with less warning prior to the peak. Mud Creek, Betz Road Ditch and Squaw Creek Flooding along Mud Creek and especially Betz Road Ditch and Squaw Creek can result from heavy rainfall on a relatively localized basis creating short duration flooding with little warning prior to the peak. Flooding along Mud Creek occurs relatively frequently. The most recent floods occurred in 1967 and 1971, as a result of heavy rainfall. Of these floods, the 1967 flood was the most significant, having an approximate recurrence interval of the 4 percent annual chance event. Betz Road Ditch has experienced flooding in 1967 and 1971. Due to the close proximity of Betz Road Ditch to Mud Creek, the same intense rainfall storm produced floods along both streams. The 1967 flood was the most significant flood causing the loss of one life. No estimate of discharge was made. Floods have undoubtedly occurred along Squaw Creek. However, due to the lack of records and the limited development within the floodplain, little information is available documenting past flood events. West Branch Papillion Creek Flood records on the West Branch Papillion Creek are limited and are available only for recent events. According to existing records, flooding occurred in 1948, 1950, 1959, 1964, and 1965. Like flooding along Papillion Creek and Big Papillion Creek, the largest flood along the West Branch Papillion Creek occurred in June 1964, having an approximate discharge of 40,800 cfs at the USACE gaging station, located approximately seven miles upstream from the mouth of the creek, near Giles Road. The approximate recurrence interval of this flood is slightly under the 1 percent annual chance recurrence. Walnut Creek and Midland Creek Flood records are unavailable for Walnut Creek and Midland Creek and their tributaries. Flooding has occurred along these streams, but records of these events are rare. The lack of information is probably due to the rural nature of these streams, which in the past, has caused relatively minor flood damage and personal hardship. Hell Creek Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.183 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 The Hell Creek floodplain was used primarily for agricultural purposes until the late 1950s and early 1960s. From the 1960s to the present, extensive residential development occurred in portions of the Hell Creek basin and even in the floodplain. Prior to this residential development, damages resulting from Hell Creek floods were relatively low. However, heavy damage occurred along portions of Hell Creek as a result of heavy rainfall in the basin during the evening of June 16, 1964. Flooding from this event was considered to be the approximate 0.2 percent annual chance flood magnitude along portions of Hell Creek. Table 3.40 provides flood events recorded in the NCDC database from 1994 to 2009. Table 3.40. Sarpy County Floods 1994 to 2009, NCDC Location Date Time Type Property Damages Sarpy County 2/18/1994 N/A Flood $0 Sarpy Count 2/18/1994 N/A Flood $0 Sarpy Count 2/18/1997 6:00 PM Flood $620,000 Sarpy County 4/2/1997 12:00 PM Flood $0 Sarpy County 5/1/1997 12:00 AM Flood $0 Offutt AFB 6/24/1997 2:00 AM Flood $1,100,000 Sarpy County 9/2/1997 1:35 AM Flash Flood $0 Sarpy County 3/16/1998 2:52 PM Flood $23,000 La Platte 6/13/1998 11:25 PM Flash Flood $0 Bellevue 8/7/1999 2:00 AM Flash Flood $0 Sarpy County 3/14/2001 5:00 PM Flood $0 Gretna 8/22/2002 11:50 PM Flash Flood $0 Gretna 2/22/2007 22:00 PM Flood $0 South Bend 5/30/2008 13:30 PM Flood $0 Meadow 6/1/2008 12:00 AM Flood $0 Bellevue 6/5/2008 8:45 AM Flood $0 Gretna 6/9/2008 15:00 PM Flood $0 Gretna 6/11/2008 20:20 PM Flash Flood $0 Total $1,743,000 Source: National Climatic Data Center • February 18 -20, 1994, Flood. Ice action caused minor overflows along the Platte River. An ice jam forced the river to overtop the banks by approximately two feet for a short time in Sarpy County. Some residents of the Beacon View housing area were evacuated. The flooding caused an undetermined amount of water damage to homes. • February 18 -28, 1997, Flood. Mild temperatures melted snow cover in a short period of time allowing for sudden runoff into streams and rivers, which were still covered with thicker than average ice. The runoff into streams and rivers was sufficient to break up the ice, and ice jams formed at many locations causing flooding. Serious flooding occurred along the lower Loup and Platte River. The most damaging flood occurred in the stretch of the Platte River along Saunders and Sarpy County line from the mouth of the Elkhorn River to the Highway 6 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.184 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 bridge near Linoma Beach/Beacon View. Flooding was the result of a 2'/2 mile long ice jam along the Platte River. Thomas Lakes was severely impacted with ice jam flooding, and homes in Beacon View were also flooded. Several structures at Camp Ashland were inundated, forcing the evacuation of 150 people. Two to three days of dynamiting the Platte River ice jam near Beacon View, beginning on the 20 broke up the strongest ice jam that caused the main blockage in the area. • April 2 — May 3, 1997, Flood. Flooding on the Missouri River was the result of snowmelt runoff from the James, Vermillion, Big and Little Sioux, and Floyd rivers in South Dakota and northwest Iowa. In addition, record high releases from Gavins Point Dam added to the flooding. Lowland flooding of agricultural bottomlands, boat marinas, and local parks was common along the river east of Blair and points further south. • June 24, 1997, Flood. Heavy rains caused debris to block a drainage ditch near the railroad track. The ditch filled with water and washed part of the track away. This lead to the derailment of 28 train box cars filled with grain near Offutt Air Force Base. • September 2, 1997, Flash Flood. A cluster of thunderstorms produced rains of three to five inches in the Papillion Creek basin in and around Omaha, causing pockets of urban flooding. Streets were closed in several locations in the Omaha metropolitan area. • March 16 — March 18, 1998, Flood. Ice jamming was evident near the confluence of the Platte and Elkhorn rivers near Vencils Island. Most of the flooding occurred on the west side of the Platte River. Demolition experts used dynamite to open up channels near Vencils Island and Woodcliff. The dynamiting was successful and water levels receded. • June 13, 1998, Flash Flood. Water flowed two to three feet deep over the Highway 75 Platte River bridge near La Platte. • August 7, 1999, Flash Flood. Heavy rain from this event caused Douglas, Washington, and Burt counties to be declared federal disaster areas. Although not as heavy as locations to the north, rainfall of two to seven inches in a 24 -hour period was reported in Sarpy County. Flash flooding was confined mainly to farm fields, but several roads, including 36th Street and Highway 370, were flooded. • March 14 -16, 2001, Flood. A one mile ice jam and other smaller ice jams caused considerable flooding along the Platte River, especially southwest of Valley, near Sokol Camp and Vencils Island. The higher water surface elevation and ice jams were the result of several warm days that caused snow melt and ice breakup. The ice was unusually thick, around 12 to 18 inches, due to a colder than normal winter season that produced prolonged subfreezing temperatures. Sokol Camp was evacuated due to water overtopping a local levee that protected the mainly summer -type cabins, and an evacuation by boat was needed for a residence in Vencils Island. • August 22 -23, 2002, Flash Flood. Heavy rain producing thunderstorms tracked across parts of southeast and east central Nebraska. In Sarpy County, flood waters sent water and mud two to three feet deep across Highway 6, southwest of Gretna. • May 2004, Flash Flood. Severe storms moved across eastern and central Nebraska. Damages resulted in Presidential Declaration DR -1517. • February 22, 2007, Flood. Ice jams and rising water due to snow melt on the Platte River caused water to flood and very large slabs of ice to be pushed onto the banks along the Platte Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.18 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 River from northwest of Gretna to southeast of Springfield. During the evening of the 22 five rescues were made and dozens of homes were evacuated in Sarpy county due to the rising flood waters. The worst flooding appeared to be near the confluence of the Elkhorn and Platte Rivers. Although large slabs of ice were pushed up on the banks and the water flooded roads and farmland, damage extending to homes or cabins was generally reserved to carpets and other low -lying objects. The areas most affected included the Loup River west of Columbus, the Cedar River near Cedar Rapids, the Platte River from Schuyler to the Sarpy and Cass county border, the Elkhorn River from just southeast of Norfolk to near Crowell and Bazile, and Ponca and Bow Creeks across Knox county. May 30 -June 1, 2008, Flood. Heavy rainfall during the evening of May 29 culminated nearly a week of scattered heavy rain and thunderstorms that occurred in the Platte River basin. The heavy rains caused the Platte River to flood from just northeast of Ashland, downstream through the Louisville area, to its confluence with the Missouri River near La Platte. The Platte River reached a crest of 21.1 feet at Ashland around 9 am CDT on May 31 flood stage is 20 feet. The river crested at 10.6 feet near Louisville around 1pm on May 31 flood stage is 9 feet. The river remained above flood stage at both locations into June 1 st The crest at Louisville was among the highest recorded. The flooding forced evacuations at the Beacon View and Linoma Beach areas, closed a few county roads in the area, and flooded farmland. • June 5, 2008, Flood. Heavy rain in sections of the Missouri River basin on June 4 th and 5 th eventually brought significant flooding downstream of Sarpy County. This caused high water and some flooding along sections of the river in Sarpy County. A campground and marina near the river in the southeast part of town was flooded for a while on the 5 th into Friday the 6 th • June 9, 2008, Flood. Areas of heavy rain continued to fall across the Platte River basin during the first week of June, culminating with heavy rain and thunderstorms late on June 7 th and early on the 8 This caused another round of flooding along the Platte River from mid afternoon on June 9 th through early afternoon on the 10 from just northeast of Ashland downstream through the Louisville area. The Platte River reached a crest of 20.4 feet near Ashland around 2:30 am CDT on June 10 flood stage is 20 feet. The river crested at 9.1 feet near Louisville around 5:15 am CDT on June 10 flood stage at Louisville is 9 feet. The flooding affected mainly agricultural bottom lands. • June 11, 2008, Flash Flood. Rainfall of around three inches in 1.5 hours fell across sections of western Sarpy County. The heavy rain produced flash flooding in a couple of subdivisions in the Gretna area with six basements flooded. The flood waters came from a cornfield to the west with debris from the field crossing a road in the subdivision. • June 2010, Flooding. This event resulted in a Presidential Declaration DR -1924. Bellevue No additional information Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.186 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Gretna No additional information La Vista Reports from La Vista flood records indicate that the severe rainfall events of June 16, 1964, and September 7, 1965, were the most significant flood events. On the West Papillion Creek, the flood of 1964 was reported to have a 1 percent annual chance of recurrence, and caused extensive damage in Papillion. Specific damage information for La Vista for the 1964 or 1965 floods was not available. As is the case in most rapidly- urbanizing areas, there are stormwater management issues scattered throughout La Vista. Papillion Papillion lies partially within the floodplains of the Big Papillion Creek, West Papillion Creek, Walnut Creek, and Midland Creek, as well as their tributaries. Flood records are unavailable for Walnut Creek and Midland Creek and their tributaries. Big Papillion Creek On August 3, 1959, six families were evacuated and many basements were flooded due to an intense summer rainstorm. It was repoted that the water was the highest in 41 years, which indicates that a significant, but unreported, flood occurred in 1918. The two largest floods on record along the Big Papillion Creek took place in 1964, which produced a discharge of 45,900 cfs and 1965, which produced a discharge of 31,200 cfs. The flood of June 16 and 17 in 1964 killed seven people and caused $5 million in damage, not including losses to personal property. Over five inches of rain fell in a short period, which destroyed 95 trailer homes, several being swept more than a half -mile downstream by the torrent. Flood damages were recorded in the Big Papillion Creek watershed from the consistent heavy downpours in the summer of 1993. Many homeowners had problems with foundations or retaining walls bowing or collapsing. West Papillion Creek A flood occurred in 1948, which was estimated as a 60 -year event, with discharges of 25,500 cfs reported. Another flood occurred in 1959, which was estimated as a 35 -year event and a discharge of 22,500 cfs. The June 16 — 17 1964 flood led to a 1 percent annual chance (or 100 -year) discharge of 31,500 cfs at the mouth and 40,800 cfs at Giles Road. Hell Creek The June 1964 flood caused Hell Creek to rise eight feet, with water six feet deep at 180 and Center Streets. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.187 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Springfield In late summer of 1903, Springfield Creek flooded and destroyed a great deal of property. This was particularly devastating, as a fire had damaged a dozen buildings earlier that year in March. The Peter Kiewit Company had rebuilt the whole block of brick and stone just before the flood event. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.188 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Thurston County Table 3.41 provides flood events recorded in the NCDC database from 1994 to 2009. Table 3.41. Thurston County Floods 1994 to 2009, NCDC Location Date Time Type Property Damages Thurston County 7/5/1994 N/A Flood $0 Thurston Count 2/18/1997 6:00 PM Flood $620,000 Pender 6/4/1999 2:50 AM Flash Flood $0 Walthill 6/25/2000 11:00 AM Flash Flood $400,000 Pender 6/9/2003 7:30 PM Flash Flood $0 Thurston 7/5/2003 11:00 PM Flash Flood $0 Thurston County 5/21/2004 11:15 PM Flash Flood $0 Thurston County 6/11/2004 1:15 AM Flash Flood $0 Pender 8/23/2007 7:45 AM Flash Flood $1,000 Pender 6/8/2008 12:00 AM Flash Flood $5,000 Macy 7/6/2008 17:45 PM Flash Flood $0 Total $1,026,000 Source: National Climatic Data Center • March 7, 1993, Flood. As a part of the unprecedented Great Midwest Flood of 1993, Thurston County witnessed flooding, just like most Nebraska counties and all counties in Iowa. However, since this damage report is prior to 1994, NCDC did not have specific details or damage amounts. The two deaths reported for this event are for the entire region and may not be specific to Thurston County. • June 25, 2000, Flash Flood. Four to eight inches of rain fell in five to six hours, causing flooding of several roads, mainly in eastern Thurston County. At least one road was partially washed out near Walthill, and more than 65 bridges and road culverts were damaged by the storm. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Thurston County Road Department estimated that the flooding caused around $400,000 worth of damage. • May 21, 2001, Flash Flood. Heavy rainfall from thunderstorms produced flash flooding across several county roads in Thurston County. Pender reported approximately 3 inches of rain from the storms. • May 21, 2004, Flash Flood. This event resulted in Presidential Declaration DR -1517. • June 11, 2004, Flash Flood. Heavy rain caused flash flooding of several roads and Highway 77 across the county. Although rain amounts over the county were only one to two inches, it was the second consecutive night that rainfall of that magnitude fell. The rain washed out county roads between Pender and Thurston. U.S. Highway 77 south of Winnebago was briefly closed due to flood waters. • August 23, 2007, Flash Flood. Heavy rain caused flash flooding across the junction of Highways 9 and 16 near Pender. • June 8, 2008, Flash Flood. Heavy rain during the evening and overnight hours of June 7th and 8 caused flash flooding around the junction of State Highways 9 and 16 near Pender. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.189 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 The water caused debris to be washed onto the road and bridge and prompted its closure. Damage was mainly due to debris cleanup. • July 6, 2008, Flash Flood. Rainfall of around two inches in an hour or two caused street flooding in the Macy area. Several homes in the area were flooded. • March - April, 2010, Flood. This event resulted in Presidential Declaration DR -1902. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.190 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Washington County The Missouri River has historically been a major flood problem for residents of its valley. Prior to the construction of the six Missouri River dams in the Dakotas and Montana, the Missouri River frequently inundated portions of Washington County. However, by 1954, the Missouri River dams were becoming operational, significantly reducing the annual peak discharges. The reduction in flood peaks began in the early 1950s. In the 25 -year period from 1929 through 1953, the average annual peak flood was approximately 127,000 cfs and there were 19 floods in excess of 100,000 cfs, three near 200,000 cfs, and one flood of almost 400,000 cfs. In the subsequent 23 -year period through 1975, the average annual peak flood was 68,000 cfs with only three floods exceeding 100,000 cfs. This reduction in discharges has resulted in extensive use of the floodplain immediately adjacent to the Missouri River channel downstream from the dams. Unfortunately, because of reservoir operations mandated by upstream conditions, tributary inflow downstream from the dams, and ice effects, flooding is still possible. Prior to 1954, the years having a peak discharge of 90,000 cfs or greater are indicated. After 1954, the years having a peak discharge of 60,000 cfs or greater are indicated. Table 3.42 provides flood events recorded in the NCDC database from 1994 to 2009. Table 3.42. Washington County Floods 1994 to 2009, NCDC Location Date Time Type Property Damages Elkhorn River 2/19/1994 N/A Flood $0 Kennard 6/23/1996 1:00 AM Flash Flood $0 Washington County 2/18/1997 6:00 PM Flood $620,000 Washington County 4/2/1997 12:00 PM Flood $0 Washington County 5/1/1997 12:00 AM Flood $0 Washington County 9/2/1997 1:35 AM Flash Flood $0 Herman 6/8/1998 11:06 PM Flash Flood $0 Washington County 7/5/1998 3:30 AM Flash Flood $240,000 Arlington 8/6/1999 10:00 PM Flash Flood $4,000,000 Blair 6/14/2001 2:10 AM Flash Flood $0 Arlington 5/5/2007 9:15 AM Flash Flood $20,000 Arlington 5/6/2007 12:52 AM Flash Flood $20,000 Arlington 5/6/2007 2:52 AM Flood $0 Arlington 5/30/2008 2:00 AM Flood $0 Total $4,900,000 Source: National Climatic Data Center • June 23, 1996, Flood. Rains of two to three inches fell over much of Washington County, pushing the Bell and Big Papillion creeks out of banks. April 2 — May 3, 1997, Flood. Flooding on the Missouri River was the result of snowmelt runoff from the James, Vermillion, Big and Little Sioux, and Floyd rivers in South Dakota and northwest Iowa. In addition, record high releases from Gavins Point Dam added to the Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.191 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 flooding. Lowland flooding of agricultural bottomlands, boat marinas, and some local parks was common along the river east of Blair and points further south. • September 2, 1997, Flash Flood. A cluster of thunderstorms produced rains of three to five inches in the Papillion Creek basin in and around Omaha, causing numerous pockets of urban flooding. Streets were closed in several locations. • June 8 -9, 1998, Flash Flood. Heavy rains caused flooding near homes southwest of Herman. Up to a foot of water flowed over Highway 75 from New York Creek. • July 5, 1998, Flash Flood. Heavy rain from thunderstorms produced flash flooding. New York Creek near Herman and Bell Creek just east of Arlington overflowed their banks. Some homes east of Arlington had to be evacuated, and eight of these homes were flooded. A portion of Highway 30 near Arlington had to be closed for a period of time. Nearly 3,000 acres of soybeans were destroyed near Arlington. • August 6, 1999, Flash Flood. Flooding from this event resulted in Presidential Delcaration DR -1286. Street flooding was reported in Arlington, Blair and Herman, especially along Bell Creek. A 20 foot deep gorge was carved out along highway 75 north of Fort Calhoun. Highway 30 in Arlington was flooded and highway 75 south of Blair was closed until 11:00 am CST on August 7 th due to flood waters. The flooding caused around $4 million in damage, mainly due to flooded basements, vehicles, and washed out roads and bridges. • June 14, 2001, Flash Flood. Heavy rains caused flash flooding that briefly closed Highway 75 north of Blair. Flooding was also observed along Bell Creek near Arlington. • May, 2004, Flash Flood. This event resulted in Presidential Declaration DR -1517. • May 4 -6, 2007, Flash Flood/Flood. Rainfall of 3.5 to 5 inches fell over most of Washington County from Friday into the morning of Sunday, May 6th. This produced widespread flooding of lowlands. Most of the flooding was due to Bell Creek and Rawhide Creek being unable to empty due to the backwater from the Elkhorn River. The flooding affected farmland and several county and city roads and threatened several homes, as well as flooding at a trap shooting club. Besides causing localized flash flooding, the heavy rain also produced areas of prolonged river and creek flooding over the region. Most of the flooding was along Bell Creek and its tributaries. • May 30, 2008, Flood. Heavy rain fell across northeast Nebraska during the evening and overnight hours of May 29th and 30th causing flooding along Bell Creek around the Arlington area. A staff gage near town recorded a crest around four feet over flood stage during the morning hours of May 30th, due in a large part to debris that blocked the opening area of an old bridge south of Highway 30. Roads near Arlington were flooded, mainly on the east side of town. • June 2010, Flooding. This event resulted in a Presidential Declaration DR -1924. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.192 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Arlington Elkhorn River Information regarding Elkhorn River flooding near Arlington indicates that flood events occurred on June 2, 1940, June 10 -12, 1944, early April 1960, June 21, 1960. However, it is unclear from these reports whether any damage was recorded in the village from these flood events. The flood of record for the Elkhorn River was on June 10 — 11' , 1944, resulting from an intense thunderstorm in the lower part of the Elkhorn sub - basin. The peak discharge of 100,000 cfs near Waterloo produced record high stages. Bell Creek There are very few flood records for Bell Creek near Arlington. FEMA reports indicate there is a repetitive loss property that flooded in 1996 and 1998. In addition, a residence was substantially damaged by a Presidentially- declared flood disaster (FEMA -DR- 1286 -NE) in August of 1999. On June 14, 2000, Bell Creek flooded and reached the front yards of vulnerable properties. Blair Missouri River Due to its proximity to the Missouri River, reports of flooding near Blair date back to the late 1800s. More detailed flood records, however, start with the Missouri River flood of April 1 st — 13 , 1943. At the height of this event, the river was 15 miles wide from Decatur to Onawa, Iowa. A flood of such a magnitude would have surely inundated low -lying properties between Blair and the Missouri River. The flood of record for the Missouri River near the Omaha stream gage took place on April 18, 1952, when the river crested at 23.15 feet, where the flood stage is 18 feet. The Missouri River main -stem dams were completed and operational starting in 1954, which greatly reduced the flood peaks. As a result, Blair has not seen significant flooding from the Missouri River since the mid -50s. Cameron Ditch, Unnamed Creek, and Cauble Creek Sudden, intense thunderstorms may produce flooding on the smaller streams. Local residents recall the Unnamed Creek flowing along State Highway 133, thence along South Street, to flow bank full downstream to U.S. Highway 73. Shallow flooding in the overbanks of this unnamed stream has been experienced downstream of U.S. Highway 73 to the confluence with Cameron Ditch. Flooding on Cauble Creek and its tributaries may be expected when the capacity of the area culverts is exceeded. On June 14, 2001, heavy rains caused flash flooding that briefly closed U.S. Highway 75. Also in 1999, Washington County was included in the federal disaster declaration due to flooding. Residences in Blair sustained primarily basement and garage flooding as a result of this event which dropped over ten inches of rain overnight in north Omaha to north of Tekamah. Areas Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.193 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 that sustained damage were in the older parts of the City which have the older sewers (around the intersection of U.S. Highways 75 and 30 and form Washington Street to the south). Fort Calhoun On August 6, 1999, when approximately 9.29 inches of rain fell in a 24 hour period, one residence in Fort Calhoun was substantially damaged and was later acquired and demolished. This flood event resulted in a federal disaster declaration (FEMA- 1286- DR -NE). Herman Historic flood events on New York Creek in Herman's zoning jurisdiction go back to June 11, 1944 and July 15, 1950. However, no specific damage narratives are available. On June 8, 1998, some homes southwest of Herman were flooded because of an intense summer storm. Water flowed eight to twelve inches deep over Highway 75. No specific damage report was available. Kennard On June 23, 1996, a three -inch rain fell over much of Washington County, pushing the Bell Creek and Big Papillion Creek out of their banks. It is not blown if any damage was caused in Kennard by this flash flood event. Washington No available data. History Rating =High: The event has happened four or more times in 100 years. NFIP Participation Table 3.43 provides details on NFIP Participation and claims for the communities in the planning area. Table 3.43. NFIP Participation and Claims Summary Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.194 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 CL O V L O N t/1 > E W N N N ° o County ' LL z wo W 00 aL 0 0 LL t» 0(a CL Burt Burt County Y 9/1/2005 9/1/2005 16 $1,244,500 0 0 Burt Decatur Y 6/16/1992 6/16/1992 1 $152,200 1 $2,362 Burt Tekamah Y 8/11/1981 8/1/1979 4 $378,000 1 $765 Dakota Dakota City Y 9/16/1981 9/16/1981 3 $1,050,000 1 $2,210 Dakota Dakota Y 6/18/1996 4/15/1982 1 $1,374,600 2 $4,651 Count Dakota Homer Y 6/18/1996 4/3/1984 36 $3,957,400 1 $3,427 Dakota Hubbard N N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.194 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 County 0 V ' z z CL +, wo L W w O to N to MILL r- N to �L° N N to c» to to CL Dakota Jackson Y 9/4/1987 9/4/1987 22 $4,041,500 0 0 Dakota South Sioux City Y 8/15/1979 8/15/1979 16 $5,076,200 2 $1,114 Douglas Bennington Y 5/3/2010 12/4/1979 4 $337,200 0 0 Douglas Boys Town Y 5/3/2010 7/18/1983 0 0 0 0 Douglas Douglas Count Y 5/3/2010 1/16/1981 383 $63,813,400 214 $1,316,042 Douglas Omaha Y 5/3/2010 5/7/1971 857 $185,637,100 110 $872,584 Douglas Ralston Y 5/3/2010 5/15/1980 9 $1,379,200 0 Douglas Valley Y 5/3/2010 3/18/1980 420 $56,845,600 60 $349,481 Douglas Waterloo Y 5/3/2010 1/14/1977 25 $3,709,100 2 $23,943 Sarpy Bellevue Y 5/3/2010 1/16/1980 146 $32,580,400 77 $843,969 Sarpy Gretna N N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sarpy La Vista Y 5/3/2010 1/16/1980 19 $3,748,700 1 $976 Sarpy Papillion Y 5/3/2010 8/18/1972 77 1 $23,734,000 5 $27,087 Sarpy Sarpy County Y 5/3/2010 1/16/1981 451 $92,603,800 722 $6,604,395 Sarpy Springfield Y 5/3/2010 8/6/1977 7 $1,397,700 12 $74,700 Thurston Thurston County N N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Thurston Macy N N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Thurston Walthill Y 1/6/2010 9/1/1986 7 $296,800 0 0 Thurston Winnebago Y 1/6/2010 9/1/1986 2 $42,500 0 0 Washington Arlington Y 11/23/1982 1/16/1981 9 $664,500 11 $240,133 Washington Blair Y 7/17/1995 7/16/1981 38 $4,626,000 6 $15,178 Washington Fort Calhoun Y 12/1/1983 12/1/1983 5 $563,100 13 $133,876 Washington Herman Y NFSHA 3/18/1985 0 0 0 0 Washington Kennard Y 9/18/1985 9/18/1985 0 0 0 0 Washington Village of Washington Y 9/14/1990 9/14/1990 0 0 0 0 Washington Washington County Y 9/14/1990 9/14/1990 20 $2,961,100 47 $434,765 Source: NFIP Community Status Book, April 2010; BureauNet; `Closed Losses are those flood insurance claims that resulted in payment; N /A= Not Applicable; NSFHA= No Special Flood Hazard Area. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.19 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Repetitive Loss Properties According to the Flood Insurance Administration, as of April 2010, there are a total of 186 repetitive loss properties in the P- MRNRD. There are none located in Burt, Dakota or Thurston Counties. Douglas County has 31, Sarpy County has 140, and Washington County has 15. Table 3.44 provides a summary of the repetitive loss properties in the P -MRNRD and Table 3.45, Table 3.46, and Table 3.47 provide details for repetitive loss properties in Douglas, Sarpy, and Washington Counties respectively. Table 3.44. P -MRNRD Repetitive Loss Properties County Number of Repetitive Loss Properties in NRD Boundary Burt 0 Dakota 0 Douglas 31 Sarpy 140 Thurston 0* Washington 15 Tota 1 186 Source: Flood Insurance Administration as of 4/14/2010; 1 repetitive loss property in Pender outside of NRD boundary Table 3.45. Douglas County Repetitive Loss Properties Community Name Number of Repetitive Loss Properties Losses Total Paid Average Pay Douglas County 17 44 $275,697.22 $6,265.85 Omaha 10 28 $207,970.45 $7,427.52 Valley 4 10 $31,110.33 $3,111.03 Total 31 82 $514,778.00 $6,27.78 Source: Flood Insurance Administration as of 4/14/2010 Table 3.46. Sarpy County Repetitive Loss Properties Community Name Number of Repetitive Loss Properties Losses Total Paid Average Pay Bellevue 13 31 $414,948.82 13,385.44 Sarpy County 124 305 $3,282,404.75 $10,761.989 Springfield 3 8 $59,462.54 $7,432.82 Total 140 344 $3,756,816.11 $10,92098 Source: Flood Insurance Administration as of 4/14/2010 Table 3.47. Washington County Repetitive Loss Properties Community Name Number of Repetitive Loss Properties Losses Total Paid Avera a Pa Arlington 3 7 $158,348.88 $22,621.27 Fort Calhoun 4 10 $113,891.72 $11,389.17 Washington County 8 20 $223,890.28 $11,194.51 Total 15 37 $496,130.88 $13,408.94 Source: Flood Insurance Administration as of 4/14/2010 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.196 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Probability of Future Occurrence With the extensive history of flooding in the planning area, it is likely that flooding of various levels will continue to occur frequently. Probability Rating = High: Greater than 1 chance in ten years Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.197 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Vulnerabilitv Overview According to the loss estimates generated by the HAZUS analysis, provided in Table 3.48 below, Douglas County would have the highest economic losses, in terms of building damage, as well as the most displaced population and population needing shelter. However, when comparing the building damage to the total building exposure, all other counties have higher loss ratios. Details for each jurisdiction are provided in the next section. Table 3.48. Flood Loss Estimates County Building Damage ($) Displaced Population Population Needing Shelter Number of Damaged Buildings Loss Ratio Burt Total $10,396,000 690 257 29 3.33% Dakota Total $8,253,000 1,078 560 16 0.75% Douglas Total $239,238,000 13,172 9,926 811 0.68% Sarpy Total $99,072,000 4,288 3,144 498 1.20% Thurston Total $3,633,000 164 21 0 2.13% Washington Total $14,704,000 1,582 694 15 1.12% Grand Total $375,296,000 20,974 14,602 1,369 0.81% Vulnerability Rating = Low: Less than 1 percent of property damaged or destroyed. Although the overall vulnerability rating is less than 1 percent for the planning area as a whole, Burt County, Sarpy County, Thurston County, and Washington County all have loss estimates that fall in the Medium Vulnerability Rating Range of 1 percent to 10 percent of property damaged or destroyed. Maximum Threat Rating = Medium: 5 percent to 25 percent of community devastated. Potential Losses to Existing Development This section provides detailed information regarding vulnerable populations, potential building losses (counts and types of buildings damaged and economic losses), potential agricultural losses, vulnerable infrastructure, and vulnerable critical facilities within the P -MRNRD planning area. For Burt County, DFIRMs have not been produced. Therefore, the best available data for depicting the flood hazard and generating loss estimates for this county was HAZUS -MH MR4. In the absence of DFIRM data, HAZUS was used to generate a 1 percent annual flood event for major rivers and creeks in this county. The software produces flood polygon and flood depth grids that represent the 1 percent annual chance flood. While not as accurate as official flood maps, these floodplain boundaries are for use in GIS -based loss estimation. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.198 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Effective DFIRMs were available for Douglas, Sarpy, and Thurston counties. For Dakota and Washington counties, preliminary DFIRMs were available during the development of this mitigation plan. Although these maps are not yet effective, they were utilized in this risk assessment as the best available data. Available DFIRM floodplain depth grids were generated using the hydrology and hydraulic models and the digital terrain models from which the DFIRM was derived. The DFIRM depth grids for these counties were integrated into FEMA's HAZUS- MH MR4 loss estimation software to generate maps, as well as loss estimates. It is evident that the DFIRM data is more comprehensive (i.e. data includes more stream reaches) than that of the HAZUS floodplains. The hydrology and hydraulics model used to produce the DFIRM data analyzes streams that have drainage areas of less than one square mile, while the HAZUS model used a 10 square mile drainage area. The smaller drainage area in the model generates more streams per unit area. There are several limitations to this data, including: • Only losses to participating NFIP communities are represented, • Communities joined the NFIP at various times since 1978, • The number of flood insurance policies in effect may not include all structures at risk to flooding, and, • Some of the historic loss areas have been mitigated with property buyouts. To develop countywide HAZUS maps for the counties, the following parameters were used: Two -meter LIDAR (a remote sensing system used to collect topographic data using Light Detection and Ranging) was used for all of Sarpy, all of Douglas, and a small part of Washington counties. • 30 -meter resolution USGS DEMs (Digital Elevation Models) were used for all of Burt, all of Thurston, all of Dakota, and for most of Washington counties. Descriptions of potential losses to existing development will include analyses of estimated population displaced, numbers and types of buildings impacted and economic losses. Estimated Population Displaced Potential losses to the planning area were estimated based on the location of population and building assets in relation to the 1 percent annual chance flood. Population displaced was aggregated from HAZUS data at the census -block level, the most detailed information available from the U.S. Census. Table 3.49 provides the numbers of people that would be displaced and those that would need shelter in each city. According to this analysis, over 20,000 people in the planning area are at risk of being displaced if a 1 percent annual chance flood impacted their area. The city at highest risk for having the most displaced people is Omaha, with 7,756 people displaced. Figure 3.65 through Figure 3.70 show the locations of populations in each county that could be displaced by a 1 percent annual chance flood. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.199 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.49. Displaced Populations Resulting from 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood Jurisdiction Displaced Population Population Needing Shelter Burt County 0 0 Decatur 75 22 Tekamah 511 224 Unincorporated 104 11 Burt County Total 690 257 Dakota County 4,288 3,144 Dakota City 15 1 Homer 275 125 Hubbard 2 0 Jackson 142 29 South Sioux City 293 251 Unincorporated 351 154 Dakota County Total 1,078 560 Douglas County 112 62 Bennington 31 10 Boys Town 0 0 Omaha 7,756 6,314 Ralston 144 117 Valley 1,695 1,492 Waterloo 42 22 Unincorporated 3,504 1,971 Douglas County Total 13,172 9,926 Sarpy County Bellevue 1,163 893 Jurisdiction Displaced Population Population Needing Shelter Gretna 0 0 La Vista 157 87 Papillion 224 98 Springfield 71 67 Unincorporated 2,604 1,930 Sarpy County Total 4,288 3,144 Thurston County Macy 11 1 Walthill 7 0 Winnebago 27 4 Unincorporated 119 16 Thurston County Total 164 21 Washington Count Arlington 112 62 Blair 570 426 Fort Calhoun 46 18 Herman 11 1 Kennard 7 0 Washington 24 6 Unincorporated 812 181 Washington County Total 1,582 694 Planning Area Total 20,974 14,062 Source: HAZUS -MH MR4 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.200 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Figure 3.65. Estimated Population Displaced by 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Burt County Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.201 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 ., Gam' ,.1 90i 0nk.* rfiL— WRA Figure 3.66. Estimated Population Displaced by 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Dakota County Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.202 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 a = E to PA" dj*q me� W_ -4rom wjn- prx"� =WY A OLSSON ... r .. szA 5&.iF gmew Y Mrda{ii mR -L%z t� Lm4 Figure 3.67. Estimated Population Displaced by 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Douglas County f Q r U[? N 4 � � x ' Q 8 d Z: O J � r ���� lira Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.203 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Phni July 2011 Figure 3.88 Estimated Population Displaced by Percent annum Chance Flood in Sar y County ? �. rb Papio-Missouri River mo o +2w Mul ti-Hazard l Plan 2!1211 2 • � { e � , r _ . - \ zz - - �. - - d ~f. . | . . i -, - ■ - - IF $} ? �. rb Papio-Missouri River mo o +2w Mul ti-Hazard l Plan 2!1211 Figure 3.69. Estimated Population Displaced by 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Thurston County r ' N - • T } � r �L ti 1: LEJ . — � I I _ � 5 � ~ Lbol R,olfd S W 4 2 of GfeffiIL4 cry — x N � OGRE ¢� Z 0 vi)enx = for P*rnt pfv�" +fir a77i �/L*: 5� �VkEl3Skd 3fJi, f� " „L = -�� yFh� Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.205 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.70. Estimated Population Displaced by 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Washington County kill '- j wn r. f, a �x a= C 3 O a 1J7 4 �5 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.206 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Phni Juh 2011 Building Losses (counts and types of damaged buildings, and economic losses) To estimate economic losses due to a 1 percent flood chance, HAZUS provides reports on the types and number of buildings impacted, estimates of the building repair costs, and the associated loss of building contents and business inventory, as well as a building damage loss ratios. For each county in the planning area, this section provides three sets of analysis reports in tabular format. Building Counts and Types of Damaged Buildings: This provides the total number of buildings expected to be impacted and is further broken down by usage types. The damaged building counts generated by HAZUS-NM are susceptible to rounding errors and are likely the weakest output of the model due to the use of census blocks for analysis. Economic Losses: Building damage can result in additional losses to a community as a whole, by restricting a 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 employment and housing losses. These losses are calculated by HAZUS using a methodology based on the building damage estimates. The building valuations used in HAZUS-NM MR4 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 hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of the HAZUS-NM model. Flood damage is directly related to the depth of the potential flooding. For example, a two -foot flood generally results in approximately 20 percent damage to the structure, which translates to 20 percent of the structure's replacement value. The planning area's building inventory loss estimates, which are linked to census block geography were separated by jurisdiction, according to the HAZUS -MH analysis results, to illustrate how the potential for loss varies across the planning area. Building Damage Loss Ratio: This is an indication of the community's ability to recover after an event. Building Damage Loss Ratio percent is calculated by taking the Building Structural Damage divided by Building Structural Value and then multiplying by 100. Loss ratios exceeding 10 percent are considered significant by FEMA. Table 3.50. Counts and Types of Damaged Buildings ( Percent Annual Chance Flood) Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.207 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 N C N ` N •L L N ++ y 7 N E 6.2 f4 - 0 f4 E R N R cc R R cc E v, EE Em V Er- N V Jurisdiction Count M a) 0W M O 0U R a 0_ R °' 0 R a) 0W R O 0t9 R-0 0w O Decatur Burt 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Tekamah Burt 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Uninc. Burt Burt 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Burt Total 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Dakota City Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Homer Dakota 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Hubbard Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.207 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Jurisdiction County N C f4 'a E v, 0 w N y f4 E E E O oU N .L R N E `� o_ L y ++ R V E'C `� °' o y 7 '� `� °� a w c y E N `� O 0(7 y 0 V ow O Jackson Dakota 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 South Sioux City Dakota 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 Uninc. Dakota Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dakota Total 15 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 Bennington Douglas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Boys Town Douglas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Omaha Douglas 531 27 6 0 0 0 0 564 Ralston Douglas 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Valley Douglas 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Waterloo Douglas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uninc. Douglas Douglas 225 1 2 0 0 0 0 228 Douglas Total 775 28 8 0 0 0 0 811 Bellevue Sarpy 152 1 0 0 0 0 0 153 Gretna Sarpy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Vista Sarpy 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Papillion Sarpy 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 Springfield Sarpy 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Uninc. Sarpy Sarpy 328 0 1 0 0 0 0 329 Sarpy Total 493 4 1 0 0 0 0 498 Macy Thurston 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walthill Thurston 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Winnebago Thurston 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uninc. Thurston Thurston 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thurston Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arlington Washington 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Blair Washington 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Fort Calhoun Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Herman Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kennard Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washington Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uninc. Washington Washington 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Washington Total 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Grand Total 1327 33 9 0 0 0 0 1,369 Papio- Missouri RiNer NRD 3.208 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jn1N 2011 Table 3.51. Economic Losses (1 Percent Annual Chance Flood) Jurisdiction County Building Damage $ Contents Damage $ Inventory Loss $ Relocation Loss $ Capital Related Loss $ Wages Loss $ Rental Income Loss $ Total $ Decatur Burt $888,000 $1,940,000 $301,000 $1,000 $3,000 $7,000 $0 $3,140,000 Tekamah Burt $6,408,000 $11,577,000 $400,000 $19,000 $48,000 $291,000 $6,000 $18,749,000 Unincorporated Burt Burt $3,100,000 $1,719,000 $87,000 $4,000 $7,000 $11,000 $2,000 $4,930,000 Burt Total $10,396,000 $15,236,000 $788,000 $24,000 $58,000 $309,000 $8,000 $26,819,000 Dakota City Dakota $340,000 $642,000 $10,000 $0 $1,000 $3,000 $0 $996,000 Homer Dakota $2,628,000 $1,784,000 $41,000 $6,000 $1,000 $13,000 $0 $4,473,000 Hubbard Dakota $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 Jackson Dakota $983,000 $989,000 $52,000 $1,000 $2,000 $8,000 $0 $2,035,000 South Sioux City Dakota $1,903,000 $4,051,000 $436,000 $14,000 $18,000 $193,000 $6,000 $6,621,000 Unincorporated Dakota Dakota $2,398,000 $2,796,000 $321,000 $2,000 $5,000 $14,000 $0 $5,536,000 Dakota Total $8,253,000 $10,262,000 $860,000 $23,000 $27,000 $231,000 $6,000 $19,662,000 Bennington Douglas $80,000 $322,000 $17,000 $0 $2,000 $5,000 $0 $426,000 Boys Town Douglas $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Omaha Douglas $175,829,000 $250,844,000 $12,210,000 $525,000 $1,255,000 $2,598,000 $306,00 0 $443,567,00 0 Ralston Douglas $2,052,000 $3,218,000 $168,000 $5,000 $15,000 $152,000 $3,000 $5,613,000 Valley Douglas $3,593,000 $7,064,000 $490,000 $31,000 $42,000 $180,000 $7,000 $11,407,000 Waterloo Douglas $428,000 $572,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,091,000 Unincorporated Douglas Douglas $57,256,000 $52,295,000 $2,218,000 $128,000 $208,000 $276,000 $43,000 $112,424,00 0 Douglas Total $239,238,000 $314,315,000 $15,193,000 $689,000 $1,522,000 $3,212,000 $359,00 0 $574,528,00 0 Bellevue Sarpy $27,708,000 $31,020,000 $2,259,000 $54,000 $64,000 $152,000 $26,000 $61,283,000 Gretna Sarpy $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 La Vista Sarpy $4,915,000 $2,694,000 $157,000 $12,000 $7,000 $18,000 $8,000 $7,811,000 Papillion Sarpy $6,030,000 $14,109,000 $360,000 $13,000 $74,000 $187,000 $7,000 $20,780,000 Springfield Sarpy $976,000 $885,000 $15,000 $1,000 $4,000 $4,000 $0 $1,885,000 Unincorporated Sarpy Sarpy $58,224,000 $54,946,000 $3,703,000 $118,000 $149,000 $364,000 $44,000 $117,548,00 0 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.209 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Jurisdiction County Building Damage $ Contents Damage $ Inventory Loss $ Relocation Loss $ Capital Related Loss $ Wages Loss $ Rental Income Loss $ Total $ Sarpy Total $99,072,000 $104,039,000 $6,494,000 $200,000 $298,000 $725,000 $85,000 $210,913,00 0 Macy Thurston $118,000 $147,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $269,000 Walthill Thurston $55,000 $41,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $98,000 Winnebago Thurston $141,000 $205,000 $4,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $351,000 Unincorporated Thurston Thurston $3,319,000 $5,008,000 $85,000 $2,000 $16,000 $351,000 $0 $8,781,000 Thurston Total $3,633,000 $5,401,000 $92,000 $2,000 $16,000 $355,000 $0 $9,499,000 Arlington Washington $1,844,000 $1,299,000 $36,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,181,000 Blair Washington $3,354,000 $3,639,000 $129,000 $10,000 $10,000 $42,000 $1,000 $7,185,000 Fort Calhoun Washington $396,000 $766,000 $13,000 $0 $5,000 $12,000 $0 $1,192,000 Herman Washington $12,000 $7,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,000 Kennard Washington $51,000 $38,000 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $92,000 Washington Washington $365,000 $181,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $546,000 Unincorporated Washington Washington $8,682,000 $7,705,000 $598,000 $2,000 $7,000 $39,000 $0 $17,033,000 Washington Total $14,704,000 $13,635,000 $779,000 $14,000 $22,000 $93,000 $1,000 $29,248,000 Grand Total $375,296,000 $462,888,000 $24,206,000 $952,000 $1,943,000 $4,925,000 $459,00 0 $870,669,00 0 Source: HAZUS -MH MR4 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.210 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.52. Building Damage Loss Ratio (1 Percent Annual Chance Flood) Jurisdiction County Building Exposure ($) Building Damage ($) Loss Ratio (%) Decatur Burt $48,790,000 $888,000 1.82% Tekamah Burt $137,815,000 $6,408,000 4.65% Unincorporated Burt Burt $125,570,000 $3,100,000 2.47% Burt Total $312,175,000 $10,396,000 3.33% Dakota City Dakota $78,075,000 $340,000 0.44% Homer Dakota $28,041,000 $2,628,000 9.37% Hubbard Dakota $12,469,000 $1,000 0.01% Jackson Dakota $14,928,000 $983,000 6.58% South Sioux City Dakota $703,272,000 $1,903,000 0.27% Unincorporated Dakota Dakota $262,051,000 $2,398,000 0.92% Dakota Total $1,098,836,000 $8,253,000 0.75% Bennington Douglas $72,536,000 $80,000 0.11% Boys Town Douglas $71,780,000 $0 0.00% Omaha Douglas $30,343,787,000 $175,829,000 0.58% Ralston Douglas $422,751,000 $2,052,000 0.49% Valley Douglas $156,376,000 $3,593,000 2.30% Waterloo Douglas $47,015,000 $428,000 0.91% Unincorporated Douglas Douglas $4,105,835,000 $57,256,000 1.39% Douglas Total $35,220,080,000 $239,238,000 0.68% Bellevue Sarpy $2,733,649,000 $27,708,000 1.01% Gretna Sarpy $210,260,000 $0 0.00% La Vista Sarpy $719,621,000 $4,915,000 0.68% Papillion Sarpy $1,249,289,000 $6,030,000 0.48% Springfield Sarpy $80,915,000 $976,000 1.21% Unincorporated Sarpy Sarpy $2,772,885,000 $58,224,000 2.10% Sarpy Total $8,241,777,000 $99,072,000 1.20% Macy Thurston $27,219,000 $118,000 0.43% Walthill Thurston $35,994,000 $55,000 0.15% Winnebago Thurston $21,776,000 $141,000 0.65% Unincorporated Thurston Thurston $85,845,000 $3,319,000 3.87% Thurston Total $170,834,000 $3,633,000 2.13% Arlington Washington $77,390,000 $1,844,000 2.38% Blair Washington $573,383,000 $3,354,000 0.58% Fort Calhoun Washington $70,372,000 $396,000 0.56% Herman Washington $20,900,000 $12,000 0.06% Kennard Washington $22,130,000 $51,000 0.23% Washington Washington $9,528,000 $365,000 3.83% Unincorporated Washington Washington $538,154,000 $8,682,000 1.61% Washington Total $1,311,857,000 $14,704,000 1.12% Grand Total $46,355,559,000 $375,296,000 0.81% Papio- Missouri River NRD 3. 2 11 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Juli 2011 Figure 3.71 through Figure 3.76 show the combined estimated losses to structures, contents, and any other associated losses. The areas shaded darker green are the areas that would experience greater losses. Figure 3.71. Estimated Financial Losses from 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Burt County I I � 1 5� F L1 I � i r 1 $fib 081 • 7 78.•y0U 7 t,]".Dw I U OW -am pk' a1lf 1 I �I�•Ir _ F- 9 4Vr; 4dV ftm P44D 1 'a I J I L 'D rrqes I L L I &TWO rr {rye' 40 9 '�RF• i ;LFI �'A Sat M' FYY4i�i ;Rli Y - U- A Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.212 Figure 3.72. Estimated Financial Losses from 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Dakota County Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.213 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 �� i i Figure 3.73. Estimated Financial Losses from 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Douglas County n I ri o �i ■ • 0' � - i Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.214 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Phni July 2011 Figure 3.74. Estimated Financial Losses from 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Sarpy County 7 N O 47 47 N a w 3 z 16 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.215 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.75. Estimated Financial Losses from 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Thurston County r -.Ow # 97OXT - #a C bn 65 '3.-0Qr or "31 a ��J t=.wrret Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.216 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 ��� Q � 4 10 Wes .. , . pin Sa Suo iff;rM rt ki 7MR HAZ J5 64H i64 Figure 3.76. Estimated Financial Losses from 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood in Washington County I 4 C W ry A 2 I n - i u J . 7#I P . Pa io- Missouri River NRD 3.217 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Agricultural Impacts In addition, USDA crop insurance claims as a result of flood and excessive moisture damage has averaged $108,336 per year from 2000 to 2009 and totaled $10,833,662 for the entire period. Critical Facilities, Pipelines, and Power Infrastructure at Risk Available critical facilities data was compared to the HAZUS generated 1 percent annual chance flood limits to show the locations of critical facilities in relation to the floodplain. According to this analysis, there are several facilities within the floodplain. Table 3.53 provides the names and flood depths of the critical facilities determined to be in the floodplain Figure 3.77 through Figure 3.82 provide county -level maps showing the locations of the critical facilities in relation to the floodplain. For city -level maps, refer to Figure 3.32 through Figure 3.64 in the "Geographic Location" of the "Flood Hazard Profile." Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.218 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Table 3.53. Critical Facilities in the Floodplain in the P -MRNRD County Flooded Critical Facility Name Near City Flood Elevation ft Burt Airport Tekamah Municipal Tekamah 1.0 Burt Fire Station Tekamah Fire & Rescue Assoc. Tekamah 0.5 Burt Police Station Burt County Sheriff Tekamah 3.0 Burt School Elementary School at Tekamah Tekamah 3.8 Burt School High School at Tekamah Tekamah 3.8 Dakota Dakota County Dakota Waste Water Facility Homer WWTF Homer 1.0 Dakota School Homer Elementary School Homer 0.5 Dakota School Homer High School Homer 0.5 Dakota School Jackson Public School Jackson 0.5 Dakota Fire Station Homer Volunteer Fire and Rescue Homer 0.5 Dakota Electric Power Facility Dakota City Municipal Power Homer 0.5 Douglas Fire Station Valley Fire & Rescue Dept Valley 0.5 Douglas School Karen Western Elementary School Omaha 0.2 Douglas Police Station Omaha Police Dept Omaha 1.1 Douglas Port Facility Pentzien Omaha Dock Omaha 1.8 Douglas Port Facility LaFarge Corp., Omaha Terminal Dock. Omaha 1.8 Douglas Port Facility American Commercial Terminals, Omaha Te Omaha 9.7 Douglas Port Facility American Commercial Terminals, Omaha Gr Omaha 3.2 Douglas Port Facility American Commercial Terminals, Omaha Lo Omaha 10.3 Douglas Port Facility Carbogen, North Omaha Plant, Dock. Omaha 7.0 Douglas Port Facility American Commercial Terminals, Omaha Fe Omaha 3.4 Douglas Port Facility American Commercial Terminals, Heartland Omaha 9.7 Douglas Port Facility Westway Feed Products Co. South Omaha PI Omaha 9.1 Douglas Waste Water Facility Omaha WW Omaha 2.5 Douglas Waste Water Facility Missouri River Wastewater Treatment Plant Omaha 0.5 Douglas Hazmat Location 3M Valley Plant Valley 2.1 Douglas Hazmat Location Valmont Ind. Inc. Valley 0.5 Douglas Hazmat Location Valmont Ind. Inc. Valley 0.5 Douglas Hazmat Location Valmont Ind. Inc. Valley 0.5 Douglas Hazmat Location Valmont Ind. Inc. Valley 0.5 Douglas Hazmat Location Valmont Ind. Inc. Valley 0.5 Douglas Potable Water Facitlity Valley Water Facility Valley 0.9 Douglas Potable Water Facitlity Valley Water Facility Valley 0.5 Douglas Potable Water Facitlity Valley Water Facility Valley 2.3 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.219 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 County Flooded Critical Facility Name Near City Flood Elevation ft Sarpy Care Facility Alegent - Health Midlands Hospital Papillion 2.6 Sarpy Communication Facility NE000035 Bellevue 9.5 Sarpy Communication Facility KOZN 1620 Bellevue 9.0 Sarpy Fire Station City of Papillion Fire Rescue Department Papillion 4.8 Sarpy Police Station Bellevue Police Dept Bellevue 1.8 Sarpy Police Station Papillion Police Dept Papillion 3.0 Sarpy Port Facility PCS Nitrogen, Bellevue Plant Dock Bellevue 4.0 Sarpy Potable Water Facility Sarpy County WTP Sarpy County 0.5 Sarpy School G Stanley Hall Elementary School La Vista 6.6 Sarpy Waste Water Facility Hawaiian Village Sid WWTP Springfield 0.5 Sarpy Waste Water Facility Springfield WWTP Springfield 2.6 Sarpy Waste Water Facility Sarpy County WWTP Sarpy County 4.5 Sarpy Government Civic Facility Government Civic Building La Vista 2.7 Thurston Fire Station Walthill RFD Walthill 2.1 Thurston Waste Water Facility Walthill WWTF Walthill 5.2 Thurston Waste Water Facility Omaha Tribe of Nebraska Macy 1.2 Thurston School Walthill Elementary School Walthill 12.8 Thurston School Walthill High School Walthill 12.8 Thurston Police Station Macy Police Dept Macy 3.1 Thurston Police Station Winnebago Police Dept Winnebago 5.2 Washington Port Facility Consolidated Blenders, Blair Terminal Dock Blair 8.9 Washington Port Facility Terra Nitrogen Corp., Blair Terminal Dock Blair 13.1 Washington Port Facility Fort Calhoun Stone Co., Quarry Dock Fort Calhoun 14.4 Washington School Blair South Elementary School Blair 0.5 Washington Waste Water Facility Blair WWTF Blair 0.5 Washington Waste Water Facility Fort Calhoun WWTF Fort Calhoun 1.8 Washington Waste Water Facility Herman WWTF Herman 5.9 Washington Waste Water Facility Kennard WWTF Kennard 10.2 Washington Electric Power Facility Blair 5.5 Washington I Waste Water Facility Arlington WWTF Arlington 11.5 091" R�- ■:►_r4INTAiI:IAiI:Z! Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.220 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Figure 3.77. Burt County Floodplain with Critical Facilities Papio- Missouri River NRD 3. 2 2 1 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 o 24 5 10 m6m N Figure 3.78. Dakota County Floodplain with Critical Facilities I I 1 # f . rT i ti ,a -a " r 119 • v t r� l4iw Cho L ' l + A .nl�h ry L 1 0 6 1� Ik11wa afmc i r . • QW4 maw at 6Wt — DOCH KA?lj5-4*r MR'p Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.222 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 !'L+nmurdimwDF&Amms _ pwrwldms Fbwowd a mQh EwAite Rat Faak*s — I3nJ— $W— r 4 49 5 L•rwW Ae 3r¢ih�rC3 £rr�rprr4 Gangs — Sdrad& 54PH - 1 Uw =0 FWe Stu ben S 1 V0pjlrr SY4*r F { �� imnwws L*kmrom 1 HornM locations 46 Pnbb6k% Vr rLm_ f ar_m P�r.a NRD tjhn WOO* coxim J 1 Yom IOWA # f . rT i ti ,a -a " r 119 • v t r� l4iw Cho L ' l + A .nl�h ry L 1 0 6 1� Ik11wa afmc i r . • QW4 maw at 6Wt — DOCH KA?lj5-4*r MR'p Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.222 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.79. Douglas County Floodplain with Critical Facilities — r ■ � al r r or 1 L! L� IL � 4 a OL f. r y :x - bo Ly Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.223 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 ! y J J do ° F i ti 4 or p IL +lf70 17 }� 1e 1y rfe I � 0 k � � No - � ro Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.223 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.80. Sarpy County Floodplain with Critical Facilities S '. �� z� N N 0 U') L t FJ} r Pa io- Missouri River NRD 3.224 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.81. Thurston County Floodplain with Critical Facilities ON" IM&W CUM FWd DWft [A] . i Hg2h F" 37 D LCD P*Ms ` Ord93t ;R ;N tWV& FU;Mioa n 50204: 1 Caws is 5 4 JI, - Ip 6- ti G11WFQi ■ #. + � 4 -�� J 61 amec i I I ■ I I ■ I 1 I A wP a4.an,n nA.•rtrd For ar•�+*ar P an■r Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.225 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.82. Washington County Floodplain with Critical Facilities I I Na m E a .E 3 � r a d + *� tea+• •rte qiL M i j"r, Yy � r ,t kA 3 mEr in 5 4 f 7A - %6 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.226 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Scour Critical Bridges A scour index is used to quantify the vulnerability of a bridge to structural damage during a flood event due to undermining or displacement of bridge supports during increased river flows. Bridges with a scour index between one and three are considered scour critical, which means their foundation elements are unstable for the observed or evaluated scour condition. Based on information from the National Bridge Inventory database developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), there are 13 scour critical bridges located in the planning area, as follows: none in Burt County, two in Dakota County, none in Douglas County, two in Sarpy County, three in Thurston County, and six in Washington County. Refer to Figure 3.7 through Figure 3.12 in Section 3.2 Community Assets for the locations of the scour critical bridges, which are depicted using red dot locations on maps. Future Development Any future development within floodplains would increase risk in those areas. For the communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), enforcement of floodplain management regulations will, where they exist, ensure the protection of future construction riverine flooding. However, even if structures are outside of the floodplain, evacuation may still be necessary due to rising waters. In addition, floods that exceed 1 percent annual chance flood WSELS may still cause damages. 3.3.7 Levee Failure Profile Hazard Description Levees are earth embankments constructed along rivers and coastlines to protect adjacent lands from flooding. Floodwalls are concrete structures, often components of levee systems, designed for urban areas where there is insufficient room for earthen levees. When levees and floodwalls and their appurtenant structures are stressed beyond their capabilities to withstand floods, levee failure can result. Levee failure may cause loss of life and injuries as well as damages to property, the environment, and the economy. Levees range from small agricultural levees that protect farmland from high- frequency flooding to large urban areas that protect people and property from larger, less frequent flooding events such as the 1 percent annual chance flood and 0.2 percent annual chance flood levels. For purposes of this discussion, levee failure will refer to overtopping or breach of a levee, as defined in FEMA's Publication "So You Live Behind a Levee" (http://content.asce.org/ASCELeveeGuide.html). Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.227 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Overtopping: When a flood is too big Overtopping occurs when floodwaters exceed the height of a levee and flow over its crown. As the water passes over the top, it may erode the levee, worsening the flooding and potentially causing an opening, or breach, in the levee. Breaching: When a levee gives way A levee breach occurs when part of a levee gives way, creating an opening through which floodwaters may pass. A breach may occur gradually or suddenly. The most dangerous breaches occur quickly, during periods of high water. The resulting torrent can quickly inundate a large area behind the failed levee with little or no warning. Earthen levees can be damaged in several ways. For instance, strong river currents and waves can erode the surface. Debris and ice carried by floodwaters, and even large objects such as boats or barges, can collide with the levee. Trees growing on a levee can blow over, leaving a hole where the root wad and soil used to be. Burrowing animals can create holes that enable water to pass through a levee. If severe enough, any of these situations can lead to a zone of weakness that could cause a levee breach. In seismically active areas, earthquakes and ground shaking can cause a loss of soil strength, weakening a levee and possibly resulting in failure. Seismic activity can also cause levees to slide or slump, both of which can lead to failure. Geographic Location /Extent There is no known comprehensive list of levees that exist(s) in the planning area. Levees have been constructed over the years by public and private entities with varying levels of protection, inspection oversight and maintenance. There is an effort underway at the federal level to develop a levee safety program, similar in many ways to the current dam safety program, to be charged with the inventory and inspection of levees. In 2004, as it initiated work under the Flood Map Modernization Initiative (Map Mod), FEMA determined that analysis of the role of levees in flood risk reduction would be an important part of the mapping efforts. A report issued in 2005 noted that the status of the Nations levees was not well understood and the condition of many levees and floodwalls had not been assessed since their original inclusion in the NFII . As a result, FEMA established policies to address existing levees. As DFIRMs are developed, levees fall under one of the three following categories: Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.228 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 6) Accredited Levee - With the except of areas of residual flooding (interior drainage), if the data and documentation specified in 44 CFR 65.10 is readily available and provided to FEMA, the area behind the levee will be mapped as a moderate -risk area. There is no mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement in a moderate -risk area, but flood insurance is strongly recommended. 7) Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL) - If data and documentation is not readily available, and no known deficiency precludes meeting requirements of 44 CFR 65. 10, FEMA can allow the parry seeking recognition up to two years to compile and submit full documentation to show compliance with 44 CFR 65.10. During this two -year period of provisional accreditation, the area behind the levee will be mapped as moderate -risk with no mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement. 8) De- Accredited Levees —If the information established under 44 CFR 65.10 is not readily available and provided to FEMA, and the levee is not eligible for the PAL designation, the levee will be de- accredited by FEMA. The area behind the levee will be mapped as a high - risk area, subject to mandatory flood insurance purchase. The list of levees in Table 3.54 represents the data available from the Nebraska State Mitigation Plan regarding the location of levees in the planning area and Figure 3.83 depicts the locations of these levees in the planning area. The levees with the gray shading are accredited levees, indicated on the DFIRMs as providing protection from the 1 percent annual chance flood or greater. Of the four gray- shaded levees, only the Waterloo levee has been provisionally accredited. The other three levees will undergo the PAL process after a new flood study is completed by the USACOE and the DFIRMs are updated for Douglas and Sarpy Counties, sometime in late 2012 or 2013. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.229 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.54. Planning Area Levees Recorded in State Mitigation Plan Source: Nebraska State Mitigation Plan, FEMA; *Outside of NRD planning area. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.230 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Approximate Type of Protected Area Level of Name Sponsor Length County City River Protection (square miles Protection* No -Name Dike Papio- Missouri River 2.3 Douglas Valley, NE Platte Agriculture 25-49 50 - 99 year NRD flood Omaha Channel Papio- Missouri River 6.9 Douglas Omaha Little Urban 25-49 0 - 24 year Improvements NRD Papio flood Creek Omaha FPP City of Omaha 12.76 Douglas Omaha Missouri Urban 5-24 100 - 500 year flood Union Dike Papio- Missouri River 10 Douglas Valley Platte Urban 25-49 50 - 99 year NRD flood Waterloo Village of Waterloo 3.4 Douglas Waterloo Elkhorn Agriculture 25-49 100-500 year flood MR R -613 Papio- Missouri River 13.9 Sarpy Bellevue Missouri Agriculture 25-49 100-500 NRD year flood MR R -616 Papio- Missouri River 4.5 Sarpy Bellevue Missouri Agriculture 25-49 100-500 NRD year flood Macy FCP Omaha Tribe of 4.9 Thurston Macy Blackbird Agriculture 25-49 50 - 99 year Nebraska flood Pender* Village of Pender 2.9 Thurston Pender Logan Urban 25-49 100-500 Creek year flood Source: Nebraska State Mitigation Plan, FEMA; *Outside of NRD planning area. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.230 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.83. P -MRNRD Levees Recorded in State Mitigation Plan Figure 3.84 depicts the two potentially accredited levees in Sarpy County. The land area protected by MR R -613 is indicated with blue shading and a green outline and the land area Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.231 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 a 1 0 20 40 Miles 5 1 wo =moo OV111 lawwv k+ W-" WPCON amb Sftff= &MIS ammvm& 0";4 K%W�,W ms;5* protected by MR R -616 is indicated with blue shading and a purple outline. The protected areas are those areas that are considered vulnerable in the event of failure. Figure 3.84. MR R -613 and MR R -616 Levees, Sarpy County � M a YD N C C @ p O n 7 Y 4 G U 09.1 1 1 Q 0 L ' 4 r _ Jff dr h• • 4 L r 1 �• Pa io- Missouri River NRD 3.232 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.85 and Figure 3.86 depict the potentially accredited Omaha FPP Levee and the provisionally accredited Waterloo Levee both located in Douglas County. Again, the blue shaded areas are the land areas that are protected by the levees and are therefore vulnerable if the levees were to fail. Figure 3.85. Omaha FPP Levee, Douglas County JL��_...� C N 47 Z N Q l Y B 4 I j Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.233 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.86. Waterloo Levee, Douglas County 7 C C r kn O to N 0 J r c v a n � w i c 16 �M1 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.234 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 The following are narrative descriptions of earthen berms (resembling levees) in each county in the planning area. These descriptions include agricultural berms and those that protect against low -level flooding that were not identified in the Nebraska State Hazard Mitigation Plan Burt County Levees and /or Berms Cameron Ditch is a drainage ditch with earthen berms along the banks. The ditch was constructed to drain the flat topography east of the Missouri River bluff line. This ditch (also known as Combination Ditch) runs north to south through Burt and Washington Counties and drains a relatively large area (2006 P -MRNRD All Hazards Mitigation Plan). Tekamah Creek —There is an extensive network of agricultural berms on Tekamah Creek to the east of Tekamah city limits. These berms are designed to provide protection for agricultural land up to a 2 percent annual chance flood. Dakota County Levees and /or Berms Pigeon and Elk Creek Berms —There are berms along portions of Pigeon and Elk Creeks which are located in bottomlands. Characteristically, these berms have narrow top widths (less than 10 feet), steep side slopes (greater than 1:3), and generally do not meet federal levee standards (Dakota County Flood Insurance Study, June, 1996). Douglas County Levees and /or Berms Union Dike— 1919, a dike was built on the left bank of the Platte River, starting in the vicinity of Fremont, and extending downstream for approximately 11 miles. The primary purpose of the dike was originally to provide flood protection to the Union Pacific Railroad tracks in the area, hence the name "Union Dike." The Union Dike continues to provide flood protection to a large area of western Douglas County. Until dissolved in 1976, the Union Dike Board was responsible for maintenance and protection of the dike. Since then, the P -MRNRD has assumed these responsibilities. In 1964, portions of the Union Dike were rebuilt making it higher and wider, and an inspection road was added. The dike was improved in 1976 by filling low areas along the dike and planting grass. Platte River Spoil Bank Berms —There is a spoil -bank berm on the left bank of the Platte River, south of the Union Dike to State Highway 92. This berm is expected to contain the 1 percent annual chance flood. However, like the Union Dike, this berm may not withstand an ice jam condition. Clear Creek Drainage District Berm— the downstream end of the Platte River in Douglas County, the Clear Creek Drainage District berms is located on the right bank. Agricultural Berms— Upstream from State Highway 92, locally built berms are located along parts of both the left (east) and right (west) banks of the river in the Douglas County reach. A spoil bank berms extends upstream from near State Highway 92 on the left bank. The No -name Dike is located on the Douglas County (east) side of the river from approximately three miles Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.235 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 upstream of State Highway 92 near the City of Venice to the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge near Valley. Waterloo Levee —The Village of Waterloo is protected from floods up to and including the 0.2 percent annual chance flood by a ring levee. Little Papillion Creek Levee and Channel Improvements —The USACE has also constructed levee and channel improvements within Omaha along Little Papillion Creek. This improvement extends from the mouth, near L Street, upstream to an abandoned railroad bridge approximately 3,500 feet upstream of Maple Street. The levee and channel improvements along the Little Papillion Creek provide the City of Omaha with some degree of protection against flooding. However, it has been ascertained that this levee and channel may not protect the community from rare events such as the 1 percent annual chance flood. Omaha Levee and Floodwall —The Omaha levee and floodwall along the Missouri River from river mile 611.6 to 625.0 provides protection in excess of the 0.2 percent annual chance flood landward of the levee and floodwall (Douglas County Flood Insurance Study, May 3, 2010). Sarpy County Levees Missouri River Levee Unit R- 616 —The USACE has constructed the Missouri River Levee Unit R -616 along the Missouri River from State Highway 370, downstream to Papillion Creek, from river mile 601.2 to river mile 596.5. This levee provides that portion of Sarpy County, between State Highway 370 and upstream from Papillion Creek and landward of the levee, with protection from Missouri River floods in excess of the 0.2 percent annual chance flood. Missouri River levee Unit R- 613 —The USACE has also constructed Missouri River Levee Unit R -613. This levee extends along both sides of Papillion Creek from Capehart Road to the mouth. The levee extends along the right bank of the Missouri River from Papillion Creek to the Platte River, and along the left bank of the Platte River from the mouth upstream to U.S. Highways 75. The U.S. Highway 75 road grade functions as the tie -off for the levee. The R -613 levee was considered to provide protection from a 1 percent annual chance flood from the Platte River. Protection is provided on the landward side of this levee unit from the 0.2 percent annual chance flood on Papillion Creek, the Platte River, and the Missouri River. Other Missouri River Berms in Sarpy County Upstream from the U.S. Highway 6 and Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway bridges, berms are located along part of both the left (east) and right banks of the river in the Sarpy County reach. The Western Sa!Py Drainage District Berm is located on the Sarpy County (east) side of the river. Because the berms lack the necessary height and structural integrity, neither the left or right bank berms in this reach can be considered adequate to provide protection from a 1 percent annual chance flood. Although the berms do not provide protection from the 1 percent annual chance flood, they do affect flood stages on the riverward side. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.236 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Papillion and Big Papillion Creek Berms and Channel Improvements —Since 1968 the P- MRNRD has had a continuing program to construct channel and levee improvements along Papillion Creek and Big Papillion Creek. These improvements are complete from Capehart Road in Bellevue, Nebraska, upstream through Sarpy County except for tie -back levees or berms along Mud Creek, and a short portion on the right bank upstream from the West Papillion Creek confluence. These improvements provide, in general, protection against the 10 percent annual chance flood. Channel straightening by local interests has occurred on Papillion Creek, Big Papillion Creek, and West Papillion Creek, and on portions of Buffalo Creek, Springfield Creek, Mud Creek, Betz Road Ditch, and Squaw Creek. Tie -back levees or berms have been constructed along the downstream portions of Mud Creek, Betz Road Ditch, and Squaw Creek, also by local interests. West Papillion Creek Bermss Sparse berm construction and floodplain filling by local interests has occurred along West Papillion Creek in Papillion ( Sarpy County Flood Insurance Study, May 3, 2010). Thurston County Levees and /or Berms Pender Levee —Flood protection measures present in the vicinity of the Village of Pender (outside of the NRD boundary) were completed September 9, 1999 by the USACE. This project included a levee embankment and flood wall along the west bank of Logan Creek. The levee is located directly north and east of the Village of Pender. The Village of Pender is provided some flood protection from Logan Creek and the Unnamed Tributary by State Highways 9 and 16 roadway embankments. Some flood protection is also provided in the Pender area by the channel straightening project of 1918 on Logan Creek. Macy FCP Levee —There is another levee in Thurston County owned by the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska. Washington County Levees and /or Berms Agricultural Berms —There are many local berms that were constructed by individual effort on the Missouri River in Washington County. These levees do not provide protection from the 1 percent annual chance or larger flood events due to their discontinuous nature (Washington County Flood Insurance Study, June, 1995). Previous Occurrences Levees and dams along the Missouri River were tested by the 1952 and 1993 floods. Although the crest passed Omaha without causing a breach during the 1952 flood, other areas were not as fortunate. The Union Dike levee and the right bank levees in Douglas County have been breached numerous times during past flood events. Following the 1978 flood event, substantial improvements to the Union Dike levee system were recommended. These improvements were completed in 1990 and the levee withstood the March 1993 flood. The Fremont Dike in Douglas County was reportedly overtopped and damaged near the upstream end during the 1960 flood. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.237 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 According to the USACE, the levees in the planning area withstood the 1993 floods. Figure 3.87 shows the location and performance of USACE levees. According to this depiction USACE levees on the Platte and Missouri Rivers north of the Platte River did not fail or overtop. Figure 3.87. Location and Performance of USACE Levees in the 1993 Midwest Flood L ........... } 4r � _ . ........ . r .. . .# . . ... . . gir t*W *"Thor pm4WANd *X•dW O L&Amt t rFW 1;r4ft t%+ -qw wvwdoPPed 1 A Source: Midwest Flood Information on the Performance, Effects, and Control of Levees, US -GAO. August 1995. History Rating = Medium: The event has occurred more than once, but less than four times in the past 100 years Probability of Future Occurrence Through historical occurrences, it is proven that during ice jam conditions, river stages sufficiently high to over -top existing levees can occur, even with river flows below those of the 1 percent event. In particular, stages ranging from three to five feet higher than the predicted 1 percent annual chance flood water surface elevations (WSELs) have occurred due to ice jams. It has also been shown that major ice jams have occurred in several locations simultaneously but in varying locations from one event to another. Based on past occurrences, future flooding from the Platte River due to ice blockage is highly probable. The history of events also proves that ice blockages are highly unpredictable as to the precise location of the ice blockage and the resulting Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.238 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 severity of flooding. As a general finding, it should be assumed that ice jams may form anywhere along the Platte River in the vicinity of Valley and that in these locations, stages may be sufficiently high to cause levee or berm failure. The USACE has determined that if the 1 percent annual chance flood occurs on the Platte River simultaneously with an ice filled channel, existing levees or berms would be overtopped. However, the extent and nature of future flooding due to ice conditions is highly unpredictable. The flood threat resulting from ice jam conditions is very real, even though no overflow or breach of the levee or berm system is expected under open channel flooding conditions (Douglas County Flood Insurance Study, 2010). The rate of failure of a levee, berm, or floodwall is difficult to predict. Although sudden failure is certainly a possibility, preventive measures such as proper maintenance, sound design, and proper construction can limit the probability of a levee or berm failure. In addition, development in the watershed can raise flood levels and make a levee designed and constructed under previous characteristics inadequate for current runoff conditions. Probability Rating = Medium: Between 1 chance in 1,000 years and 1 chance in ten years. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.239 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Vulnerability Vulnerability Overview Levee or berm failure is typically an additional or secondary impact of another disaster such as flooding or earthquake. The impacts to the planning area from levee or berm 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 levee or berm failure has the potential to result in a much greater loss of life and destruction to property and infrastructure due to the potential rapid onset and greater depth, extent, and velocity of flooding. During the development of this risk assessment, four levee locations were depicted on current DFIRMs as providing protection from the 1 percent annual chance or greater flood. These levees are listed in Table 3.55. Table 3.55. Levees Providing 1 Percent Annual Chance or Greater Protection Name Sponsor Length I County City River Protected Area Omaha FPP City of Omaha 12.76 Douglas Omaha Missouri 5 - 24 square miles Waterloo Village of Waterloo 3.4 Douglas Waterloo Elkhorn 25 - 49 square miles MR R -613 Papio- Missouri River NRD 13.9 Sarpy Bellevue Missouri 25 - 49 square miles MR R -616 Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.5 Sarpy Bellevue Missouri 25 - 49 square miles Source: FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Douglas and Sarpy Counties For these four levee systems, additional vulnerability analysis and loss estimates are provided in the next section. For the other levees or berms in the planning area that are not recognized as providing protection from the 1 percent annual chance flood, the area on the land side of the levee is not considered "protected" on flood insurance rate maps. Therefore, losses in these areas are considered in the flood loss estimates in the previous section. In some cases agricultural berms or other berms that provide low -level protection may provide a false sense of security leading residents and business owners to believe that they are adequately protected. Potential Losses to Existing Development For the four levees that are indicated on DFIRMs as providing 1 percent annual chance or greater protection, additional vulnerability analysis and more detailed loss estimates were completed. The areas used in the levee inundation analysis as those areas that would become flooded in the event of levee failure were determined from the "X protected by levee" zones from the DFIRMs. HAZUS -MH provides reports on the number of buildings impacted, estimates of the 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 -MH using a methodology based on the building damage estimates. Building damage is estimated by Census Block, based on the average depth of Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.240 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 flooding within a given Census Block. Flood damage is directly related to the depth of flooding. HAZUS -MH uses depth- damage functions to model the losses. For example, a depth of two feet flood generally results in about 20 percent damage to the structure (which translates to 20 percent of the structure's replacement value). To estimate the monetary loss for each city, the flooded Census Blocks were extracted, and the damage costs were totaled using GIS. This was done for each affected city and unincorporated area to illustrate how the risk varies across the planning area. Default HAZUS -MH data was used to develop the loss estimates. Thus, the potential losses derived from HAZUS -MH, which is the best available data, may contain some inaccuracies. The building valuations used in HAZUS -MH MR4 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 hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of the HAZUS -MH model. 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. Table 3.56 provides the potential economic losses as a result of failures of levees indicated on the DFIRMs in the P- MRNRD. Table 3.57 provides the estimated impact to residents and finally, Table 3.58 provides the estimated numbers and types of exposed/ potentially damaged buildings in the areas protected by levees and Table 3.59 provides building loss ratios. Please note that exposure values represent populations, building counts and building values in the levee protected areas only and do not represent values for the entire jurisdiction. Available critical facilities data was compared to the available levee protected areas to determine those critical facilities that could possibly be impacted in the event of levee failure. Table 3.61 provides the names and potential flood depths of the critical facilities determined to be in the inundation areas. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.241 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.56. Potential Estimated Economic Losses Resulting from Levee Failure Source: HAZUS -MH MR4 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.242 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Capital Rental Levee Building Contents Inventory Relocation Related Wages Income Name Jurisdiction Damage ($) Damage ($) Loss ($) Loss ($) Loss ($) Loss ($) Loss ($) Total Sarpy Sarpy MR R -613 Uninc. $1,748,000 $3,278,000 $561,000 $3,000 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $5,594,000 Sarpy MR R -616 Offutt AFB $145,000 $658,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $252,000 $1,000 $1,059,000 Sarpy MR R -616 Bellevue $5,643,000 $7,884,000 $682,000 $27,000 $15,000 $192,000 $7,000 $14,450,000 Sarpy Sarpy MR R -616 Uninc. $1,364,000 $1,786,000 $160,000 $1,000 $9,000 $10,000 $1,000 $3,331,000 Sarpy MR R -616 Total $7,152,000 $10,328,000 $843,000 $29,000 $25,000 $454,000 $9,000 $18,840,000 Omaha FPP Omaha $77,068,000 $109,686,000 $7,755,000 $281,000 $558,000 $700,000 $159,000 $196,207,000 Waterloo Waterloo $4,096,000 $5,049,000 $208,000 $14,000 $27,000 $61,000 $2,000 $9,457,000 Waterloo Douglas Uninc. $104,000 $672,000 $0 $0 $8,000 $19,000 $0 $803,000 Waterloo Total $4,200,000 $5,721,000 $208,000 $14,000 $35,000 $80,000 $2,000 $10,260,000 Source: HAZUS -MH MR4 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.242 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.57. Potential Estimated Impact to People Due to Levee Failure Levee Name Jurisdiction Population In Inundation Area Displaced Population Population Needing Shelter Sarpy MR R -613 Unincorporated 404 133 117 Sarpy MR R -616 Offutt AFB 1,453 20 6 Sarpy MR R -616 Bellevue 1,922 897 858 Sarpy MR R -616 Unincorporated 214 204 169 Sarpy MR R -616 Total 3,589 1,121 1,033 Omaha FPP Omaha 3,695 3,128 2,359 Waterloo Waterloo 670 628 394 Waterloo Unincorporated 65 0 0 Waterloo Total 735 628 394 Source: HAZUS -MH MR4 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.243 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Table 3.58. Estimated Numbers and Types of Exposed / Potentially Damaged Buildings [.Y.1 t I� a■: I_ r4 � L� �� i I: � �� i I: Z! Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.244 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 o� �( �� � o� o o o o a o a- o o J W� WU W- W Q WQ� LU (D W W H W C) Q� Q Q_S� QQ QQ� Q(D OW HD Sarpy MR R -613 Unincorporated 155 5 3 2 0 0 0 165 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Sarpy MR R -616 Offutt AFB 164 4 3 1 2 65 2 241 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sarpy MR R -616 Bellevue 694 13 8 1 3 1 2 722 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 Sarpy MR R -616 Unincorporated 104 8 3 2 0 0 0 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sarpy MR R -616 Total 962 25 14 4 5 66 4 1,080 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 Omaha FPP Omaha 1,421 123 60 2 4 3 1 1,614 458 4 1 0 0 0 0 463 Waterloo Waterloo 375 19 9 1 1 2 1 408 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Waterloo Unincorporated 33 1 1 2 0 0 1 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waterloo Total 408 20 10 3 1 2 2 446 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 [.Y.1 t I� a■: I_ r4 � L� �� i I: � �� i I: Z! Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.244 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 The building loss ratios are provided for the percent to building damages compared to the total exposure in the levee protected area in Table 3.59 and then the percent of building damages compared to the building exposure in the entire jurisdiction in Table 3.60. Table 3.59. Building Loss Ratios, Exposure = Levee Protected Area Levee Name Jurisdiction Building Exposure $ Building Damage $ Loss Ratio Sarpy MR R -613 Unincorporated $33,087,000 $1,748,000 5.30% Sarpy MR R -616 Offutt AFB $190,571,000 $145,000 0.10% Sarpy MR R -616 Bellevue $87,039,000 $5,643,000 6.50% Sarpy MR R -616 Unincorporated $11,511,000 $1,364,000 11.80% Sarpy MR R -616 Total $289,121,000 $7,152,000 2.50% Omaha FPP Omaha $418,910,000 $77,068,000 18.40% Waterloo Waterloo $47,015,000 $4,096,000 8.70% Waterloo Unincorporated $4,785,000 $104,000 2.20% Waterloo Total $51,800,000 $4,200,000 8.10% Total $792,918,000, $90,168,000 11.37% Source: HAZUS -MH MR4 Table 3.60. Building Loss Ratios, Exposure = Entire Jurisdiction Levee Name Jurisdiction Building Exposure $ Building Damage $ Loss Ratio Sarpy MR R -613 Unincorporated Sarpy $2,772,885,000 $1,748,000 0.06% Sarpy MR R -616 Offutt AFB $475,158,000 $145,000 0.03% Sarpy MR R -616 Bellevue $2,733,649,000 $5,643,000 0.21% Sarpy MR R -616 Unincorporated Sarpy $2,772,885,000 $1,364,000 0.05% Sarpy MR R -616 Total $8,754,577,000 $7,152,000 0.08% Omaha FPP Omaha $30,343,787,000 $77,068,000 0.25% Waterloo Waterloo $47,015,000 $4,096,000 8.71% Waterloo Unincor orated Douglas $4,105,835,000 $104,000 0.00% Waterloo Total $4,152,850,000 $4,200,000 0.10% Grand Total $43,251,214,000 $90,168,000 0.21% Source: HAZUS -MH MR4 Table 3.61. Critical Facilities in Available Levee Protected Areas Flooded Critical Facility Name Near City Flood Elevation (ft) Omaha FPP Levee Airport Eppley Airfield Omaha 5 Fire Station Omaha Fire Dept Omaha 1.8 HAZMAT Location Lozier Corp. - North Plant Omaha 9.9 HAZMAT Location Lozier Corp. - North Plant Omaha 9.9 HAZMAT Location Lozier Corp. - North Plant Omaha 9.9 HAZMAT Location Lozier Corp. - North Plant Omaha 9.9 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3 24� Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Juli 2011 Flooded Critical Facility Name Near City Flood Elevation (ft) HAZMAT Location Lozier Corp. - North Plant Omaha 9.9 HAZMAT Location Lozier Corp. - North Plant Omaha 9.9 HAZMAT Location Lozier Corp. - North Plant Omaha 9.9 HAZMAT Location Roman Marble Prods. Inc. Omaha 5.5 School Miller Park Elementary School Omaha 0.5 Waterloo Levee Fire Station Waterloo Volunteer Fire Dept. Waterloo 0.5 School Douglas County West Middle School Waterloo 3 Potatable Water N/A Waterloo 2.4 Waste Water Facility Village of Waterloo WWTF Waterloo 3.5 MR R -616 HAZMAT Location National By- Products Inc. Sarpy County 0.5 Waste Water Facility Omaha Papillion Creek WWTF Sarpy County 0.5 MR R -613 Hazmat Location PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer L.P. Sarpy Count 0.5 Hazmat Location PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer L.P. Sarpy County 0.5 Hazmat Location PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer L.P. Sarpy County 0.5 Hazmat Location PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer L.P. Sarpy County 0.5 Hazmat Location PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer L.P. Sarpy County 0.5 Hazmat Location PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer L.P. Sarpy County 0.5 Hazmat Location PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer L.P. Sarpy County 0.5 Hazmat Location PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer L.P. Sarpy County 0.5 Hazmat Location PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer L.P. Sarpy County 0.5 According to this analysis, the failure of the Omaha FPP levee would result in the highest damage amounts, with more than $77 Million in damages. However, the failure of the Waterloo levee would have the most devastating impact on a single jurisdiction, with 8.71 percent of the value of buildings in the entire community damaged by failure of the levee. Overall, failure of these four levees would result in 0.21 percent damages to buildings in the communities they protect. Vulnerability Rating = Low: Less than 1 percent of property damaged or destroyed Maximum Threat Rating = Medium: 5 percent to 25 percent of community devastated. Future Development Additional development in the areas protected by levees or berms would increase the vulnerability to this hazard. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.246 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.3.8 Severe Winter Storms /Ice Storms (also includes Extreme Cold) Profile Hazard Description A major winter storm can last for several days and be accompanied by high winds, freezing rain or sleet, heavy snowfall, and cold temperatures. The National Weather Service (NWS) describes different types of winter storm events as follows: • Blizzard —Winds of 35 miles per hour (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 with a temperature below freezing. This causes it to freeze to 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. Heavy accumulations of ice, often the result of freezing rain, can cause downed trees, utility poles, and communication towers and can disrupt these utilities for days. Even small accumulations of ice can be extremely dangerous to motorists and pedestrians. Severe winter storms include extreme cold, heavy snowfall, ice, and strong winds which can push the wind chill well below zero degrees in the planning area. Heavy snow can bring a community to a standstill by inhibiting transportation (in whiteout conditions), weighing down utility lines, and by causing structural collapse in buildings not designed to withstand the weight of the snow. Repair and snow removal costs can be significant. Ice buildup can collapse utility lines and communication towers, as well as make transportation difficult and hazardous. Ice can also become a problem on roadways if the air temperature is high enough that precipitation falls as freezing rain rather than snow. Extreme cold often accompanies severe winter storms and can lead to hypothermia and frostbite in people who are exposed to the conditions without adequate clothing protection. Cold can cause fuel to congeal in storage tanks and supply lines, stopping electric generators. Cold temperatures can also overpower a building's heating system and cause water and sewer pipes to freeze and rupture. Extreme cold also increases the likelihood for ice jams on flat rivers or streams. When combined with high winds from winter storms, extreme cold becomes extreme wind chill, which is extremely hazardous to public health and safety. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.247 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Geographic Location /Extent The entire state of Nebraska is vulnerable to heavy snow, extreme temperatures and freezing rain. Figure 3.88 shows that the entire planning area (approximated within the red oval) is in the light orange - shaded area which receives eight to nine hours of freezing rain per year. Figure 3.88. Average Number of Hours per Year with Freezing Rain H a4 JAP O -W# 8-12 2& 29 Source: American Meteorological Society. "Freezing Rain Events in the United States." http: / /ams.confex.com /ams /pdfpapers /71872.pdf.; Note: red oval provides approximate location of planning area. Papio - Missouri River NRD 3.248 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Previous Occurrences Winter Storms Since 1999, there has been one Presidential Disaster Declaration for Winter Storms in the planning area, DR- 1878, which was declared in February 2010. This event is described in detail below in the chronological listing of events. According to the NCDC, between 1994 and 2009, 83 total winter storm /ice storm events impacted the P- MRNRD. Combined impacts of these events included three deaths and nearly $60 million in property damages. The number of storms that impacted the individual counties in the planning area is provided in Table 3.62. Note that many of the storms impacted multiple counties in the planning area: Table 3.62. 1994 -2009 Severe Winter Storms /Ice Storms in the P -MRNRD County Number of Events Burt 36 Dakota 46 Douglas 41 Sarpy 41 Thurston 36 Washington 42 source: National uiimatic uata center Extreme Cold During the period between 1994 and 2009, 40 extreme cold events impacted the NRD planning area. Combined impacts of these events included two deaths and one injury. The number of storms that impacted the individual counties in the planning is provided in Table 3.63. Again, many of these events impacted multiple counties. Table 3.63. 1994 -2009 Extreme Cold Events in the P -MRNRD County Number of Events Burt 24 Dakota 1 Douglas 24 Sarpy 22 Thurston 30 Washington 25 Source: National Climatic Data Center Details of Notable Winter Storms and Extreme Cold Events • January 12, 1888, Winter Storm/Blizzard. One of the most spectacular and harrowing events in the history of the Great Plains was the blizzard of January 12, 1888. Other storms had produced colder temperatures and greater amounts of snow. But, it was the combination of gale winds, blinding snow, and rapidly falling temperatures that made the 1888 blizzard so dangerous. No accurate count of the total deaths from the storm is possible; but, estimates for the State of Nebraska have ranged from 40 to 100 people. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.249 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 • January 1975, Winter Storm/Blizzard. This blizzard produced up to 19 inches of snow. Winds up to 65 mph and rapidly falling temperatures left the Omaha area virtually paralyzed for days. Ten people died in Omaha, and only heroic effects of unknown people kept the death toll from being higher. • February 1 -4, 1996, Extreme Cold. Sub -zero temperatures were recorded for 63 consecutive hours. One injury was reported due to frostbite. • January 10, 1997, Extreme Cold. Low temperatures combined with 55 mph winds produced values below -70 degrees. • October 25 -26, 1997, Winter Storm. This major snow and ice storm ranks as a snow event likely to be experienced once in 200 years. A heavy wet snowfall of 6 to 14 inches fell. It caused extensive damage and /or total destruction to many of the trees that were still fully -or partially- leafed. At least 205,000 residents in the affected area were without power for several days. Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) estimated that it was the worst outage in 50 years. Nearly 85 percent of the trees in the Omaha area sustained damage or were totally destroyed. This storm also affected the urban forests of other metropolitan areas in the NRD, but not to the same extent as Omaha. Many emergency shelters in and around Omaha were opened for use by those who suffered hardships from the storm. Property damage was estimated at $56.5 million with crop damage an additional $1.6 million. • January 22, 2003, Extreme Cold. A homeless man in Omaha died from severe frostbite suffered during the -30 degree windchill. • January 6, 2004, Extreme Cold. During this event, an elderly woman in Omaha went out to check on her vehicle during the early morning hours, and passed away after falling and incapacitating herself. • November 28, 2005, Winter Storm/Blizzard. 6 to 13 inches of snow fell during this storm with some ice accumulation as well. There was one fatality caused by a vehicle collision during blizzard conditions and over $3 million in property damages. • February 2004, Snow Storms. Multiple snow storms led to concerns about access to emergency services and the strain on the City's resources in Blair (Washington County). However, all emergency services remained operational. • January 4, 2005, Winter Storm. During this 8 -14 -inch snowfall, two fatalities occurred when two motorists were stranded southwest of Omaha. • December, 2009 - January, 2010, Severe Winter Storm FEMA -DR -1878 This event is the most recent presidential declaration for severe winter storms that impacted the planning area. All counties in the P -MRNRD with the exception Sarpy County were included in the declared disaster area. The incident period ran from December 22, 2009 to January 8, 2010 and the official declaration was made on February 25, 2010. December 7 -9, 2009 The first round of snow with this event actually occurred prior to the beginning of the presidential declaration incident period. A large and relatively slow- moving storm brought a prolonged winter storm and even, for a short time, blizzard conditions to most of eastern Nebraska and western Iowa from late in the evening of the 7th through the early morning hours of the 9th. The heaviest snow fell in advance of the stronger winds, which occurred mainly during the morning and afternoon of the 8th. However, as north winds increased to 30 to 50 mph during the night of the 8th and early on the 9th, visibility intermittently dropped to near zero, especially in open areas. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.250 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Considerable drifting snow also occurred, in many cases closing roads almost as fast as they could be cleared by plows. Many schools were closed for three days because of the storm. An elderly Omaha man was found dead during the evening of the 8th when he apparently had car trouble and returned to his apartment, where he was found sitting down in a chair outside. Total snowfall from the storm was 6 to 15 inches over most of eastern Nebraska and western Iowa. Higher amounts in eastern Nebraska included 15 inches in Union, 14 inches in Columbus, and 12 to 13 inches at the NWS in Valley, Tekamah, Uehling, Steele: City, Weeping Water, and Gretna. In western Iowa, heavier amounts included 14 inches in Clarinda, Hastings, and Red Oak, around 12 inches in Harlan, and around 11 inches near Little Sioux and Oakland. Figure 3.89 provides snow totals for this event. Figure 3.89. Snow Totals December 8 and 9, 2009 ioarm Tom stw�wldl I L2 F r i �_W_&? io i� I P r. c.r Source National Weather Service Forecast Office Omaha /Valley, Nebraska; December 24 -26, 2009 The second major winter storm of the month hit eastern Nebraska and southwest Iowa as a complex weather pattern brought a prolonged period of winter weather, including blizzard conditions, to the region around Christmas. Low pressure aloft in the Southern Plains lifted northeast into Missouri as another low pressure system dropped south out of Canada. These two systems then merged over the central United States and eventually pulled Atlantic moisture westward into the Plains. Before they merged, the southern system pulled up Gulf of Mexico moisture and brought areas of freezing rain to southeast Nebraska and three to five inches of snow to northeast Nebraska on the 23rd. The second system pulled down Arctic air as north winds gusted between 40 and 50 mph over most of the region. This not only changed all the precipitation to Papio - Missouri River NRD 3.251 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 snow on the 24th, but also brought blizzard conditions to much of eastern Nebraska on Christmas Eve and much of Christmas Day. Snow and blowing snow and occasional blizzard or near - blizzard conditions then continued through much of the 26th. Snowfall from the prolonged winter storm totaled 10 to 18 inches over most of eastern Nebraska and southwest Iowa. Heavier totals included around 18 inches in Norfolk, around 16 inches in Neligh and near Little Sioux, around 15 inches in Columbus, Verdel, and Shenandoah, 14 inches near Gretna, Bennington, and Logan, and 13 inches at the NWS in Valley, Auburn, Fremont, Fort Calhoun, Wayne, Bloomfield, and Papillion. The snow and strong winds drifted most rural roads closed and even made many highways impassable, especially in northeast Nebraska and sections of southeast Nebraska where winds were a bit stronger. Figure 3.90. Snow Totals December 26, 2009 Storm total snowfall ending 6 AM Dec. 26th I Uz 4 ff"U h {2" I Saff*Ckl smMnts Gard R�xthF_ • — �r�¢ 1 -- +•� +�+• 1ka� r+mJq m Inches I _ MALLMLO 7 -6. 11! "7LL ,y +. a 3 W or LkEw1 !L. S1 L r f rr Fit Source National Weather Service Forecast Office Omaha /Valley, Nebraska; January 6, 2010: The third winter storm in a month hit eastern Nebraska and southwest Iowa. This storm was caused by an upper -level disturbance that dropped out of Canada and strengthened over the Central Plains before moving off to the east. This system pulled down Arctic air behind it and not only produced strong winds but also dangerously cold wind chill values. Even though snow amounts from this storm were about half as much or less than the storms that hit in December of 2009, and winds were similar or DerhaDs even a bit lighter- thev lasted a relativelv long time. Also. the snow Papio - Missouri River NRD 3.252 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 from this storm fell on top of a base of older snow that already was around 10 to 20 inches deep over much of the area. Thus, substantial blowing and drifting of snow was observed, with visibilities frequently one mile or less. In addition, the drifting snow from this storm was possibly worse than the prior two storms and many rural roads became impassable for several days, as did many highways and interstates over the region. The task of snow removal was so daunting in some areas that the Nebraska Department of Roads sent large rotary plows and other equipment from western Nebraska to help churn snow off the roads in eastern Nebraska. Many schools were closed for three days because of the snow and blowing snow at first, then because of the drifting snow and dangerously cold wind chills. Snow totals were generally three to six inches from the storm, with six inches at Nebraska City, and with around five inches at the NWS office near Valley, Omaha Eppley, Shubert, and Papillion in Nebraska and at Clarinda and Glenwood in Iowa among the highest reported. Figure 3.91 provides the storm total snowfall for this event. Figure 3.91. Storm Total Snowfall, Event Ending January 7, 2010 r ti J Sours Im ew ObA+ft+�5 AdrrrM k?. ra:; G- 2s i 1 n 7n 4M ee i ■fr y r..4 f 4 : ,ti,wir,..IMPWE r.ra &--p T%-J - ­% f �aJ . a� } Iowa 3a )I JA a '?". 4M 2 ~i 77 #7 A �s � T Missouri Source National Weather Service Forecast Office Omaha /Valley, Nebraska; http: / /www.crh.noaa.gov/ images /oax /news /OAX_snow0l0710_2.png Agricultural Impacts Winter stones, cold, frost and freezing take a toll on crop production in the P- MRNRD. According to the USDA's Risk Management Agency, payments for insured crop losses in the planning area as a result of winter storm and cold conditions from 2000 -2009 totaled $290,150. Please note that snow and lightning Papio - Missouri River NRD 3.253 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 ]Q 2j Ain + ELI �aJ . a� } Iowa 3a )I JA a '?". 4M 2 ~i 77 #7 A �s � T Missouri Source National Weather Service Forecast Office Omaha /Valley, Nebraska; http: / /www.crh.noaa.gov/ images /oax /news /OAX_snow0l0710_2.png Agricultural Impacts Winter stones, cold, frost and freezing take a toll on crop production in the P- MRNRD. According to the USDA's Risk Management Agency, payments for insured crop losses in the planning area as a result of winter storm and cold conditions from 2000 -2009 totaled $290,150. Please note that snow and lightning Papio - Missouri River NRD 3.253 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 events are combined in this data source. Insurance payments were the highest in Burt County followed by Sarpy and Thurston. Table 3.64. Crop Insurance Claims Paid in P -MRNRD as a Result of Winter Storm and Cold Conditions Crop Year County Name Crop Name Cause Of Loss (COL) Description COL Indemnity Paid 2001 Burt CORN Cold Wet Weather $2,198 2001 Burt SOYBEANS Cold Wet Weather $3,276 2002 Burt CORN Cold Wet Weather $42,415 2002 Burt SOYBEANS Cold Wet Weather $84,977 2004 Burt SOYBEANS Cold Wet Weather $1,702 2005 Burt CORN Cold Wet Weather $370 2009 Burt SOYBEANS Cold Wet Weather $344 2009 Burt WHEAT Cold Winter $11,690 2004 Burt CORN Frost $2,586 2000 Burt CORN Other (Snow- Lightning -Etc.) $1,340 2000 Burt SOYBEANS Other (Snow- Lightning -Etc.) $464 2003 Burt SOYBEANS Other (Snow- Lightning -Etc.) $4,187 2007 Burt CORN Other (Snow- Lightning -Etc.) $737 2008 Burt CORN Other (Snow- Lightning -Etc.) $9,175 Burt Total $165,460 2009 Dakota SOYBEANS Other (Snow- Lightning -Etc.) $495 Dakota Total $495 2003 Douglas CORN Cold Wet Weather $669 2005 Douglas CORN Cold Wet Weather $631 2005 Douglas SOYBEANS Cold Wet Weather $364 2001 Douglas WHEAT Cold Winter $922 2004 Douglas WHEAT Freeze $328 2008 Douglas SOYBEANS Frost $681 2001 Douglas CORN Other (Snow- Lightning -Etc.) $2,024 Douglas Total $5,619 2005 Sarpy SOYBEANS Cold Wet Weather $5,897 2008 Sarpy WHEAT Cold Winter $12,437 2007 Sarpy CORN Frost $8,808 2007 Sarpy SOYBEANS Frost $8,298 2000 Sarpy CORN Other (Snow- Lightning -Etc.) $13,948 2000 Sarpy SOYBEANS Other (Snow- Lightning -Etc.) $2,597 Sarpy Total $51,985 2001 Thurston SOYBEANS Cold Wet Weather $546 2002 Thurston CORN Cold Wet Weather $483 2004 Thurston CORN Cold Wet Weather $2,440 2005 Thurston SOYBEANS Cold Wet Weather $365 2006 Thurston CORN Cold Wet Weather $8,419 2008 Thurston CORN Cold Wet Weather $5,235 2009 Thurston WHEAT Cold Winter $2,458 2002 Thurston CORN Frost $929 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3 2�4 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Juli 2011 Crop Year County Name Crop Name Cause Of Loss (COL) Description COL Indemnity Paid 2004 Thurston SOYBEANS Frost $1,321 2000 Thurston SOYBEANS Other (Snow- Lightning -Etc.) $14,498 2001 Thurston CORN Other (Snow- Lightning -Etc.) $1,823 2001 Thurston SOYBEANS Other (Snow- Lightning -Etc.) $474 2004 Thurston SOYBEANS Other (Snow- Lightning -Etc.) $1,101 2005 Thurston CORN Other (Snow- Lightning -Etc.) $4,130 Thurston Total $44,222 2001 Washington CORN Cold Wet Weather $2,509 2001 Washington SOYBEANS Cold Wet Weather $355 2002 Washington CORN Cold Wet Weather $3,220 2002 Washington SOYBEANS Cold Wet Weather $1,373 2005 Washington CORN Cold Wet Weather $186 2007 Washington WHEAT Cold Wet Weather $4,613 Washington WHEAT Cold Winter $447 2005 Washington WHEAT Frost $3,582 2000 Washington SOYBEANS Other (Snow- Lightning -Etc.) $3,629 2005 Washington CORN Other (Snow- Lightning -Etc.) $1,601 2005 Washington SOYBEANS Other (Snow- Lightning -Etc.) $854 Washington Total $22,368 Grand Total $290,150 Source: USDA Risk Management Agency, 2010; COL =Cause of Loss History Rating = High: The event has happened four or more times in 100 years. Probability of Future Occurrence During the 16 -year period from 1994 to 2009, the planning area experienced a combined 83 winter storm events and 40 extreme cold events. This translates to an annual probability of approximately five winter storms per year and approximately three extreme cold events per year. Probability Rating = High: Greater than 1 chance in ten years. Papio- Nlissouri Ricer NRD 3.255 Nlulti- Hazard Nlitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Vulnerability Vulnerability Overview The entire planning area is vulnerable to the effects of winter storms. Winter storms tend to make driving more treacherous and can impact the response time of emergency vehicles. The probability of utility and infrastructure abruption or outages, increases during winter storms due to freezing rain accumulation on utility poles and power lines. Elderly populations are considered particularly vulnerable to the impacts of winter storms. Vulnerable Buildings, Infrastructure, and Critical Facilities Buildings with overhanging tree limbs are more vulnerable to damage during winter storms. Businesses experience loss of income as a result of closure during power outages. In general heavy winter storms increase wear and tear on roadways though the cost of such damages is difficult to determine. Businesses can experience loss of income as a result of closure during winter storms. Loss of Use Overhead power lines and infrastructure are also vulnerable to damages from winter storms. In particular ice accumulation during winter storm events can cause damage to power lines due to the weight of ice on the lines and equipment, as well as, damage caused to lines and equipment from falling trees and tree limbs weighted down by ice. Potential losses would include cost of repair or replacement of damaged facilities and lost economic opportunities for businesses. Secondary effects of loss of power could include ruptured water pipes in homes without electricity during winter storms. Public safety hazards include risk of electrocution from downed power lines. Specific amounts of estimated losses are not available due to the complexity and multiple variables associated with this hazard. The loss of use estimates provided in Table 3.65 below were calculated using FEMAs publication "What is a Benefit ?: Guidance on Benefit -Cost Analysis of Hazard Mitigation Project, June 2009." These figures are used to provide estimated costs associated with the loss of power in relation to the populations served in the P- MRNRD, by jurisdiction. The loss of use is provided in the heading as the loss of use cost per person per day of loss. The estimated loss of use provided for each j urisdiction represents the loss of service of the indicated utility for one day for 10 percent of the population. It is understood that in rural areas, the typical loss of use may be for a larger percentage of the population for a longer duration during weather extremes. These figures do not take into account physical damages to utility equipment and infrastructure. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.256 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.65. Loss of Use Estimates for Power Failure Associated with Severe Winter Storms Jurisdiction Population 2000 Estimated Affected Population 10% Electric Loss of Use Estimate ($126 per person per da Decatur 618 62 $7,787 Tekamah 1,892 189 $23,839 Unincorporated 1,588 159 $20,009 Total 4,098 410 $51,635 Dakota City 1,821 182 $22,945 Homer 590 59 $7,434 Hubbard 234 23 $2,948 Jackson 216 22 $2,722 South Sioux Cit 11,949 1,195 $150,557 Unincorporated 5,443 544 $68,582 Total 20,253 2,025 $255,188 Bennington 934 93 $11,768 Boys Town 830 83 $10,458 Omaha 398,152 39,815 $5,016,715 Ralston 6,065 607 $76,419 Valley 1,870 187 $23,562 Waterloo 670 67 $8,442 Unincorporated 55,064 5,506 $693,806 Total 463,585 46,359 $5,841,171 Bellevue 44,017 4,402 $554,614 Gretna 2,830 283 $35,658 La Vista 11,699 1,170 $147,407 Papillion 17,964 1,796 $226,346 Springfield 1,339 134 $16,871 Unincorporated 35,834 3,583 $451,508 Totals 122,595 12,260 $1,544,697 Macy 950 95 $11,970 Walthill 909 91 $11,453 Winnebago 768 77 $9,677 Unincorporated 2,313 231 $29,144 Total 4,940 494 $62,244 Arlington 1,197 120 $15,082 Papio- Missouri RiNer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jn1N 2011 3.27 Electric Loss of Use Estimated Estimate Affected ($126 per Population Population person Jurisdiction 2000 10% per da Blair 7,516 752 $94,702 Fort Calhoun 856 86 $10,786 Herman 310 31 $3,906 Kennard 371 37 $4,675 Washington 126 13 $1,588 Unincorporated 8,404 840 $105,890 Total 18,780 1,878 $236,628 Grand Total $634,251 63,425 $7,991,563 Papio- Missouri RiNer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jn1N 2011 3.27 Property Losses To estimate future losses resulting from of winter storm, historical statistics from NCDC and the USDA Risk Management Agency were annualized. After reviewing the available NCDC data, it was determined that it is not possible to annualize winter storm property losses for each county in the planning area, as the reported damages for this hazard cover multiple counties. This is due to the widespread nature of winter storm events. Therefore, the annualized estimates for future events are presented for the planning area as a whole. According to reports from the NCDC, there were 83 occurrences of winter storms in the planning area with two deaths and total reported property damages of approx. $59,616,000 during the 18 -year period from 1993 to 2010. This correlates to an average annual property loss of approx. $3,312,000. Compared to the total building exposure in the planning area of approx. $46,355,559,000, this represents 0.007 percent. Additionally, USDA crop insurance claims for winter storm, and freezing conditions for the ten year period from 2000 to 2009 totaled approx. $290,150. Considering that 88 percent of crops are insured in Nebraska (2009 Nebraska Crop Insurance Profile, USDA Risk Management Agency), the adjusted losses to reflect insured and uninsured crops would be around $329,716 for the period. This results in an average annual loss of approx. $32,927 to crops as a result of freeze and frost affecting agriculture. Compared to the total crop exposure of approx. $352,216,000 according to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the estimated annualized loss represents 0.009 percent. Combined annualized losses for property and crops as a result of winter storms in the planning area are approx. $3,344,927 or 0.007 percent. Increase Risk Populations Elderly populations are considered to be at an increased risk to Severe Winter Storms and associated extreme cold events. Table 3.66 provides the number and percent of population over 65 years old in each county in the planning area. Burt County has the highest percentage of people over 65 years old while Douglas County has the highest number of people over 65 years old. Table 3.66. Number and Percent of Population Over Age 65 in P -MRNRD Counties County Population Over 65 Percent of Population Over 65 Burt 1,698 21.8 Dakota 2,014 9.9 50,795 11.0 - Douglas 8,123 6.6 - Sarpy Thurston 944 13.2 Washington 2,425 12.9 Total 65,999 10.4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census Considering loss of use as a result of power outages, as well as elderly populations in the planning area, the vulnerability rating is medium. However, this rating would be considered low if considering only property damages. Vulnerability Rating = Medium I percent to 10 percent of people vulnerable. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.258 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Maximum Threat =Low: less than 5 percent of community devastated. Future Development Future development could potentially increase vulnerability to this hazard by increasing demand on utilities and increasing the exposure of infrastructure networks. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.259 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.3.9 Thunderstorms /High Winds /Lightning /Hail (also includes Extreme Heat) Profile Hazard Description A thunderstorm is defined as a storm that contains lightning and thunder which is caused by unstable atmospheric conditions. When the upper air, which is cold, sinks and the warm, moist air rises, storm clouds or "thunderheads" develop resulting in thunderstorms. This can occur singularly, in clusters or in lines. The NWS defines a thunderstorm as severe if it contains hail that is one inch or the wind gusts are at 58 mph or higher. At any given moment across the world, there are about 1,800 thunderstorms occurring. Severe thunderstorms in Nebraska occur most frequently in the spring and summer, during the afternoon and evenings, but can occur at any time. The entire State of Nebraska is at risk to the damaging effects of severe thunderstorms. Other hazards associated with thunderstorms include: heavy rains causing flash flooding (discussed separately in Section 3.2.5 tornadoes (discussed separately in Section 3.2.9 damaging winds, hail, and lightning. This section of the risk assessment will focus on the damaging winds, hail, and lightning aspects of severe thunderstorms. In addition, extreme heat, another warm weather related weather hazard will be discussed in this section. Damaging Winds A severe thunderstorm can produce winds that can cause as much damage as a weak tornado and these winds can be life threatening. The damaging winds of thunderstorms include downbursts, microbursts, and straight - line winds. Downbursts are localized currents of air blasting down from a thunderstorm, which induce an outward burst of damaging wind on or near the ground. Microbursts are minimized downbursts covering an area of less than 2.5 miles across. They typically are characterized by a strong wind shear (a rapid change in the direction of wind over a short distance) near the surface. Microbursts may or may not include precipitation and can produce winds at speeds of more than 150 mph. Damaging straight -line winds are high winds across a wide area that can reach speeds of 140 mph. Hail Severe thunderstorms can produce hail that can be one inch or more in diameter and fall at speeds more than 100 mph. Hailstones of this size cause more than $1 billion in damages to properties and crops nationwide annually. Large hail can reach the size of a grapefruit. Lightning All thunderstorms produce lightning, which often strikes outside of the area where it is raining and is known to fall more than 10 miles away from the rainfall area. Nationwide, lightning kills 75 to 100 people each year. Lightning strikes can also start structural fires, wildland fires, and damage electrical systems and equipment. Extreme Heat A heat wave is a period of excessive heat, which can lead to illness and other stress to the population experiencing prolonged exposure to these conditions. High humidity, which often accompanies heat in Nebraska, can make the effects of heat even more dangerous. While heat - related illness and death can occur Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.260 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 from exposure to intense heat in just one afternoon, heat stress on the body has a cumulative effect. Consequently, the persistence of a heat wave increases the threat to public health. The NWS defines a heat wave as three consecutive days of temperatures of 90 degrees Fahrenheit ( °F) and above. These high temperatures generally occur from June through September, but are most prevalent in the months of July and August. Along with humans, animals also can be affected by high temperatures and humidity. For instance, cattle and other farm animals respond to heat by reducing feed intake, increasing their respiration rate, and increasing their body temperature. These responses assist the animal in cooling itself, but this is usually not sufficient. The hotter the animal is, the more it will begin to shut down body processes not vital to its survival, such as milk production, reproduction, or muscle (meat) building. Ambient temperature is not the only factor that should be considered when assessing the likely effects of heat. Relative humidity must also be considered along with duration of exposure, wind, and activity. The NWS has stepped up its efforts to more effectively alert the general public and appropriate authorities to the hazards of heat waves —those prolonged episodes of excessive heat and humidity. The NWS has devised a Heat Index (HI), which is a combination of air temperature and relative humidity that more accurately reflects the heat intensity. The HI, given in degrees Fahrenheit, is an accurate measure of how hot it really feels when the relative humidity (RH) is added to the actual air temperature. The Heat Index Chart is shown in Figure 3.92. As an example, if the air temperature is 96 °F (found on the left side of the table), and the relative humidity is 55 percent (found at the top of the table), the HI is 112 °F (the intersection of the 96 °F row and the 55 percent column). Because HI values were devised for shady, light wind conditions, exposure to full sunshine can increase HI values by up to 15 °F. Also, strong winds, particularly with very hot, dry air, can be extremely hazardous. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.261 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Figure 3.92. Heat Index Chart Temperature (F) versus Relative Humidity ( %) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 65.6 64.7 63.8 62.8 61.9 60.9 I 59.1 58.1 70 71.6 70.7 69.8 68.8 67.9 66.9 I 65.1 64.1 75 79.7 76.7 75.8 74.8 73.9 72.9 72. 71.1 70.1 I80 88.2 85.9 84.2 82.8 81.6 80.4 79. 77.4 76.1 101.4 97. 93.3 90.3 87.7 85.5 83.5 81.6 79.6 MMM 100.5 96.1 92.3 89.2 86.5 IVV 84.2 IVV ML 13W� == 100.9 96.1 89.2 100 154. =W'RM� 104. 98.7 W 4 105 180.7 134.7 0105 100. 110 235. 211.2 189.1 169.4 151.9 136.8 124.1 113.7 115 I 275.3 245.4 218 193.3 171.3 152.1 135.8 122.3 120 319.1 283.1 250. 219.9 192.9 169.1 148.7 131.6 Risk Level Possible Heat Disorder: Caution Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure and physical activity. Extreme Caution Sunstroke, heat cramps and heat exhaustion possible. Danaer Sunstroke heat cramps, and heat exhaustion likely, and heat stroke possible. highly likely with continued exposure. Source: National Weather Service 'Note: On the HI chart, the shaded zone above 105 °F corresponds to a level that may cause increasingly severe heat disorders with continued exposure or physical activity. Heat waves are often a major contributing factor to power outages (brownouts, etc.), as the high temperatures result in a tremendous demand for electricity for cooling purposes. Power outages for prolonged periods increase the risk of heat stroke and subsequent fatalities due to loss of cooling and proper ventilation. Other related hazards include water shortages brought on by drought -like conditions and high demand. Local advisories, which list priorities for water use and rationing, are common during heat waves. Government authorities report that civil disturbances and riots are also more likely to occur during heat waves, as well as incidents of domestic violence and abuse. In cities, pollution becomes a problem because the heat traps pollutants in densely developed urban areas. Adding pollution to the stresses associated with the heat magnifies the health threat to the urban population. Geographic Location /Extent Severe thunderstorms and the associated wind, lightning, and hail impact the entire P -MRNRD planning area with relatively similar frequency. Although, these events occur similarly throughout the planning area, they Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.262 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 are more frequently reported in more urbanized areas. In addition, damages are more likely to occur in more densely developed urban areas. Figure 3.93 provides the number of reported thunderstorm /wind events in NCDC from 1950 to 2006. As demonstrated in this map, the more urbanized areas of Douglas and Sarpy Counties had more reported events than the more sparsely developed counties of Burt and Thurston. Figure 3.93. Map of ThunderstormsiWind Events (Higher than 60 knots) by County (1950 to 2006) y �7• Aw P .:r r yibl �• � r - �n Ste' �f+ dL" !!4 Li Fib +!!I O I- w -9L C�lw &UV Source: Nebraska State Hazard Mitigation Plan; National Climatic Data Center 1950 -2006 Previous Occurrences From 1999 to the present there have been six Presidential Disaster Declarations from in P -MRNRD Counties resulting from severe storms. These declarations are as follows: • August 2001 (DR -1394) Dakota County • June 2003 (DR -1480) Douglas County • May 2004 (DR -1517) Douglas, Sarpy, Thurston, & Washington Counties • May 2008 (DR -1770) Burt, Douglas, & Sarpy Counties • June 2008 (DR -1779) Douglas & Sarpy Counties • April 2010 (DR -1902) Dakota & Thurston Counties Damaging Winds From 1950 to 2009, the planning area experienced 392 severe thunderstorms with damaging winds in excess of 58 mph (50 blots). During this time period there was nearly $60 million in reported property damages and four injuries reported. Table 3.67 provides statistics for each county in the planning area during this time period. Papio- Dlissouri Ricer NRD 3.263 Dlulti- Hazard Dlitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Table 3.67. High Wind Events in Planning Area Counties 1950 to 2009 (greater than 58 mph (50 Knots)) County Number of Windstorms (58 mph (50 knots) & Hi her ) Injuries Property Damages Burt 13 0 $20,000 Dakota 13 0 $251,000 Douglas 146 1 $55,590,000 Sarpy 95 0 $320,000 Thurston 36 0 $110,000 Washington 59 3 $3,133,000 Total 392 4 $59,424,000 Source: National Climatic Data Center ( http: / /www4.ncdc.noaa.gov /cgi- win /wwcgi.dll ?wwEvent—Storms `Through 12/31/09 `Note: Although events were recorded back to 1950, damages were not indicated until after 1995 Some of the more notable damaging wind events that have occurred since 1994 are described in additional detail below. These descriptions are primarily from NCDC and FEMA sources: • April 25, 1996: A boy was killed in Omaha when wind gusts up to 70 mph (61 blots) toppled a tree, which fell on him as he played outdoors. • June 12, 1996: A dry microburst near Valley was recorded with wind speeds up to 92 mph (80 blots), which snapped ten power poles, tore the roof off a convenience store, and overturned several central - pivot irrigation systems within a mile radius of the NWS office. Damage for this event was estimated at $80,000. • July 16, 1996: Thunderstorm winds caused widespread damage estimated at approx. $3 million in property damage and $3 million in crop damage from Homer to South Sioux City. There was widespread tree damage, downed power poles and power lines, farm buildings were destroyed, and homes were damaged. Winds were measured at 81 mph (70 blots). • April 5, 2000: Sustained winds of 40 to50 mph (35 to 43 blots) and gusts over 60 mph (52 blots) caused $20,000 in structural damage in South Sioux City and fanned grass fires near Hubbard. • September 2, 2000: 60 mph (52 blots) winds caused $3,000 in damages to outbuildings near Herman. • April 20, 2001: Thunderstorm gusts estimated at 70 to 80 mph (61 to 70 blots) did major roof damage to several homes and businesses in Papillion. Damage was estimated at $250,000. • June 13, 2001: $50,000 in property damage was caused by strong winds in South Sioux City. • July 25, 2002: Thunderstorm winds severely damaged grain elevators on a farm and caused tree damage in and around Homer. Damage was estimated at $20,000. This same storm brought 70 mph (61 blots) winds to Jackson, which destroyed or damaged several buildings, resulting in approx. $500,000 in damage, extensive tree damage, and power outage. • October 1, 2002: An intense thunderstorm brought hail and 100 mph (87 blots) winds from five miles southwest of Fort Calhoun into the Fort Calhoun area. Extensive tree damage was reported, and two injuries resulted when the strong winds destroyed a house northwest of Fort Calhoun. Another injury was reported when a person was caught outside in the wind driven hail. An estimated 85 percent of homes in Fort Calhoun sustained damage to some degree. The storm caused an estimated $3 million in damage. • July 5, 2003: A large bowing line of thunderstorms dropped temperatures more than 20 degrees in addition to causing brief intense rain and wind gusts up to 87 mph (76 blots). An estimated $ million in Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.264 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 damage was reported in Omaha, mostly caused by damage to the larger trees in the central and eastern sections of town. This extensive tree damage across the city brought down power lines and caused outages to 60,000 OPPD customers. OPPD also estimated cleanup expenses at $200,000. • August 18, 2003: A strong thunderstorm caused a tree to fall on a home in Homer, resulting in $10,000 in property damage. • July 12, 2004: 70 mph (61 knots) winds downed large trees and power lines in Blair. Many homes and cars sustained damage and power there were outages to parts of the city for up to 24 hours. Damage was estimated at around $100,000. • March 10, 2005: Sustained winds of 30 to 40 mph (26 to 35 knots) with gusts over 60 mph (52 knots) overturned semi trailers and injured one person in Decatur. • May 10, 2005: Thunderstorm wind gusts of 62 mph (54 knots) brought down trees damaging homes and other private property in western and northern Omaha. Damage was estimated at $500,000. Approximately 13,000 OPPD customers were without power from the storms. This same line of storms caused minor damage to buildings in Dakota County. • July 25, 2005: Thunderstorm winds caused damage to trees and structures estimated at $500,000 in the Jackson area. • Declaration June 20, 2008, FEMA -DR -1770 (Incident period from May 22, 2008 and continuing): This federal disaster declaration was made following the severe weather and flooding from May 22 to June 24, 2008. Damage was widespread across almost the entire state, but was concentrated more in central and eastern Nebraska. An extremely active weather pattern brought wave after wave of severe weather across the same areas of the state, resulting in significant flooding and extensive damage. Included in this disaster are the following notable individual events: — May 24 and 25: back -to -back days of extremely strong winds (approaching 100 mph (87 knots) in eastern Nebraska; extensive tree damage and power outages; — May 29: Kearney: tornado damage to the county fairgrounds and airport; — May 29: Aurora tornado; — May 29: Platte Center: Estimated 8 inches of rain caused flooding on Elm Creek and Shell Creek - more than 50 homes reported damage; — May 29: Schuyler: major flooding on Shell Creek flooded more than 250 homes and evacuations; — June 4: Ulysses tornado; — June 4: Ceresco tornadoes; — June 8: Omaha tornado, called a "stealth tornado" in the media because it formed quickly as a result of rare wind patterns behind the storm resulting in practically no warning time. • Declaration July 18, 2008, FEMA -DR -1779 (Incident period June 27, 2008): On July 7, 2008, Governor Dave Heineman requested a major disaster declaration due to severe thunderstorms that included heavy rain, hail, and straight -line winds on June 27, 2008. Approximately 1,207 residences were impacted with six destroyed, 52 with major damage, 554 with minor damage, and 595 affected. The total Public Assistance cost estimate was approx. $12,746,400. The countywide per capita impact estimates were: Douglas County $21.27, Sarpy County $18.90. • Declaration April 21, 2010, FEMA -DR -1902 (Incident Period March 6 to April 3,2010): The Governor requested a declaration for Public Assistance for 35 counties. The total Public Assistance cost estimate was approx. $10,758,830 and the countywide per capita impact estimates were: Dakota County: $10.30, Thurston County: $21.97 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.265 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 • May 22, 2010: Severe storms that rolled through the Great Plains left a child dead and trapped at least two people in submerged vehicles. Large hail, heavy rain and strong winds caused damages in South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska. A seven year old boy in Omaha died when he was struck by a tree branch brought down by blustery weather. (Associated Press, May 24, 2010). • June 1, 2010: Across nearly 400 miles from Nebraska to Illinois, a weather phenomenon known as a derecho, or long - lived, powerful, straight -line winds, swept eastward from Omaha Tuesday evening, causing damage across parts of four states. The storm downed tree limbs and damaged homes in Bennington. Wind speeds in this storm may have reached 90 to 110 mph (78 to 96 knots), the equivalent of an F 1 tornado. The damage ran in parallel lines both north and south of Omaha. Hail Table 3.68. Hail Events in Planning Area Counties 1950 to 2009 (greater than 1 inch) County Number of Hail Events (> 1 inch) Injuries Property Damages* Crop Damages Burt 35 0 $0 $0 Dakota 49 0 $855,000 $23,800,000 Douglas 143 1 $501,502,000 $0 Sarpy 86 0 $500,000 $1,800,000 Thurston 35 0 $0 $0 Washington 51 0 $10,000,000 $0 Total 399 0 $512,857,000 $25,600,000 Source: National Climatic Data Center 'Note: Although events were recorded back to 1950, damages were not indicated until after 1995 • July 24, 1995: $300,000 in property damage caused by 1 3 /4 inch hail, downtown Omaha. • May 17, 1996: $200,000 in property damage reported from 2 3 /4 inch hail in Elkhorn. • July 16, 1996: $500,000 in property damage was caused by 1 3 /4 inch hail in South Sioux City. Coupled with strong winds, this hail event destroyed more than half of Dakota County's corn and bean acreage, resulting in an estimated $22 million in damage. • July 27, 1996: $300,000 in damage to aircraft and vehicles at Offutt Air Force Base, $5,000 in property damage was reported near Dakota City on the same day. • July 2, 1999: 1 inch hail caused $1.8 million in damage to 5,000 acres of corn and soybeans. South Sioux City witnessed $200,000 in property damage to vehicles and buildings. • April 10, 2001: Property damage estimated at $300 million caused by a 5 to 15- minute hail storm in Omaha which consisted of hail in the' /2 inch to 1 1 /2 inch range. There was one reported injury caused by this hail event. State Farm estimated 100,000 home insurance claims as hail drifted like snow across sidewalks and roads. • April 30, 2001: The second major hail event in three weeks caused an additional $200 million in property damage in Elkhorn and western Omaha. • May 13, 2001: Hail up to three inches in diameter caused significant damage to commercial and private aircraft at Eppley Airfield in Omaha. Combined with residential property damages, the damage estimate topped $1 million. • July 25, 2002: $100,000 in property damage caused by 1 3 /4 inch hail near Jackson. • May 4, 2003: 2'/2 to 4'/2 inch hail reported from Gretna to Bellevue, no damage reports. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3?66 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 • June 9, 2003: $50,000 in vehicle and window damage caused by 1 3 /4 inch hail in Jackson. May 22, 2004: Hail up to baseball size fell in Blair, causing extensive damage to car dealership inventories and residences. Damage totals for Dodge County and Washington County was $10 million, with at least half of this amount coming from Washington County and Blair. • June 4, 2005: Up to 4 inch hail caused scattered damage in the Papillion area. Lightning From 1995 to 2009, the planning area experienced reported numerous lightning events. Lightning events were not reported in NCDC prior to 1994. Therefore a shorter time - period of statistics is available. During this 15 year time period, reported lightning events caused two deaths, six injuries and over $3.5 million in reported property damages and $7,000 in reported crop damages. Table 3.69 provides statistics for each county in the planning area during this time period. Table 3.69. Lightning Events in Planning Area Counties 1995 to 2009 County Number of Lightning Events Deaths/ Injuries Property Damages Crop Damages Burt 5 0/0 $50,000 $3,000 Dakota 1 0/0 $5,000 $0 Douglas 31 1/4 $3,282,000 $1,000 Sarpy 8 0/1 $139,000 $1,000 Thurston 2 0/0 $0 $1,000 Washington 5 1/1 $50,000 $1,000 Total 52 2/6 $3,526,000 $7,000 Source: National Climatic Data Center (http: / /www4.ncdc.noaa.gov /cgi- win /wwcgi.dll ?wwEvent—Storms) Some of the more notable damaging lightning events are described in additional detail below: • June 1994: A jogger was fatally struck and another individual injured in Blair. • August 1994: A man injured in Gretna. • June 1997: A man injured in Omaha. • July 2001: A cyclist fatally struck by lightning in Omaha. • August 2002: Lightning caused a house fire in Bellevue, which caused $125,000 in damages • May 2004: Two men inured near Zorinsky Lake in Omaha. • July 2004: A woman inured in Omaha. • August 2005: $2 million in damages from lightning that caused a fire to holiday decorating business in Omaha. Extreme Heat During the period from 1994 to 2009 during which statistics on extreme heat in the planning area were available, there were seven notable events reported to NCDC. There were four events affecting Burt County, one affecting Dakota County, six events affecting Douglas County, five events affecting Sarpy County, two events affecting Thurston County, and five events affecting Washington County. In all, these events caused seven deaths, nearly $6 Million in property damages and $150,000 in crop damages. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.267 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.70. Extreme Heat Events in Planning Area Counties 1994 to 2009 Source: National Climatic Data Center • July 10, 1995, Heat Wave. One hundred degree heat over a five day period resulted in three deaths, numerous livestock losses, and damage to roads. July 19, 1999, Excessive Heat. From July 19th through the 30th high temperatures over eastern Nebraska and southwest Iowa reached 90 degrees or better all but a day or two, and even then highs were well into the 80s. In addition, overnight lows stayed mostly above 70 degrees. The high temperatures were accompanied by high humidity which caused afternoon heat indices to reach between 105 and 120 degrees. The highest temperatures in this period were observed on the 29th and 30th with highs both days in the upper 90s to low 100s across the region. Lincoln recorded 104 degrees on the 29th while Omaha Eppley reached 100. Two deaths were determined to be caused from the heat. A 34 year old male died while jogging near Macy on July 27 and a 75 year old man died in his mobile home on July 28 after his air - conditioner broke and temperatures inside the trailer reached over 110 degrees. The heat was directly responsible for also killing at least 5,000 head of cattle worth an estimated $3.3 million dollars. July 28, 1999, Excessive Heat. Excessive heat occurred with heat indices above 120 degrees. Several cattle were lost, and a 68 year old woman died in an uncooled apartment in South Sioux City. July 28 to August 1, 2001, Excessive Heat. A heat wave of which lasted over one week affected much of eastern Nebraska and southwest Iowa from late July into early August. The heat was finally broken by a cold front that pushed afternoon temperatures down into the 80s on August 9 During the heat wave, high temperatures were consistently in the mid to upper 90s with overnight lows in the mid to upper 70s. The heat index during this time frequently reached 105 to 115 degrees from mid afternoon into early evening. The extreme heat caused a 39 year old male to die of heat stroke while on a work - release construction site near Beatrice on the 30th. July 22, 2005, Excessive Heat. High temperatures from the upper 90s to around 105 and lows of 75 to 80 with afternoon heat index values of 105 to 115 degrees impacted the planning area. A temperature of 105 in Omaha was a record for the date and the hottest in ten years. The excessive heat caused many cattle deaths over the region, especially over northeast Nebraska. One rendering company collected 1,250 head of dead cattle over the weekend, 200 alone from one producer. The rendering company estimated that losses to cattle producers would be in the millions of dollars. Although no human deaths were confirmed due to the heat, University of Nebraska Medical Center officials believed the death of an Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.268 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 r_ 0 ' Property Crop r 0 Q L L 0 N Date Type Damages Damages op p a in H M 7/10/1995 Heat Wave 3 0 $160,000 $150,000 x x x x 7/19/1999 Excessive Heat 2 0 $3,300,000 $0 x x x x x 7/28/1999 Excessive Heat 1 0 $0 $0 x 7/28/2001 Excessive Heat 1 0 $0 $0 x x x 8/1/2001 Excessive Heat 0 0 $0 $0 x x x x 7/22/2005 Excessive Heat 0 0 $3,000,000 $0 x x x x 6/22/2009 Excessive Heat 0 0 $0 $0 x x Totals 7 0 $6,460,000 $150,000 Source: National Climatic Data Center • July 10, 1995, Heat Wave. One hundred degree heat over a five day period resulted in three deaths, numerous livestock losses, and damage to roads. July 19, 1999, Excessive Heat. From July 19th through the 30th high temperatures over eastern Nebraska and southwest Iowa reached 90 degrees or better all but a day or two, and even then highs were well into the 80s. In addition, overnight lows stayed mostly above 70 degrees. The high temperatures were accompanied by high humidity which caused afternoon heat indices to reach between 105 and 120 degrees. The highest temperatures in this period were observed on the 29th and 30th with highs both days in the upper 90s to low 100s across the region. Lincoln recorded 104 degrees on the 29th while Omaha Eppley reached 100. Two deaths were determined to be caused from the heat. A 34 year old male died while jogging near Macy on July 27 and a 75 year old man died in his mobile home on July 28 after his air - conditioner broke and temperatures inside the trailer reached over 110 degrees. The heat was directly responsible for also killing at least 5,000 head of cattle worth an estimated $3.3 million dollars. July 28, 1999, Excessive Heat. Excessive heat occurred with heat indices above 120 degrees. Several cattle were lost, and a 68 year old woman died in an uncooled apartment in South Sioux City. July 28 to August 1, 2001, Excessive Heat. A heat wave of which lasted over one week affected much of eastern Nebraska and southwest Iowa from late July into early August. The heat was finally broken by a cold front that pushed afternoon temperatures down into the 80s on August 9 During the heat wave, high temperatures were consistently in the mid to upper 90s with overnight lows in the mid to upper 70s. The heat index during this time frequently reached 105 to 115 degrees from mid afternoon into early evening. The extreme heat caused a 39 year old male to die of heat stroke while on a work - release construction site near Beatrice on the 30th. July 22, 2005, Excessive Heat. High temperatures from the upper 90s to around 105 and lows of 75 to 80 with afternoon heat index values of 105 to 115 degrees impacted the planning area. A temperature of 105 in Omaha was a record for the date and the hottest in ten years. The excessive heat caused many cattle deaths over the region, especially over northeast Nebraska. One rendering company collected 1,250 head of dead cattle over the weekend, 200 alone from one producer. The rendering company estimated that losses to cattle producers would be in the millions of dollars. Although no human deaths were confirmed due to the heat, University of Nebraska Medical Center officials believed the death of an Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.268 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 infant that was left in a vehicle on Saturday was related to the weather. Also there was at least one report of a highway buckling because of the heat, Highway 75 in Cass county Nebraska. June 22, 2009, Excessive Heat. A period of hot and very humid conditions was observed over eastern Nebraska and southwest Iowa on June 22nd and 23rd. High temperatures were in the lower to upper 90s. Overnight lows were in the mid to upper 70s. The combination of the heat and humidity brought heat index values up into the 108 to 118 degree range. Since these extremely uncomfortable temperatures occurred with light winds, generally less than 10 mph, conditions became deadly for livestock, especially during the afternoon of the 23rd. It was estimated that at least 2,000 head of cattle died because of the heat in eastern Nebraska and western Iowa, most of them on the 23rd. Agricultural Impacts Severe thunderstorms, wind, lightning, hail, and extreme heat take a toll on crop production in the planning area. According to the USDA's Risk Management Agency, payments for insured crop losses in the P -MRNRD area as a result of these conditions from 2000 to 2009 totaled nearly $12 Million. Please note that snow and lightning events are combined in this data source. Insurance payments were the highest in Douglas County followed by Burt County and then Washington County. Table 3.71. Crop Insurance Claims Paid in Planning Area as a Result of Severe Thunderstorm (Wind /Hail /Lightning) and Extreme Heat Conditions Crop Year County Name Crop Name Cause of Loss (COL) Description COL Indemnity Paid 2000 Burt CORN Hail $11,707 2000 Burt SOYBEANS Hail $54,479 2001 Burt CORN Hail $84,245 2001 Burt SOYBEANS Hail $106,273 2002 Burt CORN Hail $16,685 2002 Burt SOYBEANS Hail $76,817 2003 Burt CORN Hail $4,178 2003 Burt SOYBEANS Hail $57,473 2004 Burt CORN Hail $528,835 2004 Burt SOYBEANS Hail $437,579 2007 Burt SOYBEANS Hail $21,296 2008 Burt CORN Hail $65,366 2008 Burt SOYBEANS Hail $15,452 2000 Burt CORN Heat $22,317 2000 Burt SOYBEANS Heat $41,698 2001 Burt CORN Heat $17,224 2002 Burt CORN Heat $99,574 2002 Burt SOYBEANS Heat $164,444 2003 Burt CORN Heat $10,835 2003 Burt SOYBEANS Heat $28,799 2004 Burt CORN Heat $2,896 2005 Burt CORN Heat $40,088 2005 Burt SOYBEANS Heat $1,392 2006 Burt CORN Heat $72,253 2006 Burt SOYBEANS Heat $5,207 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3?69 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Crop Year County Narne Cro Name Cause of Loss (COL) Description COL Indemnity Paid 2007 Burt CORN Heat $6,928 2007 Burt SOYBEANS Heat $3,324 2008 Burt CORN Heat $130,664 2008 Burt SOYBEANS Heat $229,354 2000 Burt CORN Hot Wind $7,858 2002 Burt CORN Hot Wind $5,804 2002 Burt SOYBEANS Hot Wind $2,708 2005 Burt SOYBEANS Hot Wind $5,252 2006 Burt CORN Hot Wind $25,215 2006 Burt GRAIN SORGHUM Hot Wind $7,203 2007 Burt CORN Hot Wind $216 2000 Burt CORN Other (Snow- Lightning) $1,340 2000 Burt SOYBEANS Other (Snow- Lightning) $464 2003 Burt SOYBEANS Other (Snow- Lightning) $4,187 2007 Burt CORN Other (Snow- Lightning) $737 2008 Burt CORN Other (Snow- Lightning) $9,175 2001 Burt CORN Wind /Excess Wind $5,112 2001 Burt SOYBEANS Wind /Excess Wind $8,203 2002 Burt CORN Wind /Excess Wind $427 2002 Burt SOYBEANS Wind /Excess Wind $410 2003 Burt CORN Wind /Excess Wind $1,196 2005 Burt CORN Wind /Excess Wind $482 2006 Burt CORN Wind /Excess Wind $6,744 2007 Burt CORN Wind /Excess Wind $11,832 2007 Burt I GRAIN SORGHUM Wind /Excess Wind $13,242 Burt Total $2,475,184 2000 Dakota CORN Hail $6,274 2000 Dakota SOYBEANS Hail $1,317 2001 Dakota CORN Hail $88,715 2001 Dakota POPCORN Hail $3,863 2001 Dakota SOYBEANS Hail $38,981 2002 Dakota CORN Hail $307,246 2002 Dakota POPCORN Hail $3,964 2002 Dakota SOYBEANS Hail $578,411 2003 Dakota CORN Hail $6,862 2003 Dakota POPCORN Hail $665 2003 Dakota SOYBEANS Hail $64,140 2004 Dakota CORN Hail $1,595 2004 Dakota SOYBEANS Hail $7,853 2005 Dakota CORN Hail $6,140 2005 Dakota SOYBEANS Hail $5,157 2007 Dakota SOYBEANS Hail $42,178 2008 Dakota SOYBEANS Hail $32,503 2009 Dakota CORN Hail $431 2009 Dakota SOYBEANS Hail $50,110 2000 Dakota CORN Heat $5,103 2000 Dakota SOYBEANS Heat $16,615 2001 Dakota CORN Heat $14,827 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3. 2 70 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Crop Year County Narne Cro Name Cause of Loss (COL) Description COL Indemnity Paid 2001 Dakota POPCORN Heat $113 2001 Dakota SOYBEANS Heat $797 2002 Dakota CORN Heat $99,668 2002 Dakota POPCORN Heat $9,733 2002 Dakota SOYBEANS Heat $61,807 2003 Dakota CORN Heat $2,912 2003 Dakota SOYBEANS Heat $1,306 2005 Dakota CORN Heat $5,946 2006 Dakota CORN Heat $11,213 2007 Dakota CORN Heat $55,274 2007 Dakota SOYBEANS Heat $17,041 2008 Dakota SOYBEANS Heat $27,386 2009 Dakota SOYBEANS Other (Snow- Lightning) $495 2001 Dakota CORN Wind /Excess Wind $58,178 2003 Dakota CORN Wind /Excess Wind $124 2003 Dakota SOYBEANS Wind /Excess Wind $192 2007 Dakota CORN Wind /Excess Wind $22,464 2009 Dakota CORN Wind /Excess Wind $30,628 2009 Dakota SOYBEANS Wind /Excess Wind $2,075 Dakota Total $1,690,299 2000 Douglas SOYBEANS Hail $1,835 2001 Douglas CORN Hail $12,219 2001 Douglas SOYBEANS Hail $53 2002 Douglas CORN Hail $911 2002 Douglas SOYBEANS Hail $409,745 2005 Douglas CORN Hail $13,894 2005 Douglas SOYBEANS Hail $3,668 2008 Douglas WHEAT Hail $1,645 2008 Douglas CORN Hail $2,961,331 2008 Douglas HYBRID CORN SEED Hail $49,766 2008 Douglas SOYBEANS Hail $1,634,526 2001 Douglas SOYBEANS Heat $4,619 2002 Douglas CORN Heat $32,680 2003 Douglas CORN Heat $1,441 2003 Douglas SOYBEANS Heat $9,757 2005 Douglas OATS Heat $108 2005 Douglas SOYBEANS Heat $273 2006 Douglas SOYBEANS Heat $14,583 2008 Douglas CORN Heat $1,439 2008 Douglas SOYBEANS Heat $40,582 2001 Douglas CORN Hot Wind $1,351 2002 Douglas CORN Hot Wind $1,957 2003 Douglas CORN Hot Wind $1,789 2006 Douglas SOYBEANS Hot Wind $2,753 2001 Douglas CORN Other (Snow- Lightning) $2,024 2000 Douglas SOYBEANS Wind /Excess Wind $934 2001 Douglas CORN Wind /Excess Wind $6,583 2006 Douglas SOYBEANS Wind /Excess Wind $1,675 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3. 2 71 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Crop Year County Name Cro Name Cause of Loss (COL) Description COL Indemnity Paid 2008 Douglas CORN Wind /Excess Wind $11,899 2008 Douglas HYBRID CORN SEED Wind /Excess Wind $40,858 2008 Douglas SOYBEANS Wind /Excess Wind $2,638 2009 Douglas CORN Wind /Excess Wind $483 2009 Douglas SOYBEANS Wind /Excess Wind $304 Douglas Total $5,270,320 2001 Sarpy SOYBEANS Hail $1,706 2002 Sarpy SOYBEANS Hail $497 2005 Sarpy CORN Hail $24,543 2005 Sarpy SOYBEANS Hail $7,282 2006 Sarpy SOYBEANS Hail $4,008 2008 Sarpy SOYBEANS Hail $20,727 2000 Sarpy SOYBEANS Heat $11,720 2001 Sarpy CORN Heat $29,190 2001 Sarpy SOYBEANS Heat $32,500 2002 Sarpy CORN Heat $26,002 2002 Sarpy SOYBEANS Heat $3,040 2003 Sarpy CORN Heat $5,462 2003 Sarpy GRAIN SORGHUM Heat $1,806 2003 Sarpy SOYBEANS Heat $12,248 2006 Sarpy CORN Heat $7,222 2006 Sarpy SOYBEANS Heat $8,463 2007 Sarpy CORN Heat $16,747 2002 Sarpy CORN Hot Wind $8,857 2002 Sarpy SOYBEANS Hot Wind $2,318 2003 Sarpy SOYBEANS Hot Wind $1,977 2006 Sarpy CORN Hot Wind $2,042 2000 Sarpy CORN Other (Snow- Lightning) $13,948 2000 Sarpy SOYBEANS Other (Snow- Lightning) $2,597 2006 Sarpy CORN Wind /Excess Wind $1,063 2007 Sarpy I CORN Wind /Excess Wind $9,550 Sarpy Total $255,513 2000 Thurston CORN Hail $1,370 2001 Thurston CORN Hail $2,405 2001 Thurston SOYBEANS Hail $1,529 2002 Thurston CORN Hail $271,639 2002 Thurston SOYBEANS Hail $158,657 2003 Thurston SOYBEANS Hail $19,679 2004 Thurston SOYBEANS Hail $629 2007 Thurston CORN Hail $1,032 2007 Thurston SOYBEANS Hail $330 2008 Thurston SOYBEANS Hail $31,702 2009 Thurston OATS Hail $178 2000 Thurston CORN Heat $16,511 2000 Thurston SOYBEANS Heat $7,152 2001 Thurston CORN Heat $25,068 2001 Thurston SOYBEANS Heat $3,304 2002 Thurston CORN Heat $1,011 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3. 2 7 2 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Crop Year County Name Cro Name Cause of Loss (COL) Description COL Indemnity Paid 2002 Thurston SOYBEANS Heat $1,355 2003 Thurston SOYBEANS Heat $4,067 2005 Thurston CORN Heat $3,853 2006 Thurston CORN Heat $19,149 2007 Thurston CORN Heat $35,453 2008 Thurston CORN Heat $38,257 2008 Thurston SOYBEANS Heat $33,530 2000 Thurston CORN Hot Wind $34,577 2000 Thurston SOYBEANS Hot Wind $1,681 2005 Thurston CORN Hot Wind $3,285 2000 Thurston SOYBEANS Other (Snow- Lightning) $14,498 2001 Thurston CORN Other (Snow- Lightning) $1,823 2001 Thurston SOYBEANS Other (Snow- Lightning) $474 2004 Thurston SOYBEANS Other (Snow- Lightning) $1,101 2005 Thurston CORN Other (Snow- Lightning) $4,130 2000 Thurston CORN Wind /Excess Wind $23,314 2000 Thurston SOYBEANS Wind /Excess Wind $1,898 2003 Thurston CORN Wind /Excess Wind $1,084 2003 Thurston SOYBEANS Wind /Excess Wind $3,588 2006 Thurston CORN Wind /Excess Wind $141 2007 Thurston CORN Wind /Excess Wind $1,537 2009 Thurston CORN Wind /Excess Wind $17,844 2009 Thurston SOYBEANS Wind /Excess Wind $12,717 Thurston Total $801,552 2000 Washington CORN Hail $8,591 2000 Washington SOYBEANS Hail $17,653 2001 Washington CORN Hail $40,713 2001 Washington SOYBEANS Hail $31,416 2002 Washington CORN Hail $97,599 2002 Washington SOYBEANS Hail $766,977 2003 Washington CORN Hail $1,338 2003 Washington SOYBEANS Hail $6,997 2004 Washington CORN Hail $143,067 2004 Washington SOYBEANS Hail $136,550 2006 Washington CORN Hail $1,407 2006 Washington SOYBEANS Hail $32,027 2007 Washington WHEAT Hail $705 2008 Washington SOYBEANS Hail $39,326 2000 Washington CORN Heat $3,736 2000 Washington SOYBEANS Heat $9,911 2001 Washington CORN Heat $1,825 2002 Washington CORN Heat $24,209 2002 Washington SOYBEANS Heat $25,303 2003 Washington CORN Heat $9,170 2003 Washington SOYBEANS Heat $4,866 2007 Washington WHEAT Heat $4,760 2000 Washington SOYBEANS Hot Wind $351 2000 Washington SOYBEANS Other (Snow- Lightning) $3,629 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3. 2 73 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Crop Year County Name Cro Name Cause of Loss (COL) Description COL Indemnity Paid 2005 Washington CORN Other (Snow- Lightning) $1,601 2005 Washington SOYBEANS Other (Snow- Lightning) $854 2000 Washington CORN Wind /Excess Wind $13,261 2001 Washington CORN Wind /Excess Wind $655 2001 Washington SOYBEANS Wind /Excess Wind $1,502 2003 Washington CORN Wind /Excess Wind $2,195 2004 Washington CORN Wind /Excess Wind $164 2007 Washington WHEAT Wind /Excess Wind $8,435 Washington Total $1,440,791 Grand Total $11,933,659 Source: USDA Risk Management Agency, 2010 History Rating = High: The event has happened four or more times in 100 years. Probability of Future Occurrence High wind events 50 blots and greater occurred an average of eight times per year in the planning area from 1962 to 2009. Hail events with hail one inch in diameter and larger occurred just over seven times per year in the planning area from 1956 to 2009. Reported lightning events occurred an average of nearly four times per year in the planning area from 1995 to 2009. Damaging extreme heat events occurred seven times in the planning area from 1995 to 2009, an average of nearly one per year. These rates of occurrence are expected to continue in the fixture. Probability Rating = High: Greater than 1 chance in ten years. Papio- lblissouri Ricer NRD 3.274 Nlulti- Hazard Nlitigation Plan July 2011 Vulnerability Overview Windstorms are primarily a public safety and economic concern, and the P -MRNRD is located in a region with very high frequency of occurrence. Windstorms can cause damage to structures and power lines, which in turn can create hazardous conditions for people. Debris flying from high wind events can shatter windows in structures and vehicles and can harm people that are not adequately sheltered. Potential Losses to Existing Development Mobile Homes Campers, mobile homes, barns, and sheds and their occupants are particularly vulnerable to windstorm events in the planning area. These lighter structures are prone to overturning during significant magnitude events. Table 3.72 provides the estimated numbers of mobile homes in each city in the P -MRNRD as well as the unincorporated areas of each county. The city with the most mobile homes is Omaha. Bellevue and South Sioux City also have a large number of mobile homes. Table 3.72. Mobile Homes in Cities and Unincorporated County Areas Jurisdiction Number of Mobile Homes Burt Count Decatur 112 Tekamah 71 Dakota City 43 Unincorporated 250 Dakota Count Homer 18 Hubbard 13 Jackson 6 South Sioux City 352 Bennington N/A Boys Town N/A Unincorporated 597 Douglas Count Omaha 1,816 Ralston 9 31 70 - Valley Waterloo N/A Unincorporated 1104 Sarpy Count Source: City - data.com Jurisdiction Number of Mobile Homes Bellevue 451 Gretna N/A La Vista 30 Pa pillion N/A Springfield 31 Unincor orated 219 Thurston Count Macy 10 Walthill 31 Winnebago 17 Unincorporated 70 Washington Count Village of Washington 4 Arlington 27 Blair 60 Fort Calhoun 31 Herman 9 Kennard 4 Unincorporated 300 Totals 5,761 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 3.27 Loss of Use Overhead power lines and infrastructure are also vulnerable to damages from windstorms. In addition extreme heat can cause brownouts or blackouts due to increased strain on the power grid. Potential losses would include cost of repair or replacement of damaged facilities and lost economic opportunities for businesses. Secondary effects from loss of power could include damage to equipment due to power surges in the electrical grid during brownouts or blackouts. Public safety hazards include risk of electrocution from downed power lines. Specific amounts of estimated losses are not available due to the complexity and multiple variables associated with this hazard. The loss of use estimates provided in Table 3.73 below were calculated using FENIA's publication "What is a Benefit ?: Guidance on Benefit -Cost Analysis of Hazard Mitigation Project, June 2009." These figures are used to provide estimated costs associated with the loss of power in relation to the populations served in the NRD by jurisdiction. The loss of use is provided in the heading as the loss of use cost per person per day of loss. The estimated loss of use provided for each jurisdiction represents the loss of service of the indicated utility for one day for 10 percent of the population. It is anticipated that in rural areas the typical loss of use may be for a larger percentage of the population for a longer duration during weather extremes. These figures do not take into account physical damages to utility equipment and infrastructure. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.276 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.73. Loss of Use Estimates for Power Failure Associated with Severe Thunderstorms /Extreme Heat Jurisdiction Population 2000 Estimated Affected Population 10% Electric Loss of Use Estimate ($126 per person per da Decatur 618 62 $7,787 Tekamah 1,892 189 $23,839 Unincorporated 1,588 159 $20,009 Total 4,098 410 $51,635 Dakota City 1,821 182 $22,945 Homer 590 59 $7,434 Hubbard 234 23 $2,948 Jackson 216 22 $2,722 South Sioux Cit 11,949 1,195 $150,557 Unincorporated 5,443 544 $68,582 Total 20,253 2,025 $255,188 Bennington 934 93 $11,768 Boys Town 830 83 $10,458 Omaha 398,152 39,815 $5,016,715 Ralston 6,065 607 $76,419 Valley 1,870 187 $23,562 Waterloo 670 67 $8,442 Unincorporated 55,064 5,506 $693,806 Total 463,585 46,359 $5,841,171 Bellevue 44,017 4,402 $554,614 Jurisdiction Population 2000 Estimated Affected Population 10% Electric Loss of Use Estimate ($126 per person per da Gretna 2,830 283 $35,658 La Vista 11,699 1,170 $147,407 PapiIIion 17,964 1,796 $226,346 Springfield 1,339 134 $16,871 Unincorporated 35,834 3,583 $451,508 Total 122,595 12,260 $1,544,697 Macy 950 95 $11,970 Walthill 909 91 $11,453 Winnebago 768 77 $9,677 Unincorporated 2,313 231 $29,144 Total 4,940 494 $62,244 Arlington 1,197 120 $15,082 Blair 7,516 752 $94,702 Fort Calhoun 856 86 $10,786 Herman 310 31 $3,906 Kennard 371 37 $4,675 Washington 126 13 $1,588 Unincorporated 8,404 840 $105,890 Total 18,780 1,878 $236,628 Grand Total $634,251 63,425 $7,991,563 Papio- Missouri RiNer NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jn1N 2011 3.277 Property and Crop Losses Table 3.74 provides the estimated annualized property damages resulting from severe thunderstorms, including wind, hail, and lightning. This annualized damage has been compared to the total building exposure for each county, determined using HAZUS, to determine an estimated percent damage. This analysis indicates that in an average year, the planning area experiences an annualized percent of property damage of 0.083 percent. Based on historical trends, the highest annualized damages and annualized percent property damages are expected to occur in Douglas County. Statistics on property damages as a result of heat are not available for each separate county, as these events impact broad regional areas and the reported damages in NCDC are for the entire event. For the 15 year period analyzed, property damages related to extreme heat events were reported to be $6,460,000, or $430,667 in annualized damages. In addition, the total for the annualized percent of property damage is 0.084 percent for the P- MRNRD. Table 3.74. Estimated Annualized Property Damages Resulting from Severe Thunderstorms (Wind /Hail /Lightning) Source: Building Exposure -HAZUS MH MR4; Property Damages -NCDC Table 3.75 provides the estimated annualized crop damages resulting from severe thunderstorms, including wind, hail, lightning and heat. Although NCDC does report crop damages, it was determined that the USDA's Risk Management Agency crop data was more appropriate for estimating crop losses. The annualized crop damages were determined by adjusting the insurance paid for losses by the inverse of the statewide average crop insurance coverage amount of 88 percent, where the inverse of 88 percent is 1.14. This information resulted in the adjusted crop damages for the ten year period, which were then annualized. To determine annualized percent damage, the amount was divided by the crop exposure, as reported in the 2007 Census of Agriculture. This analysis indicates that in an average year, the planning area experiences 0.39 percent damages to crops as a result of thunderstorms, wind, hail, lightning, and heat. Based on Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.278 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Annualized 1995 to 2009 Annualized Percent Building Wind /Hail /Lightning Property Property County Exposure Property Damages Damages Damage Burt $312,175,000 $70,000 $4,667 0.001% Dakota $1,098,836,00 0 $1,111,000 $74,067 0.007% Douglas $35,220,080,0 00 $560,374,000 $37,358,267 0.106% Sarpy $8,241,777,00 0 $959,000 $63,933 0.001% Thurston $170,834,000 $110,000 $7,333 0.004% Washington $1,311,857,00 0 $13,183,000 $878,867 0.067% Total $46,355,559,0 00 $575,807,000 $38,387,133 0.083% Extreme Heat $430,667 Grand Total $38,817,800 0.084% Source: Building Exposure -HAZUS MH MR4; Property Damages -NCDC Table 3.75 provides the estimated annualized crop damages resulting from severe thunderstorms, including wind, hail, lightning and heat. Although NCDC does report crop damages, it was determined that the USDA's Risk Management Agency crop data was more appropriate for estimating crop losses. The annualized crop damages were determined by adjusting the insurance paid for losses by the inverse of the statewide average crop insurance coverage amount of 88 percent, where the inverse of 88 percent is 1.14. This information resulted in the adjusted crop damages for the ten year period, which were then annualized. To determine annualized percent damage, the amount was divided by the crop exposure, as reported in the 2007 Census of Agriculture. This analysis indicates that in an average year, the planning area experiences 0.39 percent damages to crops as a result of thunderstorms, wind, hail, lightning, and heat. Based on Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.278 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 historical trends, the highest annualized damages and annualized percent property damages are expected to occur in Douglas County. Table 3.75. Estimated Annualized Crop Damages Resulting from Severe Thunderstorms (Wind /Hail /Lightning /Heat) County Crop Exposure (2007) Insurance Paid for Losses (2000 to 2009) Adjusted Crop Damages Annualized Crop Damages Annualized Percentage Crop Damage Burt $92,177,000 $2,475,184 $2,812,709 $281,271 0.31% Dakota $55,253,000 $1,690,299 $1,920,794 $192,079 0.35% Douglas $43,844,000 $5,270,320 $5,989,000 $598,900 1.37% Sarpy $35,126,000 $255,513 $290,356 $29,036 0.08% Thurston $60,364,000 $801,552 $910,855 $91,085 0.15% Washington $65,452,000 $1,440,791 $1,637,262 $163,726 0.25% Grand Total $352,216,000 $11,933,659 $13,560,976 $1,356,098 0.39% Source: Crop Exposure is from the National Agriculture Statistics Service 2007 Census of Agriculture; Insurance paid for losses is from USDA's RMA; Statewide Crop insurance Coverage is from USDA's RMA Nebraska Crop Insurance Profile. The combined property annualized damages and crop annualized damages compute to $40,173,898 which is 0.086 percent of the combined exposure of $46,707,775,000. The vulnerability rating is considered "medium" based on the loss of use impact, the number of population that are vulnerable to this hazard, and the fact that is hazard can cause widespread impacts. However, if property damages alone were considered, the rating would be "low ". Vulnerability Rating = Medium: 1 percent to 10 percent of people vulnerable Maximum Threat Rating = Low: Less than 5 percent of community devastated. Future Development Future development projects should consider windstorm hazards at the planning, engineering and architectural design stage with the goal of reducing vulnerability. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.279 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Adv 2011 3.3.10 Tornadoes Profile Hazard Description The NWS 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 1,500 injuries. High winds not associated with tornadoes were profiled separately in this document and can be found in Section 3.2.8. Tornadoes and high winds have been a part of life in Nebraska since the time of the pioneers in the 1800s. Nebraska is located near frequent convergence area for Canadian, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific air masses, in a part of the United States where tornadoes are a common occurrence. Nebraska is ranked fifth in the nation for the average number of tornadoes each year, but 23 in number of tornado fatalities and 24 in tornado injuries. Nebraska averages 39 tornadoes per year, with the most recorded tornadoes being 102 in 1999. All 93 counties in Nebraska have had tornadoes. The peak month for tornadoes is June, and 78 percent of all Nebraska tornadoes have occurred in May through July. Historically, 71 percent of all Nebraska tornadoes have occurred between 3:00 and 9:00 pm, and 53 percent of all Nebraska tornadoes have occurred between the narrower time -frame of 4:00 to 8:00 pm. Tornadoes are classified according to the Enhanced Fujita -Scale (EF- Scale) (the original F -Scale was developed by Dr. Theodore Fujita, a renowned severe storm researcher). The Enhanced F -Scale (see Table 3.76) attempts to rank tornadoes according to wind speed based on the damage caused. This update to the original F -Scale was implemented in the U.S. on February 1, 2007. Table 3.76. Enhanced F Scale for Tornado Damage FUJITA SCALE DERIVED EF SCALE OPERATIONAL EF SCALE F Number Fastest 1/4- mile (mph) 3 Second Gust (mph) EF Number 3 Second Gust (mph) EF Number 3 Second Gust (mph) 0 40 -72 45 -78 0 65 -85 0 65 -85 1 73 -112 79 -117 1 86 -109 1 86 -110 2 113 -157 118 -161 2 110 -137 2 111 -135 3 158 -207 162 -209 3 138 -167 3 136 -165 4 208 -260 210 -261 4 168 -199 4 166 -200 5 261 -318 262 -317 5 200 -234 5 Over200 Source: The National Weather Service, www.spc.noaa.gov /faq /tornado /ef- scale.html The EF -Scale still is a set of wind estimates, not measurements, based on damage. It uses three second gusts estimated at the point of damage based on a judgment of eight levels of damage to the 28 indicators listed in Table 3.77. These estimates vary with height and exposure. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.280 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Important: The three second gust is not the same wind as in standard surface observations. Standard measurements are taken by weather stations in open exposures, using a directly measured, and "one minute mile" speed. Table 3.77. Enhanced F Scale Damage Indicators NUMBER DAMAGE INDICATOR ABBREVIATION 1 Small barns, farm outbuildings SBO 2 One- or two- family residences FR12 3 Single -wide mobile home (MHSW) MHSW 4 Double -wide mobile home MHDW 5 Apt, condo, townhouse (3 stories or less) ACT 6 Motel M 7 Masonry apt. or motel MAM 8 Small retail bldg. (fast food) SRB 9 Small professional (doctor office, branch bank) SPB 10 Strip mall SM 11 Large shopping mall LSM 12 Large, isolated ( "big box ") retail building LIRB 13 Automobile showroom ASR 14 Automotive service building ASB 15 School - 1 -story elementary (interior or exterior halls) ES 16 School -jr. or sr. high school JHSH 17 Low -rise (1 -4 story) building LRB 18 Mid -rise (5 -20 story) building. MRB 19 High -rise (over 20 stories) HRB 20 Institutional building (hospital, government or university) IB 21 Metal building system MBS 22 Service station canopy SSC 23 Warehouse (tilt -up walls or heavy timber) WHB 24 Transmission line tower TLT 25 Free - standing tower FST 26 Free standing pole (light, flag, luminary) FSP 27 Tree - hardwood TH 28 Tree - softwood TS Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, www.spc.noaa..qov /faq /tornado /ef- scale.html Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3. 2 8 1 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Geographic Location /Extent Tornadoes can occur throughout the P- MRNRD. Figure 3.94 illustrates the number of F3, F4, and F5 tornadoes recorded in the United States per 3,700 square miles between 1950 and 2006. The southern portions of the planning area are in the section shaded dark red, indicating more than 25 tornadoes of this magnitude during the 56 year period. Other portions of the planning area are in the area shaded light orange, indicating five to ten tornadoes during this period. Additionally, as shown in to Figure 3.95, the P -MRNRD is in Wind Zone IV, the zone in the United States that experiences the most frequent and strongest tornado activity. All of the P -MRNRD planning area is at risk to tornadoes. Figure 3.94. Tornado Activity in the United States 7 ORNADD ACTNM IN THE MEO STATES' SOMM" 4*1 FWxm&M V1 r $ 4_ " 1i• Ikhm+OF i 41 111W f pti Aw ­ �4+ " IWERON 1AMO& WAK IUERiO RCU, 11RGIR tR 41 S HAWA a5 ff i- W �F F44 �h ' il8W Cn kV AAA '$ME F-Edg-taw quftem r• l.Fwrr 4x p}. .•Y0 L � � F+++ ; • ter' .-Pp� 7YilyF %RL T •i ■ L AS-KP f pti Aw ­ �4+ " IWERON 1AMO& WAK IUERiO RCU, 11RGIR tR 41 S HAWA Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.282 a5 ff i- W F ' il8W Cn kV AAA '$ME F-Edg-taw quftem Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.282 Figure 3.95. Wind Zones in the United States WIND MES IN TKE UNffM STATES* i 14AWR y� pmou* Q� �F} � 0= Pift a} 3 D EhpM *MEW Previous Occurrences wlfw mm* F—P ��� C=* w4 Four Presidential Disaster Declarations involving tornadoes were declared in the P -MRNRD from 1999 to Present as follows: • June 2003 (DR -1480) Douglas • May 2004 (DR -1517) Douglas, Sarpy, Thurston, & Washington • May 2008 (DR -1770) Burt, Douglas, & Sarpy • July 2010 (DR -1924) Burt, Douglas, Sarpy, & Washington According to statistics reported by the NCDC, the six counties within the P -MRNRD planning area have experienced a combined 71 tornadoes from 1950 to 2009. Of these, four were F4, three were classified as F3, 11 were classified as F2, 23 were classified as F1 and 30 were classified as F0. These tornadoes caused a combined six deaths, 205 injuries, and over $307 Million in damages. Table 3.78 provides tornado summaries for the counties in the planning area and Table 3.79 provides details of each event. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.283 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.78. Tornado Summary in P -MRNRD Planning Area (1950 to 2009) County Number of Tornadoes Deaths Injuries Estimated Damages Burt 13 0 35 $8,100,000 Dakota 6 0 4 $2,80,53,000 Douglas 15 3 148 $258,012,000 Sarpy 9 2 16 $2,769,000 Thurston 13 1 0 $4,028,000 Washington 15 0 2 $6,203,000.00 Total 71 6 205 $307,165,000 Source: National Climatic Data Center Table 3.79. Tornado Details in P -MRNRD County Location Date Magnitude Deaths Injuries Estimated Dama es Burt Burt 7/15/1950 F4 0 33 $2,500,000 Burt Burt 5/27/1991 F3 0 2 $2,500,000 Burt Burt 6/15/1960 F2 0 0 $25,000 Burt Burt 5/28/1991 F2 0 0 $250,000 Burt Burt 6/16/1992 F2 0 0 $25,000 Burt Burt 5/6/1964 F1 0 0 $25,000 Burt Burt 6/17/1984 F1 0 0 $25,000 Burt Burt 6/17/1984 F1 0 0 $250,000 Burt Arizona 6/11/2008 F1 0 0 $0 Burt Burt 6/13/1967 FO 0 0 $0 Burt Tekamah 6/18/2001 FO 0 0 $0 Burt Burt 5/22/1966 FO 0 0 $0 Burt Burt 7/7/1977 FO 0 0 $2,500,000 Burt Total 0 35 $8,100,000 Dakota Dakota 7/28/1986 F4 0 1 $25,000,000 Dakota Jackson 8/17/2001 F2 0 3 $3,000,000 Dakota Dakota 5/26/1955 F1 0 0 $0 Dakota Dakota 6/24/1987 FO 0 0 $3,000 Dakota Sioux City 5/27/1995 FO 0 0 $0 Dakota Jackson 7/16/1996 FO 0 0 $50,000 Dakota Total 0 4 $28,053,000 Douglas Douglas 5/6/1975 F4 3 118 $250,000,000 Douglas Douglas 8/18/1968 F3 0 0 $2,500,000 Douglas Douglas 3/27/1975 F2 0 4 $250,000 Douglas Douglas 5/7/1988 F2 0 0 $2,500,000 Douglas Omaha Millard Airport 6/8/2008 F2 0 3 $0 Douglas Douglas 5/12/1956 F1 0 0 $250,000 Douglas Douglas 5/13/1957 F1 0 0 $0 Douglas Douglas 6/26/1976 F1 0 23 $2,500,000 Douglas Lane 6/8/2008 F1 0 0 1 $0 Douglas Douglas 6/24/1968 FO 0 0 $3,000 Douglas Douglas 6/6/1971 FO 0 0 $3,000 Douglas Douglas 6/7/1972 FO 0 0 $0 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3. 2 84 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Juli 2011 Count Location Date Magnitude Deaths Injuries Estimated Dama es Douglas Douglas 4/29/1991 FO 0 0 $3,000 Douglas Elk City 6/11/2008 FO 0 0 $0 Douglas Douglas 3/30/1967 FO 0 0 $3,000 Douglas Total 3 148 $258,012,000 Sarpy Sarpy 5/6/1975 F4 0 15 $250,000 Sarpy Sarpy 5/7/1988 F2 2 1 $2,500,000 Sarpy Gretna 6/8/2008 F2 0 0 $0 Sarpy Sarpy 5/13/1957 F1 0 0 $3,000 Sarpy Sarpy 5/16/1957 F1 0 0 $3,000 Sarpy Sarpy 6/6/1971 FO 0 0 $3,000 Sarpy Springfield 4/11/2001 FO 0 0 $10,000 Sarpy Papillion 3/30/2006 FO 0 0 $0 Sarpy Gretna 9/16/2006 FO 0 0 $0 Sarpy Total 2 16 $2,769,000 Thurston Thurston 6/17/1954 F3 1 0 $250,000 Thurston Thurston 6/14/1967 F2 0 0 $250,000 Thurston Thurston 7/1/1973 F1 0 0 $25,000 Thurston Thurston 3/13/1990 F1 0 0 $250,000 Thurston Pender 8/26/1993 F1 0 0 $500,000 Thurston Thurston 8/25/1954 FO 0 0 $3,000 Thurston Thurston 5/25/1975 FO 0 0 $0 Thurston Thurston 5/25/1975 FO 0 0 $0 Thurston Macy 6/23/1998 FO 0 0 $0 Thurston Macy 7/25/2002 FO 0 0 $0 Thurston Thurston 7/7/1977 F 0 0 $2,500,000 Thurston Thurston 7/30/1977 F 0 0 $250,000 Thurston Thurston 5/28/1978 F 0 0 $0 Thurston Total 1 0 $4,028,000 Washington Washington 6/7/1953 F2 0 1 $25,000 Washington Washington 5/10/1956 F1 0 0 $3,000 Washington Washington 5/30/1958 F1 0 0 $0 Washington Washington 6/24/1968 F1 0 0 $0 Washington Washington 8/2/1990 F1 0 0 $2,500,000 Washington Arlington 6/20/1996 F1 0 0 $300,000 Washington Arlington 4/22/2001 F1 0 1 $600,000 Washington Herman 3/31/2007 F1 0 0 $15,000 Washington Talbasta 5/29/2008 F1 0 0 $0 Washington Blair Arpt 5/29/2008 F1 0 0 $0 Washington Washington 6/4/1955 FO 0 0 $0 Washington Washington 8/2/1990 FO 0 0 $250,000 Washington Arlington 4/8/1999 FO 0 0 $10,000 Washington Washington 8/20/1977 FO 0 0 $2,500,000 Washington Washington 4/8/1978 FO 0 0 $0 Washington Total 0 2 $6,203,000 Grand Total 6 205 $307,165,000 Descriptions of notable tornado events are provided below: Papio- Missouri River NRD 3. 2 8'� Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Juli 2011 • 1856: A town called St. John's City was established in 1856 in present -day Dakota County and was one of the earliest settlements along the Missouri River. In addition to being prone to flooding from the unruly Missouri, a tornado destroyed nearly all of the buildings in town. The people who stayed to resettle the area decided to move the town south, which became known as the town of Jackson. • June 13, 1899: Reports indicate that most of the Village of Herman was leveled by a tornado on June 13, 1899. The downtown was completely demolished, and 13 people were killed. • June 1, 1904: A tornado destroyed Tekamah's opera house, which was built in 1884. It was not rebuilt. • 1913: The Easter Tornado of 1913 caused major damage in Millard, Omaha, Ralston, Valley, Waterloo, and other small communities in today's metropolitan area. During this tornado event, 191 people were killed, 2,000 homes destroyed, and $10 million in property damage was recorded (1913 dollars). • 1930: The second historic tornado to hit Tekamah took place in 1930. A photograph from the Nebraska State Historical Society shows widespread destruction with damage consistent with an F3 or F4 tornado. However, damage and casualty information for both tornadoes was not given, and no additional references to this tornado were found. • May 6, 1975: An F4 tornado touched down in the extreme western portion of LaVista and also impacted the northwest corner of Ralston. However, most of the damage was in Omaha. A good storm spotting network and advanced and adequate warning kept the death toll from exceeding three people. A ten mile swath was destroyed through the heart of the City. 2,000 homes, 120 businesses, and many public facilities were destroyed. The final damage estimate was $200 million and an estimated 2,600 persons were injured. • June 16, 1996: An FO tornado destroyed farm buildings one mile south of Jackson. • June 20, 1996: An F1 tornado touched down north of Arlington and damaged St. Paul's Lutheran Church and eight nearby farmsteads. Property damage was listed at $300,000. • Declaration August 17, 2001, FEMA- 1394 -DR -NE (incident period August 17 to 18, 2001): An F2 tornado destroyed at least ten houses and damaged several more in Jackson. The town's school, church, and telephone company building were heavily damaged. Three injuries were reported from this event, and property damage was estimated at $3 million. • Declaration July 21, 2003, FEMA -DR -1480 (Incident period June 9 to 14, 2003): Although this declaration included tornadoes, they did not impact the planning area. • Declaration May 25, 2004, FEMA -DR -1517 (Incident period from May 20to 24, 2004): Although this declaration included tornadoes, there was no impact to the planning area. Declaration June 20, 2008, FEMA -DR -1770 (Incident period from May 22, 2008 and continuing): This federal disaster declaration was made following the severe weather and flooding from May 22 to June 24, 2008. Damage was widespread across much of the state, but was concentrated more in central and eastern Nebraska. An extremely active weather pattern brought wave after wave of severe weather across the same portion of the state, resulting in significant flooding and extensive damage. Included in this disaster are the following notable individual events: May 24 and 25 - back -to -back days of extremely strong Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.286 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 winds (approaching 100 mph) in eastern Nebraska; extensive tree damage and power outages; May 29 - Kearney: tornado damage to the county fairgrounds and airport; May 29 - Aurora tornado; June 4 - Ulysses tornado; June 4 - Ceresco tornadoes; June 8 - Omaha tornado, called a "stealth tornado" in the media because it formed quickly as a result of rare wind patterns behind the storm, which this resulted in practically no warning time. Figure 3.96 shows the path of the tornado as it went through the Millard neighborhood in Omaha. Figure 3.96. June 8, 2008 Tornado Path � rip aYT r dduo or i —4 ` 4­1 � }` i Y # ' v }# 4# T ff Lam! Source: National Weather Service Forecast Office Omaha /Valley, Nebraska; http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/oax/news/MillardTorog.JPG History Rating = High: The event has occurred four or more times in 100 years. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.257 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 ,lure 8 2M 1 } I 1 r w Tv VrIrN w. To J — T - --•' ' �- R• � . L * 1 31 .T a " ' # —�. M -3 %am Sr hL - � rip aYT r dduo or i —4 ` 4­1 � }` i Y # ' v }# 4# T ff Lam! Source: National Weather Service Forecast Office Omaha /Valley, Nebraska; http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/oax/news/MillardTorog.JPG History Rating = High: The event has occurred four or more times in 100 years. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.257 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Probability of Future Occurrence The NCDC reported 71 tornadoes in the planning area in a 60 -year time period, which calculates to an annual average of at least one tornado per year. Therefore it is probable in any given year that some portion of the planning area will experience tornado activity. Probability Rating = High: Greater than one chance in ten years. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.288 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Vulnerability Overview The planning area is located in a region of the U.S. with high frequency of dangerous and destructive tornadoes. Potential Losses to Existing Development With the many variables associated with tornadoes, it is difficult to quantify potential losses to existing development. Tornado variables include, but are not limited to the following: tornado intensity, tornado ground path, length and width, time of day, development density of ground path, population density of ground path, and prevalent construction materials and methods in ground path. Keeping these variables in mind, loss estimates based on several assumptions, as well as statistics gathered from the 1975 F4 Omaha tornado was developed. (See Table 3.80). Table 3.80. 1975 Omaha Tornado Statists and Vulnerability Analysis Assumptions Statistics from Omaha Tornado Assumptions for Vulnerability Calculation Tornado path 10 miles x 300 yards Converted to 1.7 square mile damage area 287 homes destroyed Converted to 11.78% of homes in 1.7 square miles based on Omaha housing densit 1400 homes damaged Converted to 57.49% of homes in 1.7 square miles Using the assumptions outlined above, the number of houses in a 1.7 square mile area was determined for each jurisdiction based on the housing density. It should be noted that generally the length of a tornado is greater than its width. However, to apply this methodology to multiple jurisdictions with varying dimensions, the path was converted to square miles. The number of houses in a 1.7 square mile area for each jurisdiction was compared to the total number of buildings in each jurisdiction. The lesser of these two values is considered the number of exposed houses. Then considering that 11.78 percent of the houses in the Omaha tornado path area were destroyed and 57.49 percent of the houses were damaged, the number of houses in each category was determined. For the houses that were damaged, 50 percent damage was assumed. To convert the number of homes destroyed and /or damaged to dollar losses, the average building value was determined from the total building value divided by the building count in each jurisdiction. It should also be noted that the exposure and count data, developed using HAZUS, is for all building stock in each jurisdiction, not just residential. Once total estimated damages were computed, this figure was divided by the building exposure to determine a percent of building damage compared to building exposure. Table 3.81 provides the results of the vulnerability analysis. This vulnerability analysis methodology revealed that for the jurisdictions that have land area less than 1.7 square miles, the percent of damages compared to exposure would be approximately 41 percent for this magnitude of tornado. The next highest percent damages would be in Macy and Tekamah. The highest damages in terms of total dollars would be in La Vista, Omaha, Papillion, Ralston, and then Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.289 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Bellevue. As the census data does not supply the land area or housing density in unincorporated portions of the planning area, a vulnerability analysis could not be performed using the methodology described above area due to the sparse and sporadic building density. Vulnerability Rating = Medium: 1 percent to 10 percent of people vulnerable; 1 percent to 10 percent of property damaged or destroyed. Maximum Threat = Low: Less than 5 percent of community devastated. Appendix C provides the locations of existing warning sirens for those communities with this available data. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.290 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.81. Tornado Vulnerability Analysis Jurisdiction Count Land Area (sq. miles ) Housing Density Houses in 1.7 square miles Building Count Exposed Houses Estimated Buildings Destroyed Estimated Buildings Damaged Average Building Value Total Estimate (Destroyed and Damaged) Total Building Exposure Percent Dama e Decatur Burt 0.91 405.8 690 415 415 48.887 238.5835 $117,566 $19,772,148 $48,790,000 41% Tekamah Burt 1.00 657 1117 1,271 1,117 131.5826 642.1633 $108,430 $49,082,552 $137,815,000 36% Dakota City Dakota 1.17 595.2 1012 997 997 117.4466 573.1753 $78,310 $31,639,894 $78,075,000 41% Homer Dakota 0.38 587.5 999 330 330 38.874 189.717 $84,973 $11,363,615 $28,041,000 41% Hubbard Dakota 0.18 538.3 915 135 135 15.903 77.6115 $92,363 $5,053,062 $12,469,000 41% Jackson Dakota 0.17 515.9 877 148 148 17.4344 85.0852 $100,865 $6,049,572 $14,928,000 41% South Sioux City Dakota 5.00 929.2 1580 4,739 1,580 186.124 908.342 $148,401 $95,020,372 $703,272,000 14% Bennington Douglas 0.39 930.5 1582 444 444 52.3032 255.2556 $163,369 $29,395,214 $72,536,000 41% Boys Town Douglas 1.43 41.8 71 108 71 8.3638 40.8179 $664,630 $19,123,222 $71,780,000 27% Omaha Douglas 119 1432.4 2435 144,439 2,435 286.843 1399.882 $210,080 $207,303,816 $30,343,787,000 1% Ralston Douglas 1.69 1534.8 2609 2413 2413 284.2514 1387.234 $175,197 $171,319,843 $422,751,000 41% Valley Douglas 1.55 501.6 853 986 853 100.4834 490.3897 $158,596 $54,823,308 $156,376,000 35% Waterloo Douglas 0.36 535.1 910 408 408 48.0624 234.5592 $115,233 $19,052,829 $47,015,000 41% Bellevue Sarpy 13.00 1314.9 2235 16,207 2,235 263.283 1284.902 $168,671 $152,770,911 $2,733,649,000 6% Gretna Sarpy 1.00 777.3 1321 1,203 1,203 141.7134 691.6047 $174,780 $85,207,865 $210,260,000 41% La Vista Sarpy 3.00 1586.6 2697 3,508 2,697 317.7066 1550.505 $205,137 $224,206,508 $719,621,000 31% Offutt AFB Sarpy 4.00 576.6 980 2,224 980 115.444 563.402 $213,650 $84,850,101 $475,158,000 18% Papillion Sarpy 4.00 1380.5 2347 6,063 2,347 276.4766 1349.29 $206,051 $195,979,868 $1,249,289,000 16% Springfield Sarpy 0.55 996.1 1693 628 628 73.9784 361.0372 $128,846 $32,790,804 $80,915,000 41% Macy Thurston 1.61 135.6 231 262 231 27.2118 132.8019 $103,889 $9,725,364 $27,219,000 36% Walthill Thurston 0.43 717 1219 427 427 50.3006 245.4823 $84,295 $14,586,569 $35,994,000 41% Winnebago Thurston 0.28 820.5 1395 299 299 35.2222 171.8951 $72,829 $8,824,724 $21,776,000 41% Arlington Washington 0.57 864.9 1470 666 666 78.4548 382.8834 $116,201 $31,362,298 $77,390,000 41% Blair Washington 5.00 653 1110 3,428 1,110 130.758 638.139 $167,265 $75,240,210 $573,383,000 13% Fort Calhoun Washington 0.62 604.8 1028 535 535 63.023 307.5715 $131,536 $28,518,253 $70,372,000 41% Herman Washington 0.15 1026.6 1745 205 205 24.149 117.8545 $101,951 $8,469,725 $20,900,000 41% Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.291 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Source: U.S. Census 2000: HAZUS -MH MR4 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.292 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Total Land Houses Estimate Area in 1.7 Estimated Estimated Average (Destroyed (sq. Housing square Building Exposed Buildings Buildings Building and Total Building Percent Jurisdiction County miles ) Density miles Count Houses Destroyed Damaged Value Damaged) Exposure Dama e Kennard Washington 0.30 495.5 842 131 131 15.4318 75.3119 $168,931 $8,968,183 $22,130,000 41% Washington Washington 0.17 303.5 516 65 65 7.657 37.3685 $146,585 $3,861,222 $9,528,000 41% Total $1,684,362 $46,355,559 4% Source: U.S. Census 2000: HAZUS -MH MR4 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.292 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Future Development Future development in the P -MRNRD should take into consideration tornado and high wind hazards at the planning, engineering and architectural design stages. Public buildings such as schools, government offices, as well as other buildings with a high occupancy and mobile home parks should consider inclusion of a tornado safe room to shelter occupants in the event of a tornado. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.293 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.3.11 Wildfires Profile Hazard Description Wildfires in Nebraska occur and often originate in pasture or prairie areas following the ignition of dry grasses, either intentionally or unintentionally. Most wildfires result from dry weather conditions. A wildfire's cost to natural resources, crops, and pastured livestock can be ecologically and economically devastating. In addition to the health and safety concerns to those directly affected by fires, the health of citizens in surrounding areas can decline due to smoke inhalation. Wildfires are frequently associated with lightning and drought conditions, as dry conditions make vegetation more flammable. As new development encroaches into the wildland and urban 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 set fire to vegetation to restore soil nutrients or alter the existing vegetation growth. Also, individuals in rural areas frequently burn trash, leaves and other vegetation debris. These fires have the potential to get out of control and turn into wildfires. The risk of wildfires is a real threat to landowners across the state. The NWS monitors the risk factors in the state on a daily basis so that wildfires can be predicted, if not prevented. The risk factors considered are: • High temperature • High wind speed • Fuel moisture (greenness of vegetation) • Low humidity • Small cloud cover Geographic Location /Extent Wildfires occur more frequently in the central and western portions of the state of Nebraska. They generally occur less frequently in the eastern part of the state where the P -MRNRD is located. Wildfires can be responsible for extensive damage to crops, the environment and occasionally residential or business facilities. Wildfire causes can be broken down into two groups: those started by natural phenomenon and those stemming from man -made causes. Natural ignition is typically by lightning. The most common man -made igniters are campfires, burning debris, equipment use, smoking, children, electric fences, and railroads. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.294 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Previous Occurrences Table 3.82 provides the combined statistics for all reporting fire districts in the P -MRNRD boundary from 2005 to 2009. As this table demonstrates, excluding miscellaneous causes, debris burning caused the most wildfires and burned the most acres during this period. Table 3.82. Wildfire Statistics 2005 to 2009 (All Reporting Fire Districts within the P- MRNRD) Cause Number of Wildfires Total Acres Burned Miscellaneous 160 2,079.94 Debris Burning 94 1,108.93 Incendiary 68 291.81 Campfire 12 12.45 Equipment 12 124.81 Smoking 7 55.51 Children 4 1.3 Railroad 2 0.75 Lightning 1 0.1 Source: Nebraska Forest Service, Wildland Fire Protection Program Table 3.83 provides the occurrences of wildfires in the planning area separated by county. As demonstrated in this table, historically Thurston County has experienced the most wildfires in the planning area, which also burned the most acres. Thurston County is followed in number of wildfires and acres burned by Douglas County. Table 3.84 shows the wildfire occurrences in each county separated by cause. Table 3.83. Wildfire Statistics 2005 to 2009 by County (All Reporting Fire Districts in NRD Boundary) Count Number of Wildfires Acres Burned Average Number of Wildfires Annually Number / Acres Burt 24 2.51 4.8/0.5 Dakota 19 854 3.8/171 Douglas 120 590.61 24/118 Sarpy 24 113.9 4.8/23 Thurston 141 2020.85 28.2/404 Washington 33 93.72 6.6/19 Total 366 3675.59 73.2/735 Source: Nebraska Forest Service, Wildland Fire Protection Program Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.29 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Table 3.84. Wildfire Statistics 2005 to 2009 by County and Cause (All Reporting Fire Districts within the P- MRNRD) County Cause Number of Wildfires Acres Burned Burt Burning Debris 9 1.01 Burt Miscellaneous 15 1.5 Dakota Burning Debris 8 703 Dakota Equipment 3 120 Dakota Miscellaneous 7 30.75 Dakota Railroad 1 0.25 Douglas Campfire 7 9.3 Douglas Children 4 1.3 Douglas Burning Debris 47 311.51 Douglas Equipment 6 2.71 Douglas Incendiary 3 0.61 Douglas Miscellaneous 49 262.68 Douglas Smoking 3 2.51 Sarpy Burning Debris 4 47 Sarpy Equipment 1 1 Sarpy Miscellaneous 16 62.9 Sarpy Smoking 3 3 Thurston Campfire 2 1.05 Thurston Burning Debris 7 14.6 Thurston Equipment 1 1 Thurston Incendiary 65 291.2 Thurston Lightning 1 0.1 Thurston Miscellaneous 64 1,712.4 Thurston Railroad 1 0.5 Washington Campfire 3 2.1 Washington Burning Debris 19 31.81 Washington Equipment 1 0.1 Washington Miscellaneous 9 9.71 Washington Smoking 1 50 Source: Nebraska Forest Service, Wildland Fire Protection Program History Rating = High: The event has happened four or more times in 100 years. Probability of Future Occurrence Based on historical occurrences, wildfires are likely to continue in the P- MRNRD. In the five- year time period from 2005 to 2009, Thurston County had the highest average annually with 28.2 fires per year, followed by Douglas County with an average annually of 24 wildfires. The county with the lowest average events was Dakota County with an annual average of 3.8 events per year. Probability Rating = High: Greater than one chance in ten years. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.296 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Vulnerability Overview Areas that are most vulnerable to wildfire are agricultural areas where land is burned, rural areas where trash and debris are burned, and the wildland -urban interface areas. Potential Losses to Existing Development Homes built in rural areas are more vulnerable to wildfires since they are in closer proximity to land that is burned and homeowners are more likely to burn trash and debris in rural locations. The 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 are required to travel in order to respond. Potential losses to crops and rangeland are additional concerns. As shown in the data available from the Nebraska Forest Service Wildland Fire Protection Program, the five -year period from 2005 to 2009, there were 355 wildfires that burned a total of 3,676 acres. If wildfires continue at a similar rate, the average annual number of fires will be 73 fires burning an average 735 acres per year. Compared to the total acres burned in the P- MRNRD, this results in an average 0.054 percent of land burned in wildfires each year. Historically, Thurston County has had the most wildfires and the most acres burned. Therefore, it is considered the most vulnerable to wildfire. Historically Dakota County lost the most acres per fire. Economic losses were not available from historical data. As a result it is not possible to estimate fixture economic losses at this time. Table 3.85. Average Annual Percent of Acres Burned as a Result of Wildfire County Number of Wildfires Acres Burned Average Acres Burned Annually Total Acres Percent of Average Acres Burned Annual) Burt 24 2.51 0.5 315,520 0.0002% Dakota 19 854 171 163,200 0.1048% Douglas 120 590.61 118 217,600 0.0542% Sarpy 24 113.9 23 158,720 0.0145% Thurston 141 2020.85 404 253,440 0.1594% Washington 33 93.72 19 252,160 0.0075% Total 366 3675.59 735 1,360,640 0.0540% Vulnerability Rating = Low: Less than one percent of property damaged or destroyed. Maximum Threat Rating = Low: Less than five percent of community devastated. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.297 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Future Development Future development in the wildland -urban interface would increase vulnerability to this hazard. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.298 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.4 Future Land Use and Development Understanding development trends such as changes in population and number of housing units is essential to mitigation planning. Table 3.84 below shows population estimates from 1990 to 2008 as well as housing unit estimates from 1990 to 2000. As is seen, the majority of the planning area is experiencing some level of growth in terms of both population and construction. It is important to protect not only existing development from the effects of hazards, but also protect fixture investments. Table 3.86. Change in Population and Housing Units Jurisdiction County 1990 Census Population 2000 Census Population 2008 Population Estimate Percent Change 2000 to 2008 1990 Housing Units 2000 Housing Units Percent Change 1990 to 2000 Decatur Burt 641 618 544 -12% 358 368 3% Tekamah Burt 1,852 1,892 1,719 -9% 827 833 1% Dakota City Dakota 1,470 1,821 1,872 3/ 510 627 23/ Homer Dakota 553 590 604 2/ 208 222 7% Hubbard Dakota 199 234 240 3/ 78 95 22/ Jackson Dakota 230 216 213 -1% 97 90 -7% South Sioux City Dakota 9,677 11,949 11,936 0% 3,816 4,557 19% Bennington Douglas 866 934 1,014 9% 320 359 12% Boys Town Douglas 794 830 977 18/ 18 58 222/ Omaha Douglas 335,795 398,152 438,646 10% 143,612 165,731 15% Ralston Douglas 6,236 6,065 6,095 0% 2,437 2,601 7% Valley Douglas 1,775 1,870 1,922 3% 756 760 1% Waterloo Douglas 479 670 829 24% 188 190 1% Bellevue Sarpy 39,240 44,017 49,699 13% 11,960 17,439 46% Gretna Sarpy 2,249 2,830 6,572 132% 768 917 19% La Vista Sarpy 9,840 11,699 16,643 42% 3,502 4,511 29% Offut Air Force Base Sarpy 10,883 8,912 -100% 2,835 2,429 -14% Papillion Sarpy 10,372 17,964 23,739 32% 3,478 5,751 65% Springfield Sarpy 1,426 1,339 1,563 17/ 488 544 11/ Macy Thurston 836 950 -100/ 221 218 -1% Walthill Thurston 747 909 859 -6% 304 308 1% Winnebago Thurston 705 768 902 17/ 251 233 -7% Village of Washington Washington 125 126 135 7/ 46 51 11/ Arlington Washington 1,178 1,197 1,184 -1% 468 492 5% Blair Washington 6,860 7,516 7,789 4% 2,717 3,033 12% Fort Calhoun Washington 648 856 908 6/ 250 375 50/ Papio- Nlissouri Ricer NRD 3.299 Nlulti- Hazard Nlitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Herman Washington 256 310 298 -4% 94 151 61% Kennard Washington 371 371 390 5% 141 148 5% Planned Development/Expansion Activities Another important aspect when considering mitigation planning is planned development and expansion activities. Planned development and zoning maps allow for planners to focus efforts and maximize resources on areas likely to be affected by hazards. Additionally, by creating future land use maps and planning for future developments through zoning, planners can avoid expanding development into vulnerable areas, such as floodplains and dam and levee inundation areas. Table 3.87 identifies which jurisdictions have planned future development maps as well as identifies jurisdictions where future development information was currently unavailable. Future land use maps provided by participating jurisdictions are listed and discussed in Table 3.xx and are enclosed in Appendix C. Table 3.87. Planned Development Maps and Documentation Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.300 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Land Use Planning Community Map Available in Planned Development Comments Appendix C Burt County N/A Minimal development anticipated Decatur N/A Minimal development anticipated Primary development occurring near South Sioux City Dakota County N/A and Dakota City. Minimal rural development anticipated. Dakota City has grown to the north toward South Sioux Dakota City N/A City with large industrial operations such as Tyson Foods. This trend will likely continue. Jackson N/A Minimal development anticipated Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.300 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.301 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Land Use Planning Community Map Available in Planned Development Comments Appendix C Industrial growth area identified south of 1 -129 toward South Sioux City Comp Plan Available Dakota City. Residential and commercial development is planned north and west of Highway 77. Latest zoning map restricts planned development in the Douglas County Available flood prone Platte and Elkhorn River floodplains. Majority of Omaha Metropolitan Development will occur within the jurisdiction of Omaha. Doesn't reflect annexation of Elkhorn. Planned Omaha Available development will occur to the west and north. See Omaha Metropolitan growth discussion below. Valley sits along the new Highway 275 which is likely to Valley Available promote increased commercial development. Heavy industrial is present and may continue to grow to the west and southeast. Recent residential and commercial growth. City is Waterloo N/A bounded by flood control levee along the Elkhorn River. Growth beyond the levee is restricted by the floodway and would be at high risk of flooding. Ralston Available Planned development within small remaining nd jurisdiction. Near 72 Street along Big Papillion Creek. Planned development near the Cities of Bellevue, Sarpy County Available Papillion, Gretna and La Vista. Major south and west areas of county lack sanitary sewer infrastructure. See Omaha Metropolitan discussion below. Planned growth areas are to the south and west. Bellevue Available Contains large areas of Papillion Creek floodplain. See Omaha Metropolitan discussion below. Planned growth areas are to the west. Heavy La Vista Available commercial development near Giles Road and 1 -80 interchange. See Omaha Metropolitan discussion below. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.301 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Omaha Metropolitan Area Population growth surrounding the Omaha area in Douglas and Sarpy County will continue to spur urban development in order to meet the needs for housing, retail, industry, recreation, public services, and employment. For this study, community and county Comprehensive Plans were collected and reviewed. Overall, the cities of Omaha and Bennington in Douglas County are likely to continue growing to the north and west within the county due to constraints by the Missouri River on the east and Sarpy County on the South. One major factor influencing growth Papio- Missouri RiNer NRD 3.302 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Ju1N 2011 Land Use Planning Community Map Available in Planned Development Comments Appendix C Papillion Available Major planned growth south and west. See Omaha Metropolitan discussion below. Planned development around city limits. Mixed use and Gretna Available residential planned within Papillion Creek Watershed and along 1 -80. Low density residential planned to west. Planned development anticipated primarily to the north Springfield Available of existing city limits. Some floodplain risks along Springfield Creek. Walthill N/A Minimal development anticipated. Planned development includes rural acreages in Washington County Available southeast (north of Omaha) between cities of Blair, Ft. Calhoun, Kennard, and Washington. Single Family and Rural Residential planned to the Fort Calhoun Available south and west. Future commercial planned along Hwy 75 to the north. Industrial development planned to the east along Blair Available Missouri River. Future residential planned to west. Commercial planned along Hwy 133 in southwest. Omaha Metropolitan Area Population growth surrounding the Omaha area in Douglas and Sarpy County will continue to spur urban development in order to meet the needs for housing, retail, industry, recreation, public services, and employment. For this study, community and county Comprehensive Plans were collected and reviewed. Overall, the cities of Omaha and Bennington in Douglas County are likely to continue growing to the north and west within the county due to constraints by the Missouri River on the east and Sarpy County on the South. One major factor influencing growth Papio- Missouri RiNer NRD 3.302 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Ju1N 2011 to the west is the Elkhorn and Platte River valleys. These valleys are at high risk for flooding and development near the Elkhorn and Platte Rivers are subject to Floodway and Floodway Fringe zoning restrictions. The other main hindrance to growth within the Elkhorn and Platte River valley is sanitary sewer service. For these and other reasons, Douglas County and other jurisdictions have tightened their planning and zoning restrictions within these flat, flood -prone areas, limiting new development to only large acreages. Urban sprawl within Omaha's zoning jurisdiction is controlled by limiting sanitary sewer extensions in what the City has adopted as the Present Development Zone (PDZ). A map of the PDZ is also attached in Appendix C. In Sarpy County, the cities of Bellevue, Papillion, La Vista, and Gretna continue to expand and development within the County's jurisdiction is also widespread. Again, the controlling factor for development in Sarpy County is a watershed boundary. Sanitary sewer service is not readily available beyond the Papillion Creek Watershed located in the northern half of the County. Some development does occur along the Platte River along the counties western and southern boundary in areas of known flood hazards. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.303 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.5 Hazard Analysis Summaries Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(iii): For multi - jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction's risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. This section summarizes the results of the risk assessment and how each hazard varies by jurisdiction. This assessment was used by the advisory committee to prioritize those hazards of greatest significance to each jurisdiction, enabling the jurisdictions to focus resources where they are most needed and develop the mitigation strategy accordingly. Those hazards that occur infrequently, or have little or no impact were determined to be of low significance. Utilizing the methodology prescribed in the State of Nebraska Hazard Mitigation Plan, the results of the risk assessment were analyzed to assess and evaluate each of the hazards and summarize the findings. This summary process was completed in order to reduce some of the inconsistencies of the hazards analysis and promote a common base by defining criteria and establishing a rating and scoring system. The methodology is summarized below. A full description of this methodology can be found beginning on page 2 -32 of the Nebraska State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Criteria The rating and scoring system is based on the use of four criteria: 1. History 2. Vulnerability 3. Maximum Threat 4. Probability Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.304 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Rating System Each of the criteria is rated as LOW, MEDIUM, or HIGH. These rating descriptions are described in more detail for each criterion below. 1. History Low = no record of occurrence or a single occurrence of a disaster event in the area in the last 100 years. Medium = The event has occurred more than once but less than four times in the past 100 years. High = The event has happened four or more times in 100 years. 2. Vulnerability Low = Less than one percent of people vulnerable; less than one percent of property damaged or destroyed. Medium = one percent to ten percent of people vulnerable; one percent to ten percent of property damaged or destroyed. High = More than ten percent of people vulnerable; more than ten percent of property damaged or destroyed. 3. Maximum Threat Low = Less than five percent of community devastated Medium = five percent to 25 percent of community devastated High = More than 25 percent of community devastated 4. Probability Rating Low = Less than one chance 1,000 years Medium = Between one chance in 1,000 years and 1 chance in ten years. High = Greater than one chance in ten years Scoring System Point Assignments Each of the four criteria is assigned a numerical value depending on the rating made. Low = one point Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.305 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Medium = five points High = ten points Weighting Factors Since some criteria are judged to be more important than others, weighting factors were established to "balance" out the total scoring as follows: History - weighting factor of two Vulnerability - weighting factor of five Maximum Threat- weighting factor of ten Probability - weighting factor of seven Composite Scores (Composite Rank)) Composite score of 24 to 64 = Low (Hazards with Lowest Perceived Risk) Composite score of 65 to 115 = Medium (Hazards with Moderate Perceived Risk) Composite score of 116 to 240 = High (Hazards with Highest Perceived Risk) Table 3.88. Planning Area Hazard Summary The following tables provide the hazard analysis summary by jurisdiction for each hazard for which there are unique and varied risks across the planning area. These hazards include dam failure, earthquakes, flooding, levee failures, and wildfires. For the remaining hazards analyzed Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.306 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 2 O a a a) N O N N A C A p l3 N N d E 5 != R a d O N N 2 R 2 V R V K X E V E R Hazard aX au) 7 >X 7 >U) L L O 0U) O 0 Agricultural Incidents High High Low Medium High Animals /Livestock 10 10 1 5 145 Agricultural Incidents High High Low Medium High Plants/Crops 10 10 1 5 145 Drou ht High 10 High 10 Low 1 Medium 5 145 High Floodin High 10 High 10 Low 1 Medium 5 145 High Tornadoes High 10 High 10 Medium 5 Low 1 125 High Thunderstorms High 10 High 10 Medium 5 Low 1 125 High Severe Winter Storm High 10 High 10 Medium 5 Low 1 125 High Wildfire High 10 High 10 Low 1 Low 1 105 Medium Levee Failure Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 Medium 5 100 Medium Dam Failure Low 1 Low 1 Medium 5 Low 1 44 Low Earth uake Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 32 Low The following tables provide the hazard analysis summary by jurisdiction for each hazard for which there are unique and varied risks across the planning area. These hazards include dam failure, earthquakes, flooding, levee failures, and wildfires. For the remaining hazards analyzed Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 3.306 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 in this plan, the hazard summary is the same across the planning area and is summarized in Table 3.88 above. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.307 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.89. Dam Failure Hazard Summary Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.308 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 L Jurisdiction a _ E E o U) s s fn v, > a, E a o > a Burt County Burt Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Decatur Burt Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Dakota County Dakota Low 1 Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 84 Dakota City Dakota Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Jackson Dakota Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 South Sioux City Dakota Low 1 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 44 Douglas County Douglas Low 1 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 44 Omaha Douglas Low 1 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 44 Ralston Douglas Low 1 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 44 Valley Douglas Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Waterloo Douglas Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Sarpy County Sarpy Low 1 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 44 Gretna Sarpy Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Bellevue Sarpy Low 1 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 44 La Vista Sarpy Low 1 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 44 Papillion Sarpy Low 1 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 44 Springfield Sarpy Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Walthill Thurston Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Washington County Washington Low 1 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 44 Blair Washington Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Fort Calhoun Washington Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.308 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.90. Earthquake Hazard Summary Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.309 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 L Jurisdiction a n M U 2 c Q c fn E Q E U) p s fn > > L a o a- Burt County Burt Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 32 Decatur Burt Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 52 Dakota County Dakota Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 32 Dakota City Dakota Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 52 Jackson Dakota Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 52 South Sioux City Dakota Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 52 Douglas County Douglas Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 32 Omaha Douglas Medium 5 High 10 Low 1 Low 1 77 Ralston Douglas Medium 5 High 10 Low 1 Low 1 77 Valley Douglas Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 52 Waterloo Douglas Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 52 Sarpy County Sarpy Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 32 Gretna Sarpy Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 52 Bellevue Sarpy Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 52 La Vista Sarpy Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 52 Papillion Sarpy Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 52 Springfield Sarpy Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 52 Walthill Thurston Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 52 Washington County Washington Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 32 Blair Washington Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 52 Fort Calhoun Washington Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 52 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.309 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.91. Flooding Hazard Summary Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.310 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 L Jurisdiction a Q Q U 2 c c fn E E U) p L s fn > > a o � � a Burt County Burt High 10 Medium 5 Medium 5 High 10 165 Decatur Burt High 10 Medium 5 Medium 5 High 10 165 Dakota County Dakota High 10 Medium 5 Medium 5 High 10 165 Dakota City Dakota Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 Medium 5 60 Jackson Dakota High 10 High 10 High 10 High 10 240 South Sioux City Dakota High 10 Medium 5 Medium 5 High 10 165 Douglas County Douglas High 10 Medium 5 Medium 5 High 10 165 Omaha Douglas High 10 Medium 5 Medium 5 High 10 165 Ralston Douglas Medium 5 Medium 5 Medium 5 Medium 5 120 Valley Douglas High 10 High 10 High 10 High 10 240 Waterloo Douglas High 10 Medium 5 Medium 5 High 10 165 Sarpy County Sarpy High 10 Medium 5 Medium 5 High 10 165 Gretna Sarpy High 10 Medium 5 Medium 5 High 10 165 Bellevue Sarpy High 10 Medium 5 Medium 5 High 10 165 La Vista Sarpy High 10 Medium 5 Medium 5 High 10 165 Papillion Sarpy Medium 5 Medium 5 Medium 5 Medium 5 120 Springfield Sarpy High 10 Medium 5 Medium 5 High 10 165 Walthill Thurston Medium 5 Low 1 Low 1 Medium 5 60 Washington County Washington High 10 Medium 5 Medium 5 High 10 165 Blair Washington High 10 Medium 5 Medium 5 High 10 165 Fort Calhoun Washington Medium 5 Medium 5 Medium 5 Medium 5 120 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.310 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.92. Levee Failure Hazard Summary Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.311 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 L 0 H H Jurisdiction a n M U 2 0 c Q c fn E Q E U) p s fn > > L a o � � a Burt County Burt Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Decatur Burt Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Dakota County Dakota Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Dakota City Dakota Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Jackson Dakota Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 South Sioux City Dakota Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Douglas County Douglas Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 Medium 5 80 Omaha Douglas Medium 5 Medium 5 Medium 5 Medium 5 120 Ralston Douglas Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Valley Douglas Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Waterloo Douglas Medium 5 Medium 5 Medium 5 Medium 5 120 Sarpy County Sarpy Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 Medium 5 80 Gretna Sarpy Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Bellevue Sarpy Medium 5 Medium 5 Low 1 Medium 5 80 La Vista Sarpy Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Papillion Sarpy Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Springfield Sarpy Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Walthill Thurston Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Washington County Washington Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Blair Washington Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Fort Calhoun Washington Low j 1 j Low j 1 j Low j 1 j Low 1 24 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.311 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.93. Wildfire Hazard Summary Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.312 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 L Jurisdiction a Q Q __ Q U 2 c c fn E E U) p L s fn > > a o � � a Burt County Burt High 10 Low 1 Low 1 High 10 105 Decatur Burt Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Medium 5 52 Dakota County Dakota High 10 Low 1 Low 1 High 10 105 Dakota City Dakota Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Medium 5 52 Jackson Dakota Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Medium 5 52 South Sioux City Dakota Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Medium 5 52 Douglas County Douglas High 10 Low 1 Low 1 High 10 105 Omaha Douglas Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Ralston Douglas Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Valley Douglas Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Medium 5 52 Waterloo Douglas Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Medium 5 52 Sarpy County Sarpy High 10 Low 1 Low 1 High 10 105 Gretna Sarpy Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Medium 5 52 Bellevue Sarpy Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 La Vista Sarpy Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Papillion Sarpy Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 24 Springfield Sarpy Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Medium 5 52 Walthill Thurston Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Medium 5 52 Washington County Washington High 10 Low 1 Low 1 High 10 105 Blair Washington Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Medium 5 52 Fort Calhoun Washington Low 1 Low 1 Low 1 Medium 5 52 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.312 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.94, below, summarizes the results of the hazard profiles and how each hazard varies by jurisdiction. Of the hazards considered in this risk assessment, dam failure, earthquakes, flooding, levee failure, and wildfires have the potential to vary uniquely across the planning area. This assessment was used by the advisory committee to prioritize those hazards of greatest significance to each jurisdiction, enabling the jurisdictions to focus resources where they are most needed and develop the mitigation strategy accordingly. Those hazards that occur infrequently, or have little or no impact were determined to be of low significance. Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.313 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 3.94. Planning Significance of Identified Hazards by Jurisdictions Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.314 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Jurisdiction 2 L • IL L L O y +• 0 s p N > � N � •�+ N J � O _ U U d LV 4) J G) U - 0 N - 0 H a a > O s H U) High High Low High Low High Low High High High Medium Burt County Burt Decatur Burt High High Low High Low High Low High High High Low Dakota High High Low High Low High Low High High High Medium Dakota - County Dakota City Dakota High High Low High Low Low Low High High High Low Jackson Dakota High High Low High Low High Low High High High Low South Sioux High High Low High Low High Low High High High Low Dakota - City Douglas High High Low High Low High Medium High High High Medium County Dou las Omaha Dou las High High Low High Medium High High High High High Low Ralston Douglas High High Low High Medium High Low High High High Low Valley Dou las High High Low High Low High Low High High High Low Waterloo Douglas High High Low High Low High High High High High Low High High Low High Low High Medium High High High Medium Sarpy County Sar Gretna Sarpy High High Low High Low High Low High High High Low Bellevue Sarpy High High Low High Low High Medium High High High Low La Vista Sarpy High High Low High Low High Low High High High Low - Pa pillion Sarpy High High Low High Low High Low High High High Low Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.314 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.315 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 G) U + N N Q (D N N (D _ U c j U O +• S f4 �_ L iC (D O Vl N Jurisdiction 7 R v N ii O s (Q '� +' ° SU) L ° s L '~ O 3 Vl 7 s p N > .LM O J O G) G) Q LU J L = -0 a a > S rin field Sar High High Low High Low High Low High High High Low Walthill Thurston High High Low High Low Low Low High High High Low Washington High High Low High Low High Low High High High Medium Count Washin ton High High Low High Low High Low High High High Low Blair Washington High High Low High Low High Low High High High Low Fort Calhoun Washington Papio- Missouri River NRD 3.315 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 4 MITIGATION STRATEGY 44 CFR Requirement §201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction's blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. The P -MRNRD has sought, for many years, to assist communities in protecting themselves from natural hazards. The majority of completed projects in the P -MRNRD have sought to reduce the risk of flood damages to structures insured under the NFIP, and to guide fixture development away from areas with a high probability of flooding. This has been accomplished through buyouts, acquisitions, elevation of floodplain structures, and new floodplain mapping efforts. Table 4. 1, below, summarizes completed mitigation projects in the P- MRNRD: Table 4.1. Mitigation Projects Completed in the P -MRNRD Mitigation Action Year Completed Description Property Acquisition in King Lake On -going 75% HMGP Funding and 25% NRD along Elkhorn River, Douglas County funding Property Acquisition along o 12.5 0 City of 25 /o HMGP .NRD Thompson Creek in La Vista, Sarpy On -going .5 /o La Vistta, a, 12.5 1 2 County Project Cost: $5.25 million; Property Acquisition along Missouri combination of NRD, Sarpy County, River in Sarpy County On -going State of Nebraska, HUD, and FEMA funds; 107 residences removed from Floodway Project Cost: $2.62 million, 75% ($2.0 million) of funding provided by Weir Crest Property Buyout 2006 FEMA, 25% split between P -MRNRD and City of Omaha; 18 homes and 12 trailers removed Project Cost: $3.45 million, 75% ($2.23 million) of funding provided by Cole Creek Property Buyout 2007 FEMA, 25% split between P -MRNRD and City of Omaha; 30 residences removed Project Cost: $115,000 with 75% Stream Bank Stabilization - Tekamah 2002 ($86,250) of funding provided by Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Property Acquisition in Omaha, along 2002 Project Cost: $27,600, funded by Cole Creek FMA program Project Cost: $87,569; FY2001 FMA Property Acquisition in Fort Calhoun 2001 funding provided $65,677. P- MRNRD provided 12.5% match of $10,946 Property Acquisition in Blair, along 2001 Project Cost: N /A; Funding provided Cauble Creek by Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 4.1 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 This section seeks to build upon the mitigation strategy developed in the 2006 P -MRNRD All - Hazard Mitigation Plan and the past completed projects by outlining goals and objectives and identifying mitigation actions that participating jurisdictions believe will reduce their risk to natural hazards. This chapter is divided into two main parts: • Section 4.1 Mitigation Goals discusses the mitigation goals from the 2006 All- Hazards Mitigation Plan and identifies the process by which the mitigation goals and objectives were updated for the new plan. • Section 4.2 Mitigation Actions lists the mitigation actions communities identified through the STAPLEE evaluation process. 4.1 Mitigation Goals Requirement §201.61(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long -term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. This section of the plan focuses on mitigation strategies, developed by each jurisdiction, to reduce or eliminate vulnerabilities to any of the 11 identified hazards. In the 2006 P -MRNRD All- Hazards Mitigation Plan, four main goals were identified through research, data collection, and public participation in the planning effort. The four main goals of the 2006 P -MRNRD plan were: 1. Reduce or prevent future damage from natural hazard events 2. Increase public safety 3. Increase public education about natural hazard events in their community 4. Increase or enhance public green space In the 2006 plan, each participating community tied their mitigation actions to these four goals, but expanded on each goal by developing their own objectives (Summaries of the 2006 Mitigation Objectives, broken out by jurisdiction, are available in Appendix B). Since this plan update incorporates additional jurisdictions and hazards, beyond those addressed in the 2006 plan, a new methodology of organizing goals, objectives, and mitigation actions was adopted. This methodology makes it easier to tie each mitigation action to a specific goal and objective, as well as making it easier to update mitigation goals and actions in the future. Specific goals for the planning area were developed utilizing information from the risk assessment, feedback received from the public, and information obtained from FEMA's how -to Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.2 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 guide titled "Developing the Mitigation Plan — Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementation Strategies ". 4.1.1 Mitigation Goals and Objectives Goal 1: Protect the health and safety of the public Obj ectives: 1.1 Continued compliance with NFIP for participating communities, join NFIP if not currently participating 1.2 Construct safe rooms in schools, public buildings, and in select locations, at public outdoor venues 1.3 Update or obtain additional outdoor warning sirens, as needed, in the project area 1.4 Develop additional emergency notification methods to alert the public of potential hazards 1.5 Provide educational opportunities for the public to promote preparedness in the project area 1.6 Reduce flooding of developed residential and commercial areas Goal 2: Reduce or prevent future damage to critical facilities, critical infrastructure, and maintain their operation after a hazard Obj ectives 2.1 Protect power lines throughout the NRD by burying them or reinforcing them 2.2 Obtain generators and other backup power systems required to keep critical facilities, critical infrastructure, and emergency operations running after a hazard event 2.3 Evaluate and identify infrastructure systems that require improvements in order to reduce or prevent damage from hazards 2.4 Protect all existing public infrastructure from flooding Goal 3: Reduce or prevent future damage to existing properties and natural resources Obj ectives 3.1 Enforce regulations and building codes promoting wise development and construction that reduces the potential for damage to existing or future structures and property 3.2 Protect existing streambanks and beds from erosion /downcutting 3.3 Perform studies to determine locations of concern and evaluate projects to mitigate against the damage caused by hazards 3.4 Develop projects to reduce or prevent damage to public structures 3.5 Improve local drainage and stabilize creeks where necessary Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.3 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 3.6 Improve protection procedures for structures throughout the planning area to reduce damage from hazard events 3.7 Implement a mitigation plan for tree trimming and tree removal 3.8 Improve and protect area roads and drainage structures against hazards 3.9 Maintain and improve surface water quality Goal 4: Promote efficient use of public funds Obj ectives 4.1 Maximize funding opportunities through grant money and other outside sources 4.2 Prioritize projects based on greatest risk 4.3 Encourage individual property owners to develop independent measures to protect their property and not rely on public funding Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.4 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 4.2 Mitigation Actions Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. With these goals in mind, Table 4.2 provides specific projects that the P -MMNRD and the jurisdictions included in the plan chose to consider pursuing to mitigate damages within the NRD and to protect the public in the event of a hazard. Please note, this is not a complete list of the projects that could be considered in the project area and additional projects may be included in subsequent revisions of the plan. Also, this project list does not guarantee that any of the represented entities have committed to undertaking these projects or provided financial assistance to do so. The list indicates the projects that representatives of the jurisdictions believe would help protect residents and reduce damage within the planning area. During the 2006 P -MRNRD planning process, individual jurisdictions were asked to prioritize their projects. For this plan update, the mitigation actions depicted in Table 4.2 were analyzed using the STAPLEE method. This methodology is used for project prioritization and also used for a preliminary benefit -cost review for each project. The STAPLEE forms for the communities were handed out at the second public meeting and once turned in, were evaluated based on guidance from the FEMA reference titled "Uvi/�g Benefit ('ost Review in Mitigation Plannijl�g (FEMA 386 -5) ", for the project prioritization and benefit -cost review to be completed. The STAPLEE method is an all - encompassing spreadsheet containing categories including the following: • Social —Projects are accepted by the community and do not adversely affect particular portions of the population • Technical —Projects are feasible and provide lasting protection with minimal impacts • Administrative —The entity has the necessary resources to implement the project • Political —Projects have the support of community officials and the public as a whole • Legal — Projects follow state and local laws and the entity has the authority to implement the project • Economic — Projects are cost - effective, beneficial, and affordable for the entity Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD DRAFT 4.5 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Januarc 2011 • Environmental — Projects do not adversely affect the environment; comply with local, state, and federal environmental regulations; and remain consistent with local environmental goals. The key ideas under each category are provided for each representative to evaluate and to rank mitigation actions. The STAPLEE forms for this plan were developed using a scale of high, medium, low, or not applicable. High means the project is very beneficial to an entity with regards to the specific category. Medium indicates that the mitigation action is favorable for the entity. Low signifies that the item is not favorable for the entity. Not applicable indicates that the category does not apply in that particular instance. Once the forms were completed, a value of two was assigned for high rankings; a value of one for medium rankings; minus one, for low rankings; and zero for not applicable items. The values were multiplied by the number of times each ranking was assigned for a project and a sum of the values was obtained. The project with the highest value was determined to be the highest priority for the entity. This system also allowed the project team to determine whether the projects were cost - effective based on the rankings provided in the STAPLEE forms. For instance, a project with mostly low rankings may not be cost effective due to the fact that the benefit to the entity would be outweighed by the costs, both direct and indirect, to complete the project. If an entity were to pursue one of the mitigation actions, a more formal benefit cost analysis would need to be completed. Copies of the completed STAPLEE forms are available in Appendix B. It should be noted that one of the most important programs developed to aid communities in understanding and managing their flooding risks is the FEMA- managed National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). According to the official web site of the NFIP (www.floodsmart.gov), the NFIP was created in 1968 to help property owners, including homeowners, renters, and business owners, to financially protect themselves by offering flood insurance to NFIP participating communities. In turn, these communities agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management techniques that meet or exceed FEMA requirements to reduce the risk of flooding. Community participation in the NFIP is purely voluntary, however a large number of communities across the country have become participants due to the benefits of participation for their residents and businesses. In the planning area, a number of counties and communities participate in the NFIP. According to the NFIP Community Status Book (www.fema.gov /fema /csb.shtm) the participants and their Community Identification (CID) number are as follows: • Burt County (CID 310420A) • Village of Decatur (CID 310021 #) • City of Tekamah (CID 310024 #) • Dakota County (CID 310429 #) • Dakota City (CID 310053 #) • Village of Homer (CID 310241 #) • Village of Jackson (CID 310292 #) • South Sioux City (CID 310054 #) Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.6 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Douglas County (CID 310073 #) o City of Bennington (CID 310074 #) o Village of Boys Town (CID 310353 #) o City of Omaha (CID 315274 #) o City of Ralston (CID 310077 #) o City of Valley (CID 310078 #) o Village of Waterloo (CID 310079 #) Sarpy County (CID 310190 #) o City of Bellevue (310191 #) o City of La Vista (310192 #) o City of Papillion (315275 #) o City of Springfield (310194 #) Washington County (CID 310483 #) o Village of Arlington (CID 310227 #) o City of Blair (CID 310228 #) o City of Fort Calhoun (CID 310368 #) o Village of Herman (CID 310229 #) o Village of Kennard (CID 310230 #) o Village of Washington (CID 315496 #) According to the NFIP Community Status Book, Thurston County is currently not participating in the National Flood Program. However, the Winnebago Indian Tribe (CID 315498 #), the Town of Winnebago (CID 310223 #), and the Village of Walthill (CID 310222 #) in Thurston County, are participants. For all the NFIP participating communities, continued compliance through participation in the Community Rating System (CRS), floodplain remapping efforts, and floodplain ordinances were examined where applicable. For more information on NFIP participation and repetitive loss structures, please refer to Section 3 Risk Assessment. Table 4.2 lists the status of mitigation goals and actions developed in each community in 2006, as well as new actions identified during this planning process. Each jurisdiction is discussed separately. Those jurisdictions that were included in the original 2006 plan are denoted by an asterisk and a discussion of the status (on- going, deferred, or deleted) of their mitigation actions from the 2006 plan is included in the table. Jurisdictions new to the plan do not address changes from the 2006 plan. Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.7 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 4.2. Mitigation Actions by Jurisdiction Papio- Missouri River NRD DRAFT 4.8 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2011 O U O L N L L •� j ++ •� U 0 f4 N N O i C N -0 N fn d W N O E ate+ L Q Q J-0 CL O R L a) 0) fn U W N E E 0 c4 E C C U) a = w LL LL COMMUNITIES Papio- Missouri River Natural Resources District P -MRNRD Cities and Completion of P- 1 Tree Mitigation Plan New dependent on All $100,000+ P -MRNRD Nebraska MRNRD 3.7 availability of Forest Service Counties of P- funding MRNRD Nebraska Forest Service P -MRNRD Cities and Villages of P- MRNRD 2 Completion HMGP Counties of P- Elevation of Bridges New dependent on Flooding $500,000+ P -MRNRD MRNRD 3.4 availability of PDM funding Nebraska Department of Roads NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD DRAFT 4.8 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2011 +• L j w y LU a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R _a,o L a O L f4 c y o W � `` 0 r � N Q x N O N E w L O R Q N L C c LL L C d C c LL HMGP P -MRNRD Nebraska Cities and Environmental Villages of P- Trust MRNRD DED CDBG Counties of P- Community MRNRD Development NEMA Program USDA FEMA 3 Completion Community Channel Improvements New dependent on Flooding $100,000+ P -MRNRD Facilities Loans Environmental 3.2 availability of and Grants Trust funding USDA Water Nebraska and Waste Department of Disposal Economic Systems for Development Rural (DED) Communities NDEQ Clean USDA Water State Nebraska Revolving Fund Department of Program Environmental (CWSRF) Quality (NDEQ) Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.9 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R o L a O L f4 c y o � � N W `` 0 c r � N � Q M x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL P -MRNRD Cities and Villages of P- MRNRD 4 Completion HMGP Counties of P- Floodplain Buyouts New dependent on Flooding $50,000+ P -MRNRD MRNRD 1.6 availability of PDM funding Nebraska Department of Roads NEMA FEMA P -MRNRD Cities and Villages of P- MRNRD 5 Completion HMGP Counties of P- Flood Warning System New dependent on Flooding $50,000+ P -MRNRD MRNRD 1.4 Upgrades availability of PDM funding Nebraska Department of Roads NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.10 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d w y O R W Q N C a0 � `` 0 C _a,o L r Q c c U) a x w LL LL P -MRNRD Cities and DED CDBG Villages of P- 6 Completion Community MRNRD Drainage Studies New dependent on Flooding $50,000+ P -MRNRD Development 3.3 availability of Program g Counties of P- funding MRNRD NDNR Nebraska DED P -MRNRD Cities and Villages of P- MRNRD Completion HMGP Counties of P- Elevation of Structures in the New dependent on Flooding $20,000+ P -MRNRD MRNRD 3.4 Floodplain availability of PDM funding Nebraska Department of Roads NEMA FEMA P -MRNRD Mitigation Action Items from 2006 plan Include additional This continues to communities in next NRD On -going be a mitigation Plan Update action for P- MRNRD. Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.11 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j CL *' LV y J CL 0 in U ++ •� u 0 Q d O R 0 L a O L f4 � � c y o N liJ W `` E _v r N W Q x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn c L C d c c Several properties have been acquired and demolished Acquisition and demolition of in Elbow Bend, floodprone structures On -going Iske Park, and King Lake. Properties along Thompson Creek will be acquired in 2011. This continues to be a mitigation action for P- MRNRD. We have worked to provide updated floodplain maps to our communities as Floodplain Management On -going well as helped to develop new higher standards in local floodplain ordinances. Several communities adopted higher standard ordinances in May 2010 Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.12 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d w y O R Q N c J a0 liJ W c _a,o ` EE C° c U) a x w LL LL This continues to Drainage Improvements On -going be a mitigation action for P- MRNRD. This continues to Channel Improvements On -going be a mitigation action for P- MRNRD. P -MRNRD continues to operate a flood warning system. In the coming years P -MRNRD will look to update Upgrades to flood warning equipment and systems Deferred provide further monitoring locations as well as develop a publicly - accessible website for stream level and precipitation monitorin This continues to Elevation of bridges On -going be a mitigation action for P- MRNRD. This continues to Elevation of structures in the On -going be a mitigation floodplain action for P- MRNRD. Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.13 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C � � N � U N fn d y O R / Q N c J w a0 +' L V ! liJ GI c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c U) a x w LL LL Work has not been completed Urban tree management on this plan. In plan, tree mitigation the coming years programs such as clean -up Deferred P -MRNRD will days and ash tree look to develop a replacement plans plan to address urban tree management This project is no Flood Control Reservoir Site longer a project 3c - Douglas/Washington Deleted that will be County - Big Papillion Creek completed by P- MRNRD This project is no Flood control Reservoir Site longer a project 1 - Washington County - Big Deleted that will be Papillion Creek completed by P- MRNRD West Branch Papillion Creek To be completed Channelization from On -going in 2011 Papillion to Giles Road Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.14 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C � � N � U N fn d y O R / Q N c J w a0 +' L V ! liJ GI c _a,o ` EE C° c U) a x w LL LL This project will not be completed and is not included in the plan update. The modifications to Big Papillion Creek the hydraulics of channelization from Blondo Deleted the creek system Street to Fort Street, Omaha create further problems with erosion, therefore P -MRNRD will no longer continue to channelize streams Each community Outdoor Tornado Siren will continue to Assessment Deferred assess their individual jurisdiction This project will Purchase NOAA Weather not be completed Radios for Critical Facilities Deleted and is not included in the Ian update. Each community Tornado Shelter will continue to Assessment Deferred assess their individual jurisdiction Each community Severe Weather Awareness will continue to Education Deferred assess their individual jurisdiction Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.15 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d w y O R Q N c J a0 liJ W c _a,o ` EE C° c U) a x w LL LL Each community Identify Snow Emergency will continue to Routes Deferred assess their individual jurisdiction In 2010, P- MRNRD updated breach routing for high- hazard dams within the District. Emergency actions plans were also updated to Identify Population Centers On -going comply with all At -Risk to All Dam Failures current standards. Table topic exercises have been completed with emergency officials to run through the chain of events in case a dam were to breach. Comprehensive Levee Project System for Valley Deleted determined infeasible Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.16 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 A ++ O U C 0 L N +A L Vl N L '0 j . .� U O 40 C C y 0 V1 V1 O i C d +r Q d E N U N fn d y O E " Q N C c 0 J w a0 +' L a�0 �n cn l N s `` = V L r Q c c cn a x w LL LL Each community Education and Improved Hail will continue to Warning System Deferred assess their individual jurisdiction As part of the issuance of new flood maps, public information sessions were Flood Awareness Education On -going held in 2008. As flood maps are updated in other jurisdictions, further education activities will be completed As part of the issuance of new flood maps, public information sessions were Flood Insurance Education On -going held in 2008. As for Homeowners flood maps are updated in other jurisdictions, further education activities will be completed Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.17 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j a* L y a0 in U ++ •� u 0 Qd O R _a,o L a O L f4 � � c y o N W � `` 0 r N N Q N x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c 'L L C d C c LL Burt County Burt County P -MRNRD Completion FEMA CTP Region 5/6 1 dependent on Burt County Grant Funding Emergency Updated Floodplain Maps New availability of Flooding Unknown Planning and Management 1.1 funding Zoning NDNR NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.18 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R o L a O L f4 c y o � � N W `` 0 r � N � Q x N O U N E w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL HMGP Nebraska Environmental Burt County Trust DED CDBG P -MRNRD Community NEMA Development Program FEMA USDA Nebraska 2 Completion Community Environmental Channel Maintenance and New dependent on Flooding $100,000 Burt County Facilities Loans Trust 3.2 Stabilization availability of and Grants funding Nebraska USDA Water Department of and Waste Economic Disposal Development Systems for (DED) Rural Communities USDA NDEQ Clean NDEQ Water State Revolving Fund Program CWSRF Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.19 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C � � N � U N fn d w y O R W Q N C a0 0 C o L `` r Q c c U) a x w LL LL Burt County Completion Region 5/6 3 Increase Public awareness dependent on Tornado HMGP Emergency of tornado, high wind & flood New availability of High Wind Flood $10,000 Burt County Management 1.5 mitigation actions funding PDM NEMA FEMA Burt County Provide adequate Completion Region 5/6 4 emergency notification dependent on Emergency system for severe weather New availability of All $200,000 Burt County HMGP Management 1.4 and other disaster funding notification NEMA FEMA Completion Burt County 5 GIS Mapping New dependent on All Unknown Burt County DED CDBG NEMA 2.3 availability of Community funding Development Nebraska DED Program Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.20 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d L y O R W Q N C a0 � `` 0 C _a,o L r Q c c in a x w 'L LL Burt County HMGP Region 5/6 Completion Emergency 6 Emergency power dependent on TBD - USDA Management generation for critical New availability of All Estimated Burt County Community 2.2 facilities funding $100,000 Facilities Loans NEMA and Grants FEMA USDA Burt County — For Summit Township Completion Burt County Burt County 1 Take down bank and rebuild New dependent on All $6,000 Summit HMGP NEMA 3.4 road availability of Township funding Board FEMA Completion Burt County Burt County 2 Take down bank and rebuild New dependent on All $5,000 Summit HMGP NEMA 3.4 road availability of Township funding Board FEMA Village of Decatur Village of 1 Completion Decatur Update Problem Bridge New dependent on All $400,000 Village of HMGP 3.4 availability of Decatur NEMA funding FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.21 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R o L a O L f4 c y o � � N W `` 0 r � N � Q x N O U N E w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL HMGP Nebraska Environmental Trust Village Decatur DED CDBG Region 5/6 Community Emergency Development Management Program USDA NEMA 2 Completion Community FEMA Channel Improvement and New dependent on Flooding $10,000 Village of Facilities Loans 3.2 Stabilization of Elm Creek availability of Decatur and Grants Nebraska funding Environmental USDA Water Trust and Waste Disposal Nebraska DED Systems for Rural USDA Communities NDEQ Clean NDEQ Water State Revolving Fund Program (CWSRF) Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.22 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j a* w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 Qd O R _a,o a O L f4 � � c y o N W � `` 0 N N Q x N O U N w L O R N N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL Village of Decatur Region 5/6 3 Completion FEMA CTP Emergency Update Floodplain Maps New dependent on Flooding $5,000 Village of Grant Funding Management 1.1 availability of Decatur funding NDNR NEMA FEMA HMGP Village of Decatur PDM Region 5/6 DED CDBG Emergency 4 Completion Communit y Management Storm Shelter for Beck Park New dependent on All $25,000 Village of Develop 1.2 availability of Decatur P ogramment NEMA funding USDA FEMA Community Nebraska DED Facilities Loans and Grants USDA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.23 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d L y O R W Q N C a0 0 C o `` c c in a x w 'L LL Village of Decatur HMGP Region 5/6 5 Completion Emergency Backup Generator for City New dependent on All $30, 000 Village of USDA Management 2.2 Offices availability of Decatur Community funding Facilities Loans NEMA and Grants FEMA USDA Dakota County" Dakota P -MRNRD Project to County P -MRNRD 1 Remap Dakota County On -going - proceed once NDNR floodplains Preliminary changes are Flood Unknown P -MRNRD FEMA CTP 1.1 Maps Issued published in the Grant Funding NEMA Federal Register FEMA Dakota County 2 Completion Dakota County Tree Management New dependent on All $40,000 Dakota Nebraska Emergency 3.7 availability of County Forest Service Management staff and funds Nebraska Forest Service Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.24 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j J w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R / +' L _a,o L a V ! O L f4 c y o � � N liJ GI E�0 � N � Q x N O U N E w L O R N Q N L fn c LL L C d c LL HMGP Nebraska Environmental Dakota County Trust DED CDBG Dakota County Community Emergency Development Management Program NEMA USDA FEMA 3 Completion Community Stream Bank Stabilization New dependent on Flood $50,000 Dakota Facilities Loans Nebraska 3.2 availability of County and Grants Environmental funding Trust USDA Water and Waste Nebraska DED Disposal Systems for USDA Rural Communities NDEQ NDEQ Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program (CWSRF) Completion Dakota County 4 dependent on Dakota HMGP Ditch Clearing New availability of Flood $60,000 County NEMA 3.5 funding Roads PDM FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.25 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C fn d L u Q y O R Q N c J L u a0 +' L / V ! liJ GI c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c in a x w 'L LL 5 Completion Dakota Establish Snow Routes New dependent on Severe Winter $2,000 County Dakota County Dakota County 1.5 availability of Storm Roads staff and funds Dakota County Mitigation Action Items from 2006 plan Complete structural Deleted No local interest inventory of Dakota County at this time Upgrade problem Dakota Deleted No local interest County bridges at this time Ensure adequate severe No local interest weather notifications to Deleted at this time critical facilities Dakota City Dakota City HMGP Dakota County Completion Emer 1 dependent on USDA g Backup Generators New availability of All $70,000 Dakota City Community 2.2 funding Facilities Loans NEMA and Grants FEMA USDA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.26 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j a* w y a0 in U ++ •� u 0 Qd O R _a,o L a O L f4 � � c y o N W � `` 0 r N N Q x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL Dakota City Dakota County Emergency Dakota City Management 2 Completion HMGP Bury Power Lines New dependent on All $50,000 NPPD NEMA 2.1 availability of PDM funding FEMA Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.27 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R o L a O L f4 c y o � � N W `` 0 r � N � Q x N O U N E w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL HMGP Nebraska Environmental Trust DED CDBG Dakota City Community Development Dakota County Program Emergency USDA Management 3 Completion Community NEMA Stream Bank Stabilization New dependent on Flood $80,000 Dakota City Facilities Loans 3.2 availability of and Grants FEMA funding USDA Water Nebraska DED and Waste Disposal USDA Systems for Rural NDEQ Communities NDEQ Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program (CWSRF) Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.28 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d w y O R Q N c J a0 liJ W c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c U) a x w LL LL Dakota City Completion Dakota County 4 dependent on HMGP Emergency Siren Replacement New availability of All $28,000 Dakota City Management 1.3 funding NEMA FEMA Dakota City Completion Dakota County 5 dependent on HMGP Emergency Community Safe Room New availability of All $31,000 Dakota City Management 1.2 funding NEMA FEMA FEMA NDNR 6 This continues to Maintain good standing with On -going be a mitigation Flooding Unknown Dakota City P -MRNRD P -MRNRD 1.1 NFIP action for Dakota City NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.29 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C � � N � U N fn d LV y O R W Q N C a0 0 C o L `` r N Q c c in a x w Village of Jackson" Village of Jackson Dakota County Department of Dakota County 1 Completion Homeland Emergency Security System to Water New dependent on All Unknown Village of Secu (DHS) Management 9 2.4 Plant availability of Jackson Agenc g funding NEMA FEMA DHS Completion HMGP P -MRNRD 2 Generator New dependent on All $50,000 Village of NEMA 2.2 availability of Jackson Surplus funding Application FEMA P -MRNRD This continues to 3 be a mitigation Village of HMGP NDNR Maintain standing in NFIP On -going action for the Flood Unknown Jackson 1.1 Village of P -MRNRD NEMA Jackson FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.30 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d y O R Q N c J L u - a a0 +' L / V! liJ W c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c in a x w Village of Jackson Mitigation Action Items from 2006 plan Perform tornado shelter Deleted No local interest assessment at this time Bury Power Lines Deleted No local interest at this time Complete a tree inventory Deleted No local interest at this time Mandate underground Deleted No local interest utilities for new development at this time Ensure adequate severe No local interest weather notifications to Deleted at this time critical facilities South Sioux City" South Sioux City Dakota County Project to Emergency 1 going - proceed once FEMA CTP Management Update 100 year and 500 Preliminary changes are Flood $50,000 South Sioux Grant Funding Agency 1.1 year Floodplain Map. Maps Issued published in the City Federal Register NDNR NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.31 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j J w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R / +' L _a,o L a V ! O L f4 c y o � � N liJ GI ` EE C° r � N � Q x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn c LL L C d c c LL HMGP South Sioux City Severe Winter PDM Dakota County Storm Emergency Assess storm shelter Completion DED CDBG Management 2 locations and provide dependent on Thunderstorms /High South Sioux Community emergency shelters to On -going availability of Winds /Lightning /Hail $15,000 City Development NEMA 1.2 vulnerable populations. staff and funds Program Tornado FEMA USDA Earthquake Community Nebraska DED Facilities Loans and Grants USDA South Sioux City Assess current severe Severe Winter Dakota County weather warning system and Completion Storm Emergency 3 provide adequate warning dependent on South Sioux HMGP Management for severe weather as New availability of Thunderstorms /High $30,000 City Agency 1.4 needed. Use City Fiber funding Winds /Lightning /Hail PDM network to notify citizens of NEMA warnings. Tornado FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.32 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d w y O R Q N c J a0 liJ W c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c U) d x W LL LL South Sioux City Dakota County 4 Identify, designate, and Completion Comp HMGP Emergency publicize the locations of New dependent on Tornado $10,000 South Sioux Management 1.5 tornado shelters. availability of City PDM Agency staff and funds NEMA FEMA South Sioux City Dakota County HMGP Emergency 5 Emergency Power Completion Management Generation for Critical New dependent on All $300,000 South Sioux USDA Agency 2.2 Facilities availability of City Community funding Facilities Loans NEMA and Grants FEMA USDA South Sioux City This continues to FEMA P -MRNRD 6 Maintain good standing in On -going be a mitigation Flood $0 South Sioux P -MRNRD NDNR 1.1 the NFIP action for South City Sioux City NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.33 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d w y O R Q N c J a0 liJ W c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c U) a x w LL LL South Sioux City Dakota County 7 Purchase and use an anti Completion Comp HMGP Emergency hail device /cannon to protect New dependent on Thunderstorms /High $150,000 South Sioux Management 3.4 community from hail storms. availability of Winds /Lightning /Hail City PDM Agency funding NEMA FEMA South Sioux City Develop an urban tree Completion Dakota County 8 management plan and hire New dependent on All $20,000/ South Sioux Nebraska Emergency 3 tree service firm to provide availability of year City Forest Service Agency g e y service. funding Nebraska Forest Service South Sioux City Mitigation Action Items from 2006 plan Drainage study of frequently Deleted No local interest flooded areas at this time Acquisition of flood prone Deleted No local interest structures at this time Study alternative snow No local interest removal and dumping Deleted at this time options Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.34 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C L u Q L y O fn d a0 R W 0 Q N C C o `` Q c c in L a r N x w 'L LL Douglas County" Douglas County Douglas County 1 Completion Douglas Emergency Remote monitoring and New dependent on All $85,000 County HMGP Management 1.4 warning unit availability of Emergency Agency funding Management NEMA FEMA Douglas County Douglas County 2 Completion Douglas HMGP Emergency Burial of power supply to New dependent on Tornado $100,000 County Management 1.3 outdoor warning sirens availability of Emergency PDM Agency funding Management NEMA FEMA Douglas County On -going - Hydraulics to be P -MRNRD P -MRNRD 3 Hydraulic completed 2010. Douglas USACE Floodplain Map Updates Study Completion Flood Existing Staff County and NDNR 1.1 underway for dependent on P -MRNRD FEMA CTP Papio Creek USACE funding Grant Funding USACE Watershed for FY 2011 NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.35 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d y O R Q N c J L u - a a0 +' L / V! liJ W c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c in a x w 'L LL Douglas County Mitigation Action Items from 2006 plan Complete structural No local interest inventory of Douglas County Deleted or funding at this time Ensure adequate severe No local interest weather notifications to Deleted or funding at this critical facilities time Upgrade problem Douglas No local interest County bridges Deleted or funding at this time Acquire repetitive loss No local interest properties Deleted or funding at this time City of Omaha" (Including Mitigation Action Items from 2006 plan) P -MRNRD Douglas County Emergency 1 Mitigate repetitive loss Completed as HMGP Manae ment properties through voluntary On -going funds are Flood Unknown City of Agen 3.1 acquisition, elevation, etc. available Omaha PDM City of Omaha NEMA FEMA 2 Continue maintenance and This continues to Flood City of Omaha Y enforcement of the be a mitigation City of City of Omaha stormwater management On-going g action for the City Thunderstorms /High Existing Staff Omaha 3.1 ordinance of Omaha Winds /Lightning /Hail P -MRNRD P -MRNRD Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.36 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d w y O R Q N c J a0 liJ W c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c U) a x w LL LL City of Omaha Douglas County 3 Thunderstorms /High HMGP Douglas County Identify, designate and Deferred Staff and funds Winds /Lightning /Hail Unknown City of PDM Emergency 1.5 publicize tornado shelters unavailable Omaha Management Tornado City of Omaha Agency NEMA FEMA Some data available from 4 Complete inventory of HAZ -US Risk Assessment. City of City of Omaha City of Omaha vulnerable structures in Deferred More detailed All Unknown Omaha 3.3 Omaha study deferred USACE USACE until staff and funds available City of Omaha Douglas County HMGP Emergency Ensure adequate severe 5 weather notifications to Deferred Staff and funds All $50 /radio City of Local Agency g e y 1.4 critical facilities by unavailable Omaha Businesses Local purchasing weather radios Businesses City of Omaha NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.37 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C � � N � U N fn d y O R / Q N c J w a0 +' L V ! liJ GI c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c U) d x W LL LL City of Omaha 6 Develop an urban tree Nebraska management program Deferred Staff and funds All Unknown City of Forest Service Douglas County 3.7 including a comprehensive unavailable Omaha inventory City of Omaha Nebraska Forest Service City of Omaha Tornado Douglas County HMGP 7 Initiate a power line burying Staff and funds Thunderstorms /High City of Public Power project Deferred unavailable Winds /Lightning /Hail Unknown Omaha PDM District 2.1 Severe Winter City of Omaha NEMA Storm FEMA P -MRNRD 8 This continues to HMGP NDNR Maintain good standing in On -going be a mitigation Flood Unknown City of 1.1 NFIP action for the City Omaha P -MRNRD NEMA of Omaha FEMA City of Ralston" HMGP City of Ralston Completion DED P -MRNRD 1 Drainage and Erosion dependent on City of Community Control New availability of Flood Unknown Ralston Development NEMA 3.5 funding Public Works Block Grant FEMA P -MRNRD Nebraska DED Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.38 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d w y O R Q N c J a0 liJ W c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c U) a x w LL LL HMGP City of Bellevue Flood PDM Sarpy County 2 Completion Thunderstorms /High Community DED CDBG Sarpy County Maintain good standing in New dependent on Winds /Lightning /Hail $400000 City of Development p Emergency 1.1 the NFIP availability of , Ralston Program Management funding Tornado Agency Earthquake USDA NEMA Community Facilities Loans FEMA and Grants City of Ralston Mitigation Action Items from 2006 plan Adopt a stormwater Completed management ordinance 9 -5 -2006 Some data avalible from HAZ -US Risk Complete structural Deferred Assessment. inventory of Ralston More detailed study deferred until staff and funds available Drainage study to identify Deleted Funding flood mitigation projects unavailable Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.39 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d w y O R Q N c J a0 liJ W c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c U) a x w LL LL Identify, designate and No local interest publicize tornado shelters Deleted or funding at this time Develop an urban tree No local interest management program Deleted or funding at this time Ensure adequate severe No local interest weather notifications to Deleted or funding at this critical facilities time City of Valley" City of Valley Douglas County 1 Completion HMGP Douglas County Street Stormwater New dependent on Flood $900,000 City of Valley Emergency 3.4 Improvements availability of PDM Management funding Agency NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.40 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j a* w y J a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 Qd O R _a,o L a O L f4 � � c y o N liJ W ` EE C° r N N Q x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn c LL L C d c c LL City of Valley Douglas County HMGP Douglas County 2 Completion PDM Emergency Back -Up Generators Deferred dependent on All $140,000 City of Valley Management 2.2 availability of USDA Agency funding Community Facilities Loans NEMA and Grants FEMA USDA City of Valley HMGP Douglas County Emergency 3 Completion PDM Management Gardiner Street Lift Station New dependent on Flood $350,000 City of Valley Agency 2.4 Improvements availability of DED CDBG funding Community NEMA Development Program FEMA Nebraska DED Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.41 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j a* w y J a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 Qd O R _a,o L a O L f4 � � c y o N liJ W ` EE C° r N N Q x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn c LL L C d c c LL City of Valley Douglas County 4 Completion HMGP Douglas County Drainage Improvements Deferred dependent on Flood $300,000 City of Valley Emergency 3.5 availability of PDM Management funding Agency NEMA FEMA City of Valley HMGP Douglas County Flood PDM Douglas County DED CDBG Emergency 5 Completion Thunderstorms /High Community Mana Storm Shelters Deferred dependent on Winds /Lightning /Hail $100,000 City of Valley Development Agency 1.2 availability of Program funding Tornado NEMA Earthquake USDA FEMA Community Facilities Loans Nebraska DED and Grants USDA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.42 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R o L a O L f4 c y o � � N W `` 0 r � N � Q x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL City of Valley Severe Winter Douglas County Storm 6 Completion Thunderstorms /High HMGP Douglas County Fuel Tank Anchoring New dependent on Winds /Lightning /Hail $15,000 City of Valley Emergency 3.6 availability of PDM Management funding Tornado Agency Flood NEMA FEMA City of Valley Douglas County 7 Completion HMGP Douglas County Grade Control Sewer Lift New dependent on Flood $70,000 City of Valley Emergency 2.4 Stations availability of PDM Management funding Agency NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.43 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j a* w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 Qd O R _a,o L a O L f4 � � c y o N W � `` 0 r N N Q x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL City of Valley Douglas County 8 Completion Douglas County Reverse 911 New dependent on All $40,000 City of Valley HMGP Emergency 1.4 availability of Management funding Agency NEMA FEMA City of Valley Douglas County 9 Completion HMGP Douglas County Remove Flow Constriction New dependent on Flood $100,000 City of Valley Emergency 3.5 availability of PDM Management funding Agency NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.44 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d w y O R Q N c J a0 liJ W c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c U) d x W LL LL City of Valley Completion Flood FEMA P -MRNRD 10 Maintain good standing in On -going dependent on Unknown City of Valley P -MRNRD NDNR 1.1 the NFIP availability of Thunderstorms /High funding Winds /Lightning /Hail NEMA FEMA City of Valley Mitigation Action Items from 2006 plan Develop a emergency snow Deleted No local interest route plan at this time Bury Power Lines Deleted No local interest at this time Pass ordinance requiring power lines and other Deleted No local interest service lines to be buried for at this time new construction Develop an urban tree Deleted No local interest management program at this time Purchase weather radios for Deleted No local interest critical facilities at this time Perform assessment of Deleted No local interest tornado sirens stem at this time Pass ordinance requiring the No local interest use of hurricane straps on Deleted at this time new construction Identify, designate and Deleted No local interest ublicize tornado shelters at this time Drainage study to identify Deleted No local interest flood mitigation projects at this time Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.45 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C � � N � U N fn d y O R / Q N c J w a0 +' L V ! liJ GI c _a,o ` EE C° c U) a x w LL LL Acquire repetitive loss Deleted No local interest properties at this time Flood warning and Deleted No local interest p rep aredness planning at this time Village of Waterloo" (Including Mitigation Action Items from 2006 plan) Village of Waterloo Douglas County Emergency 1 Levee is currently HMGP Management Maintain Levee On -going undergoing Flood Unknown Village of 3.6 recertification Waterloo PDM P -MRNRD process USACE NEMA FEMA Village of Waterloo Douglas County 2 Completion HMGP Douglas County Improve Interior Drain Deferred dependent on Flood $15,000 Village of Emergency 3.5 availability of minimum Waterloo PDM Management funding Agency NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.46 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R o L a O L f4 c y o � � N W E�0 C � N � Q M x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C LL L C d C LL Village of Waterloo Douglas County 3 Completion HMGP Douglas County Maintain Water Supply Deferred dependent on All Unknown Village of Emergency 3.4 availability of Waterloo PDM Management funding Agency NEMA FEMA Village of Waterloo Douglas County HMGP Douglas County 4 Completion Emergency Emergency Power New dependent on All Unknown Village of USDA 2.2 availability of Waterloo Community g e y Agency funding Facilities Loans and Grants NEMA FEMA USDA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.47 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j J w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R / +' L _a,o L a V ! O L f4 c y o � � N liJ GI E�0 C � N � Q M x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn c LL L C d c LL Village of Waterloo Douglas County 5 Current project HMGP Douglas County Maintain NFIP Standing On -going underway to Flood Unknown Village of Emergency 1.1 recertify levee Waterloo PDM Management that protects city Agency NEMA FEMA Village of Waterloo HMGP Douglas County PDM Douglas County Completion Thunderstorms /High DED CDBG Emergency 6 dependent on Winds /Lightning /Hail Village of Community Management Tornado Shelters Deferred availability of Unknown Waterloo Development Agency 1.2 funding Tornado Program NEMA USDA Community FEMA Facilities Loans and Grants Nebraska DED USDA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.48 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j J w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R / +' L _a,o L a V ! O L f4 c y o � � N liJ GI ` EE C° C r � N � Q M x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn c LL L C d c c LL Village of Waterloo Severe Winter Storm Douglas County 7 Completion dependent on Thunderstorms /High Village of HMGP Douglas County Early Alert System Deferred availability of Winds /Lightning /Hail Unknown Waterloo Emergency 1.4 funding Management Tornado Agency Earthquake NEMA FEMA Village of Waterloo 8 Completion Douglas County Improve disaster recovery On-going g ependent on All Unknown Village of Unknown 3.3 time and effectiveness availability of Waterloo Douglas County funding Emergency Management Agency Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.49 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N W N O O R L C CL *' y Q d O N U N fn d J L u - a R +' L / V! liJ W Q N c c a0 _a,o � Q c in L a r x w Sarpy County* Sarpy County Sarpy County Emergency Management Emergency Backup Power HMGP Agency 1 Generator - Support to Completion Critical Infrastructure /Key New dependent on All $75,000 Sarpy USDA Sarpy County 2.2 Resources. (Example) availability of County Community Fleet Services Sarpy County EOC /E911 funding Facilities Loans Center, Fleet Maintenance. and Grants NEMA FEMA USDA Sarpy County Sarpy County Emergency Emergency Backup Power HMGP Management Generator - Support Critical Completion Agency 2 Infrastructure, County dependent on Sarpy USDA Highway Department Gretna New availability of All $35,000 County Community Sarpy County 2.2 Facility. Will support funding Facilities Loans Fleet Services Command Operations for and Grants Sarpy County. NEMA FEMA USDA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.50 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R o L a O L f4 c y o � � N W `` 0 C r � N � Q M x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL Sarpy County Emergency Management Agency 3 Completion Tornado HMGP Sarpy County 14 INCH Capacity Brush New dependent on High Wind $33,000 Sarpy Highway 3.7 Chipper availability of Sever Winter Storm County DHS Grant Department funding NEMA FEMA DHS Sarpy County Emergency Management Agency Sarpy County Highway Department 4 Completion HMGP Communities of Solar Powered Portable New dependent on All $14,000 Sarpy Sarpy County 1.4 Message Board availability of County DHS Grant funding Sarpy County Sheriffs Department NEMA FEMA DHS Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.51 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C fn d L u Q y O R Q N c J L u a0 +' L / V ! liJ GI c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c in a x w 'L LL NDNR On -going - Hydraulics to be P -MRNRD P -MRNRD 5 Hydraulic completed 2010. Sarpy Floodplain Map Updates Study Completion Flood Existing Staff County and USACE NEMA 1.1 underway for dependent on P -MRNRD Papio Creek USACE funding FEMA CTP FEMA Watershed for FY 2011 Grant Funding USACE Sarpy County property owners between Hwy. 6 and 1 -80 along the east bank of the Platte River Completion Sarpy Lincoln Water 6 Implementation and use of dependent on County and HMGP Systems FEMA's HAZUS -MH New availability of Flood $10,000 Lincoln 2.4 analysis software funding Water FEMA Sarpy County Systems Emergency Management Agency NEMA FEMA Sarpy County Mitigation Action Items from 2006 plan Complete structural Deleted No local interest inventory of Sarpy County at this time Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.52 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d y O R Q N c J L u - a a0 +' L / V! liJ W c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c in a x w 'L LL Upgrade problem Sarpy Deleted No local interest County bridges at this time Remove very flood -prone No local interest structures in the Elbow Bend Deleted at this time and Iske Park areas Acquire repetitive loss Deferred P -MRNRD to properties continue efforts Ensure adequate severe No local interest weather notifications to Deleted at this time critical facilities City of Bellevue City of Bellevue Sarpy County HMGP Emergency Completion Bellevue Management Backup Generator for New dependent on All $79,200 Emergency USDA Agency 2.2 Emergency Shelter availability of Management Community funding Facilities Loans NEMA and Grants FEMA USDA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.53 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j a* w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 Qd O R _a,o L a O L f4 � � c y o N W � `` 0 r N N Q x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL City of Bellevue HMGP Sarpy County Flood PDM Sarpy County DED CDBG Emergency 2 Completion Thunderstorms /High Bellevue Community Management Safe House Shelter at New dependent on Winds /Lightning /Hail $400,000 Emergency Development Agency 1.2 Softball Complex availability of Management Program funding Tornado NEMA Earthquake USDA FEMA Community Facilities Loans Nebraska DED and Grants USDA City of Bellevue HMGP Sarpy County Flood PDM Sarpy County DED CDBG Emergency 3 Completion Thunderstorms /High Bellevue Community Management Safe House Shelter for New dependent on Winds /Lightning /Hail $400,000 Emergency Development Agency 1.2 Haworth Park availability of Management Program funding Tornado NEMA Earthquake USDA FEMA Community Facilities Loans Nebraska DED and Grants USDA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.54 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C � � N � U N fn d y O R / Q N c J w a0 +' L V ! liJ GI c _a,o L ` EE C° C r M Q c U) d x W LL LL NDNR FEMA 4 This continues to Bellevue P -MRNRD Maintain good standing in On -going be a mitigation Flood Existing Staff Planning P -MRNRD 1.1 the NFIP action for the City Department City of Bellevue of Bellevue FEMA City of Gretna City of Gretna SCADA System for City of Gretna Sarpy County Water/Wastewater System - Emergency 1 Centralized computer control Completion City of HMGP Management system which monitors and New dependent on All $50,000 Gretna Agency 3.6 controls critical availability of Water USDA utilities /infrastructure funding Department Community NEMA components Facilities Loans and Grants FEMA USDA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.55 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R o L a O L f4 c y o � � N W `` 0 C r � N � Q M x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL City of Gretna Sarpy County HMGP Emergency 2 Emergency Backup Power - Completion City of Management Generator - Used for backup New dependent on All $35, 000 Gretna USDA Agency 2.2 power due to loss of power availability of Water Community at water tower location funding Department Facilities Loans NEMA and Grants FEMA USDA HMGP City of Gretna PDM Sarpy County Storm shelters /Safe Houses Flood Emergency - Incorporate a safe house in DED CDBG Management 3 the construction of a Thunderstorms /High Community Agency concession /restroom /storage New 2014 Winds /Lightning /Hail $150,000 City of Development 1.2 facility at the new City Sports Gretna Program NEMA Complex or an existing city Tornado park USDA FEMA Earthquake Community Facilities Loans Nebraska DED and Grants USDA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.56 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 L •0 j d +r LV y a0 cn O U . .� U O Q d O E a�0 L a fn O L � C C y 0 E N W" - s `` = V r N V1 Q x V1 U N w L O N Q i fn C c 'L C d C c LL City of Gretna Sarpy County 4 Warning Sirens - Coverage Completion Emergency for areas currently not New dependent on Tornado $45,000 City of HMGP Management 1.3 adequately covered availability of Gretna Agency funding NEMA FEMA City of Gretna Weather Radios - Implement Severe Winter Gretna Public program to assure that all Storm Schools 5 schools, medical facilities, Completion Thunderstorms /High Sarpy County assisted living nursing New dependent on Winds /Lightning /Hail Unknown City of HMGP Emergency 1.4 homes, etc are furnished availability of Gretna Management with a weather radio for use funding Tornado Agency during severe weather and emergencies Flood NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.57 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j w y a0 fn U ++ •� u 0 O R o L d O L f4 c y o � � N W `` 0 r � N � Q x N O U N E W L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL HMGP DED CDBG Community City of Gretna Development Program Sarpy County Emergency USDA Management Community Agency Drainage Improvements - Facilities Loans 6 Continue to work towards a Completion and Grants P -MRNRD solution for improved New dependent on Flood $500,000 City of 3.5 stormwater /drainage availability of Gretna USDA Water NEMA improvements for properties funding and Waste downstream of development Disposal FEMA Systems for Rural Nebraska DED Communities USDA NDEQ Clean Water State NDEQ Revolving Fund Program (CWSRF) Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.58 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j LV y a0 in U ++ •� u 0 O R o L a O L f4 c y o � � N W `` 0 r U � N � Q x N O U N E w L O R N Q N L fn C c L C d C c City of La Vista" HMGP PDM City of La Vista DED CDBG Community Sarpy County Development Program Sarpy County Emergency USDA Management Community Agency 1 Completion Facilities Loans Channel maintenance and Deferred dependent on Flood 000000 $3,, City of La and Grants P -MRNRD 3.2 bank stabilization availability of Vista funding USDA Water NEMA and Waste Disposal FEMA Systems for Rural Nebraska DED Communities USDA NDEQ Clean Water State NDEQ Revolving Fund Program (CWSRF) Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.59 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R o L a O L f4 c y o � � N W `` 0 r � N � Q x N O U N E w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL HMGP PDM City of La Vista DED CDBG Community Sarpy County Development Program Sarpy County Emergency USDA Management Community Agency 2 Completion Facilities Loans Reduce impacts of Deferred dependent on Flood $1,000,000 City of La and Grants P -MRNRD 3.5 stormwater availability of Vista funding USDA Water NEMA and Waste Disposal FEMA Systems for Rural Nebraska DED Communities USDA NDEQ Clean Water State NDEQ Revolving Fund Program (CWSRF) Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.60 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j J w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R / +' L _a,o L a V ! O L f4 c y o � � N liJ GI ` EE C° r � N � Q x N O U N E w L O R N Q N L fn c LL L C d c c LL HMGP City of La Vista PDM Sarpy County DED CDBG Community Sarpy County Development Emergency Program Management Agency USDA Community P -MRNRD 3 Completion Facilities Loans Upgrade problem bridges Deferred dependent on Flood $2,000,000 City of La and Grants NEMA 3.8 and culverts availability of Vista funding USDA Water FEMA and Waste Disposal Nebraska DED Systems for Rural USDA Communities NDEQ NDEQ Clean Water State NDOR Revolving Fund Program FHA (CWSRF) Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.61 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a+ Qd N U N fn d LV y O R Q N c J a0 liJ W E�0 c _a,o L Q in a U x w City of La Vista Sarpy County Sarpy County 4 Completion Emergency Bury power lines New dependent on All $10,000,000 City of La HMGP Management 2.1 availability of Vista Agency funding OPPD NEMA FEMA City of La Vista Completion Sarpy County 5 Develop an urban tree dependent on City of La Nebraska Emergency management program Deferred availability of All $50,000 Vista Forest Service 3 funding g e y Agency Nebraska Forest Service City of La Vista Sarpy County 6 Provide severe weather Completion Sarpy County notifications to residents via Deferred dependent on All $50,000 City of La HMGP Emergency 1.4 reverse 911 system or availability of Vista Management similar funding Agency NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.62 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d LV y O R Q N c J a0 liJ W c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c in a U x w City of La Vista Sarpy County HMGP Sarpy County 7 Emergency power Completion Emergency generation for critical New dependent on All $500,000 City of La USDA Management 2.2 facilities availability of Vista Community Agency funding Facilities Loans and Grants NEMA FEMA USDA City of La Vista Sarpy County 8 Completion HMGP Sarpy County Identify, designate and New dependent on Tornado $50, 000 City of La Emergency 1.5 publicize tornado shelters availability of Vista PDM Management funding Agency NEMA FEMA NDNR FEMA 9 This continues to P -MRNRD Maintain good standing in On -going be a mitigation Flood Existing Staff City of La P -MRNRD 1.1 the NFIP action for the City Vista City of La Vista of La Vista FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.63 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C � � N � U N fn d y O R / Q N c J w a0 +' L V ! liJ GI c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c in a x w LL LL City of La Vista Mitigation Action Items from 2006 plan Complete structural Deleted No local interest inventory of La Vista at this time City of Papillion" 1 Disaster response Completion Papillion DHS Grant City of Papillion equipment purchase Dump New dependent on All $180,000 Public Works 3.6 Truck availability of Department City Budget DHS funding 2 Completion Papillion DHS Grant City of Papillion Snow blower attachment New dependent on Winter Storm $90,000 Public Works 3.6 availability of Department City Budget DHS funding 3 Completion Papillion DHS Grant City of Papillion Front End Loader New dependent on All $180,000 Public Works 3.6 availability of Department City Budget DHS fundin City of Papillion Papillion HMGP P -MRNRD 4 Completion Public Works Washington Street Bridge New dependent on Flooding $3,500,000 Department FHA Grants NEMA 3.5 Elevation availability of funding P -MRNRD City Budget FEMA NDOR FHA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.64 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C � � N � U N fn d y O R / Q N c J w a0 +' L V ! liJ GI c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c U) a x w LL LL Sarpy County Completion Papillion HMGP City of Papillion 5 dependent on Public Works 66th Street Bridge Elevation New availability of Flooding $1,500,000 Department PDM P -MRNRD 3.5 funding P -MRNRD City Budget NEMA FEMA City of Papillion Completion Papillion HMGP 6 Channel stabilization at dependent on Public Works P -MRNRD Midland Creek New availability of Flooding $2,500,000 Department PDM 3.2 funding and NEMA P -MRNRD City Budget FEMA City of Papillion 7 Deferred until Papillion Nebraska Nebraska Forest Tree Maintenance Education Deferred funding is All $50,000 Planning Forest Service Service 3.7 Program available Department City Budget Arbor Day Foundation 8 Maintain good standing in This continues to Papillion City Budget City of Papillion the NFIP and obtain CRS On-going g e a mitigation Flooding $20,000 Planning 1.1 Points through Inspection action for the City Department P -MRNRD P -MRNRD Program of Papillion Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.65 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C � � N � U N fn d y O R / Q N c J w a0 +' L V ! liJ GI c _a,o L ` EE C° C r M Q c U) a x w LL LL HMGP City of Papillion PDM Sarpy County Flood Emergency DED CDBG Management 9 Storm Shelter at Walnut Deferred until Thunderstorms /High City of Community Creek Park Campground Deferred funding is Winds /Lightning /Hail $175,000 Papillion Development NEMA 1.2 available Program Tornado FEMA USDA Community Nebraska DED Facilities Loans and Grants USDA HMGP City of Papillion PDM Sarpy County Flood Emergency DED CDBG Management 10 Storm Shelters at Halleck, Deferred until Thunderstorms /High City of Community City, & Schwer Parks Deferred funding is Winds /Lightning /Hail $300,000 Papillion Development NEMA 1.2 available Program Tornado FEMA USDA Community Nebraska DED Facilities Loans and Grants USDA City of Papillion Mitigation Action Items from 2006 plan Complete structural Deleted No local interest inventory of Papillion at this time Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.66 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d w y O R Q N c J a0 liJ W c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c U) a x w LL LL Adopt a stormwater Completed management ordinance 8 -1 -2006 Bury power lines Deleted No local interest at this time Pass ordinance requiring power lines and other Deleted No local interest service lines to be buried for at this time new construction Ensure adequate severe No local interest weather notifications to Deleted at this time critical facilities City of Springfield" City of Springfield Fire Protection District 1 Deferred until City of Sarpy County Sirens Deferred funding is All Unknown Springfield HMGP Emergency 1.3 available Management Agency NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.67 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j J W y a0 in U ++ •� u 0 O R / +' L _a,o L a V ! O L f4 c y o � � N liJ GI ` EE C° C r U � N � Q M x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn c L C d c c City of Springfield HMGP Sarpy County PDM Sarpy County Completion DED CDBG Emergency 2 dependent on City of Community Management Tornado Shelters New availability of Tornado Unknown Springfield Development Agency 1.2 funding Program NEMA USDA Community FEMA Facilities Loans and Grants Nebraska DED USDA City of Severe Winter Springfield Storm Fire Protection 3 Deferred until Thunderstorms /High District Weather Radios Deferred funding is Winds /Lightning /Hail Unknown City of Springfield HMGP Sarpy County 1.4 available Emergency Tornado Management Flood Agency NEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.68 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d w y O R Q N c J a0 liJ W c _a,o ` EE C° c U) d x W LL LL NDNR 4 This continues to FEMA P -MRNRD Maintain good standing in On -going be a mitigation Flood Existing Staff City of 1.1 the NFIP action for the City Springfield P -MRNRD City of of Springfield Springfield FEMA City of Springfield Mitigation Action Items from 2006 plan Bury power lines Deleted No local interest at this time Pass ordinance requiring power lines and other Deleted No local interest service lines to be buried for at this time new construction Adopt a stormwater Deleted No local interest management ordinance at this time Develop an urban tree Deleted No local interest management program at this time Improve drainage in Deleted No local interest Springfield Creek at this time Work with area landowners No local interest to terrace farmland in areas Deleted at this time around town Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.69 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C � � N � U N fn d y O R / Q N c J w a0 +' L V ! liJ GI c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c in a x w LL LL Acquire repetitive loss Deleted No local interest properties at this time Village of Walthill Village of Tornado Walthill HMGP 1 Completion Thunderstorms /High Thurston County Backup power generation New dependent on Winds /Lightning /Hail $100, 000 Village of USDA 2.2 availability of Walthill Community NEMA funding Severe Winter Facilities Loans Storm and Grants FEMA USDA P -MRNRD This item FEMA 2 Maintain good standing with continues to be a Village of NDNR On -going mitigation action Flooding Existing Staff P -MRNRD 1.1 NFIP for the Village of Walthill NEMA Walthill FEMA Washington County" Completion Tornado 1 Increase Public awareness dependent on Washington Washington of tornado, high wind & flood New availability of High Wind $10,000 County N/A County 1.5 mitigation actions funding Flood Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.70 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C � � N � U N fn d y O R / Q N c J w a0 +' L V ! liJ GI c _a,o L ` EE C° C r M Q c U) a x w LL LL Village of NRCS Small Arlington Watershed Study Washington 2 Complete Flood Mitigation Deferred until Washington County and watershed study for the Deferred funding is Flood $35,000 County 3.3 Bell Creek available DED CDBG P -MRNRD Community Development NRCS Program Nebraska DED Provide adequate Washington 3 emergency notification Deferred until County system for severe weather Deferred funding is All $200,000 Washington HMGP 1.4 and other disaster available County NEMA notification FEMA City of Blair City of Fort 4 Completion Washington Calhoun Establish safe /Evacuation New dependent on All $20, 000 Washington County and 1.5 routes availability of County Local Village of funding Communities Kennard Washington Count Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.71 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C fn d L u Q y O R Q N c J L u a0 +' L / V ! liJ GI c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c in a x w 'L LL HMGP Washington County 5 Emergency power Completion TBD - generation for critical New dependent on All Estimated Washington USDA NEMA 2.2 facilities availability of $100,000 County Community funding Facilities Loans FEMA and Grants USDA Washington County P -MRNRD Project to Washington 6 On -going - proceed once County P -MRNRD Remap Washington County Preliminary changes are Flood Unknown FEMA CTP 1.1 floodplains Maps Issued published in the P -MRNRD Grant Funding NDNR Federal Register NEMA FEMA Washington County Mitigation Action Items from 2006 plan Complete structural No local interest inventory of Washington Deleted at this time County Remove flow constrictions Deleted No local interest on Fish Creek at this time Remap Washington County Deleted No local interest Floodplains at this time Mitigate county road bridges Deleted No local interest which restrict flood flows at this time Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.72 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C � � N � U N fn d y O R / Q N c J w a0 +' L V ! liJ GI c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c in a x w LL LL Mitigate repetitive loss Deleted No local interest properties at this time City of Blair" City of Blair Washington Ice Storm HMGP County Plan for and acquire on -site Completion Severe Summer PDM Washington 1 emergency power dependent on Storm/Wind Storm County generation for major New availability of $500,000 City of Blair USDA Emergency 2.3 employers and critical funding Tornado Community Management facilities Facilities Loans Disease and Grants NEMA FEMA USDA City of Blair Washington County 2 Install a lower intake Completion Washington structure at Blair's water New dependent on Flood $100,000 City of Blair HMGP County 3.2 treatment plant availability of Emergency funding Management NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.73 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C � � N � U N fn d w y O R W Q N C a0 0 C o L `` r Q c c U) a x w LL LL City of Blair Maintain good standing with Completion P -MRNRD 3 National Flood Insurance New dependent on Flood $2,000 / year City of Blair P -MRNRD NDNR 1.1 Program and raise CRS availability of FEMA rating funding NEMA FEMA Flood P -MRNRD City of Blair Adopt a stormwater P -MRNRD 4 management ordinance for Completion Severe Summer HMGP all commercial and New dependent on Storm 000 $10,y City f Blair NEMA 3.1 residential subdivision availability of DED CDBG development to limit the funding Tornado Community FEMA future impact of local floods Development Earthquake Program Nebraska DED City of Blair Ice Storm Washington County 5 Completion Severe Summer Washington Develop an urban tree New dependent on Storm /Wind Storm $50,000 City of Blair HMGP County 3.7 management plan availability of Emergency enc Emer funding Tornado Management Disease NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.74 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R o L d O L f4 c y o � � N W `` 0 r � N � Q x N O U N W L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL City of Blair Washington Tornado County 6 Ensure adequate severe Completion Washington weather notifications to New dependent on High Wind $50 /radio City of Blair HMGP County 1.4 critical facilities by availability of Emergency purchasing weather radios funding Severe Winter Management Storm NEMA FEMA City of Blair HMGP Washington County 7 Completion PDM Washington Complete structural New dependent on All $50,000 City of Blair County 3.3 inventory of Blair availability of USDA enc Emer Emergency funding Community Management Facilities Loans and Grants NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.75 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R _a,o L a O L f4 � � c y o N W � `` 0 r N N Q x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL City of Blair Flood Washington County 8 Completion Severe Summer HMGP Washington Identify, designate and New dependent on Storm $10,000 City of Blair County 3.3 publicize tornado shelters availability of PDM Emergency funding Tornado Management Earthquake NEMA FEMA City of Blair Washington County 9 Provide severe weather Completion HMGP Washington notifications to residents via New dependent on All $50,000 City of Blair County 2.3 reverse 911 or other new availability of PDM Emergency media funding Management NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.76 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C � � N � U N fn d w y O R W Q N C a0 0 C o L `` r Q c c U) a x w LL LL P -MRNRD City of Blair HMGP P -MRNRD 10 Increase channel capacity of Completion area creeks at culverts to New dependent on Flood $1,000,000+ City of Blair DED CDBG NEMA 1.1 reduce floodplain area availability of Community funding Development FEMA Program Nebraska DED P -MRNRD City of Blair Completion HMGP P -MRNRD 11 Channel maintenance and dependent on stabilization in order to New availability of Flood Unknown City of Blair DED CDBG NEMA 3.5 protect more than one parcel funding Community Development FEMA Program Nebraska DED City of Blair Flood Washington County 12 Assess storm shelter needs Completion Severe Summer HMGP Washington and availability and provide New dependent on Storm $100,000+ City of Blair County 1.2 shelters to vulnerable availability of PDM Emergency g y populations funding Tornado Management Earthquake NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.77 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d w y O R Q N c J a0 liJ W c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c U) d x W LL LL City of Blair Mitigation Action Items from 2006 plan Complete structural Deleted No local interest inventory of Blair at this time Maintain good standing with This continues to National Flood Insurance On -going be a mitigation Program action for the City of Blair Complete drainage study for Deleted No local interest City of Blair at this time Floodproof existing homes No local interest which sustain basement or Deleted at this time other flood damage Buyout and removal of the most flood -prone structures, No local interest with cleared area to be Deleted at this time retained as public open space Flood warning system to No local interest alert citizens with assets in Deleted at this time flood -prone areas Develop a stormwater Deleted No local interest management ordinance at this time Channel maintenance Deleted No local interest at this time Initiate an annual maintenance schedule in conjunction with the P- No local interest MRNRD and with the local Deleted at this time irrigation district to prevent the capacity of creeks from diminishing overtime Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.78 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 • L a� O U 0 O L W N L N N W > . .� 0 � C C y o V1 V1 O O R i C d y O E Q N c J w a0 L a�0 �n cn l N s `` = V c L r Q c c cn a x w LL LL Increase capacity of the constrictions on creeks at bridge or culvert crossings No local interest by reconstructing them with Deleted at this time larger spans and by excavating a larger cross - section under the bridges Install a lower intake This continues to structure at Blair's water On -going be a mitigation plant action for the City of Blair Perform an assessment of existing structures to Deleted No local interest determine their capability to at this time be used as tornado shelters Create public shelters by No local interest retrofitting or new Deleted at this time construction Consider constructing tornado shelters for No local interest vulnerable construction Deleted at this time (manufactured home subdivisions Complete a tree inventory No local interest with assistance from the Deleted at this time Nebraska Forest Service Evaluate on -site emergency This continues to power generation for major On -going be a mitigation employers and critical action for the City facilities of Blair Purchase "Emergency Snow Deleted No local interest Route" Signage at this time Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.79 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d y O R Q N c J w - a a0 +' L V! liJ W c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c in a x w LL LL Ensure adequate severe No local interest weather notifications to Deleted at this time critical facilities City of Fort Calhoun" City of Fort Calhoun 1 Detention cells west of 16th Deferred until City of Fort HMGP P -MRNRD Street Deferred funding is Flood $175,000 Calhoun 3.4 available PDM NEMA FEMA City of Fort Calhoun 2 Completion US HWY 75 Drainage 100 New dependent on Flood $48, 000 City of Fort HMGP P -MRNRD 3.5 Year Flood Path availability of Calhoun funding NEMA FEMA NDNR 3 Maintain good standing with This continues to FEMA P -MRNRD National Flood Insurance On -going be a mitigation action for the City Flood Existing Staff City of Fort Calhoun P -MRNRD City of Fort 1.1 Program of Fort Calhoun Calhoun FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.80 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d y O R Q N c J L u - a a0 +' L / V! liJ W � c _a,o L r Q c in a x w 'L LL City of Fort Calhoun 4 US HWY 75 Storm Sewer Completion HMGP Improvements Court St to New dependent on Flood $137,000 City of Fort P -MRNRD 3.4 Jefferson St availability of Calhoun PDM funding NEMA FEMA Ice Storm Nebraska City of Fort September 2016 Forest Service Calhoun 5 (Completion Thunderstorms /High Develop an urban tree Deferred depends on Winds /Lightning /Hail Existin g Staff City of Fort Multiple funding Nebras Forest 3.7 management plan funding and Calhoun sources are Serviceka staffing Tornado available for availability) planting new Contractors Disease trees. City of Fort Calhoun Mitigation Action Items from 2006 plan Construct small levee west Deleted No local interest of City Hall at this time Reduce flood damages - Deleted No local interest Rustic Inn overflow at this time Culvert Improvements Deleted No local interest at this time Channel maintenance Deleted No local interest at this time Streambank stabilization Deleted No local interest at this time Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.81 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d y O R Q N c J L u - a a0 +' L / V! liJ W E c _a,o L ` EE C° r Q c in a x w ILL LL Ensure adequate severe No local interest weather notifications to Deleted at this time critical facilities Perform tornado shelter Deleted No local interest assessment at this time SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND COLLEGES Bellevue Public Schools Bellevue Public School District City of Bellevue Completion Bellevue HMGP 1 Backup Generators, 25 New dependent on All $500,000 Public Schools District Sar Count p y Emergency 2.2 buildings availability of School Management funding District City of Bellevue Agency NEMA FEMA HMGP Bellevue Public School District Bellevue School District 2 Completion Thunderstorms /High Pub lic City of Bellevue Safe House/ Room/ Shelters New dependent on Winds /Lightning /Hail $2,000,000 Sch City of Bellevue 1.2 availability of District/ City NEMA funding Tornado of Bellevue USDA Community FEMA Facilities Loans and Grants USDA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.82 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C fn d L u Q L y O R W Q N C a 0 0 E C _a, o L ` EE r N Q c c in a x w 'L LL Bellevue Public School District City of Bellevue Completion Thunderstorms /High Bellevue HMGP 3 dependent on Winds /Lightning /Hail Public Sar Count pr y Weather radios, 25 buildings New availability of $5,000 School School District Emergency 1.4 funding Tornado District Management City of Bellevue Agency NEMA FEMA Emerson - Hubbard Community Schools Village of Emerson HMGP Village of PDM Hubbard Completion Emerson - DED CDBG Dakota County 1 dependent on Hubbard Community Emergency Safe Room for School New availability of All Unknown Communi ty Development Management 1.2 funding Schools Program NEMA USDA Community FEMA Facilities Loans and Grants Nebraska DED USDA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.83 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d L y O R W Q N C a0 � `` 0 C _a,o L r Q c c in a x w 'L LL Village of Emerson Village of HMGP Hubbard 2 Completion Emerson - Dakota County Backup Generators New dependent on dep All Unknown Hubbard USDA Emergency 2.2 availability of Community Community Management funding Schools Facilities Loans and Grants NEMA FEMA USDA Omaha Public Schools Omaha Public School City of Omaha Completion HMGP Douglas County 1 Intercom System dependent on $18,000 Omaha Replacements at 6 OPS New availability of All each Public Omaha Public Douglas County 1.4 buildings funding Schools Schools Budget Emergency Management Agency NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.84 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j w y LU a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R _a,o L a O L f4 c y o � � N W � `` 0 r � N � Q N x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL Omaha Public School City of Omaha Completion HMGP Douglas County 2 dependent on Omaha Alert notification reverse 911 New availability of All $7,650,000 Public Omaha Public Douglas County 1.4 funding Schools Schools Budget Emergency Management Agency NEMA FEMA Omaha Public School City of Omaha Completion Thunderstorms /High HMGP Douglas County 3 dependent on Winds /Lightning /Hail Omaha Weather siren - TAC New availability of $30,000 Public Omaha Public Douglas County 1.3 funding Schools Schools Budget Emergency Tornado Management Agency NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.85 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j a* w y J a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 Qd O R _a,o a O L f4 � � c y o N liJ W ` EE C° N N Q x N O U N w L O R N N L fn c LL L C d c c LL Omaha Public School City of Omaha Completion HMGP Douglas County 4 Replace walkie- talkies dependent on the Omaha schools New availability of All Unknown Public Omaha Public Douglas County 1.4 funding Schools Schools Budget Emergency Management Agency NEMA FEMA Omaha Public School City of Omaha Completion HMGP Douglas County 5 Fire Alarm System Voice dependent on the Omaha Activation New availability of All Unknown Public Omaha Public Douglas County 1.4 funding Schools Schools Budget Emergency Management Agency NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.86 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j J w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R / +' L _a,o a V ! O L f4 c y o � � N liJ GI ` EE C° � N � Q x N O U N w L O R N N L fn c LL L C d c c LL Omaha Public School Severe Winter City of Omaha Storm Completion HMGP Douglas County 6 Generators for district dependent on the Thunderstorms /High $66,000 Omaha buildings in need of back -up New availability of Winds /Lightning /Hail each Public Omaha Public Douglas County 2.2 power generation funding Schools Schools Budget g Emergency Tornado Management Agency Earthquake NEMA FEMA Omaha Public School City of Omaha Completion HMGP Douglas County Emergency lighting at district New dependent on the All $24,000 Publ Douglas County 3.4 buildings availability of each Schools Omaha Public Emergency funding Schools Budget Management Agency NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.87 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j w y LU a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R _a,o L a O L f4 c y o � � N W � `` 0 r � N � Q N x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL Omaha Public School City of Omaha Completion HMGP Douglas County 8 dependent on Severe Winter $27,500 Omaha Improve Snow Removal New availability of Storm each Public Omaha Public Douglas County 3.4 funding Schools Schools Budget Emergency Management Agency NEMA FEMA Omaha Public School City of Omaha Severe Winter Completion Storm HMGP Douglas County 9 Shoring up roofs at dependent on $150,000 Omaha vulnerable district buildings New availability of Thunderstorms /High each Public Omaha Public Douglas County 3.4 funding Winds /Lightning /Hail Schools Schools Budget Emergency Management Tornado Agency NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.88 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j w y LU a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R _a,o L a O L f4 c y o � � N W � `` 0 r � N � Q N x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL Omaha Public School City of Omaha Completion HMGP Douglas County 10 dependent on Severe Winter Omaha Snow Fencing New availability of Storm $8,550 Public Omaha Public Douglas County 3.4 funding Schools Schools (OPS) Emergency Management Agency NEMA FEMA Omaha Public School City of Omaha Completion HMGP Douglas County 11 Roof Snow and Ice dependent on Severe Winter Omaha Accumulation Preventative New availability of Storm $30,000 Public Omaha Public Douglas County 3.4 Measures funding Schools Schools Budget Emergency Management Agency NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.89 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j w y LU a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R _a,o L a O L f4 c y o � � N W � `` 0 r � N � Q N x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL Omaha Public School City of Omaha Completion HMGP Douglas County 12 Flood proofing of floodprone New dependent on Flood $4,000 each Publ Douglas County 3.4 district buildings availability of Schools Omaha Public Emergency funding Schools Budget Management Agency NEMA FEMA Omaha Public School City of Omaha Severe Winter Completion Storm HMGP Douglas County 13 dependent on Omaha Tree Mitigation Program New availability of Thunderstorms /High $52,500 Public Omaha Public Douglas County 3.7 funding Winds /Lightning /Hail Schools Schools Budget Emergency Management Tornado Agency NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.90 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j a* w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 Qd O R _a,o a O L f4 � � c y o N W � `` 0 N N Q x N O U N w L O R N N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL Omaha Public School City of Omaha 14 Completion Omaha HMGP Douglas County Access Control Systems New dependent on All Unknown Public Emergency 3.4 availability of Schools Omaha Public Management funding Schools Budget Agency NEMA FEMA Omaha Public School City of Omaha Completion HMGP Douglas County 15 dependent on Omaha Safety Improvements New availability of All $6,000 Public Omaha Public Douglas County 3.4 funding Schools Schools Budget Emergency Management Agency NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.91 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j w y LU a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 O R _a,o L a O L f4 c y o � � N W � `` 0 r � N � Q N x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL Omaha Public School City of Omaha Completion HMGP Douglas County 16 Storm Shelters at district New dependent on Thunderstorms /High $1,250,000 Omaha Public Douglas County 1.2 buildings availability of Winds /Lightning /Hail each Schools Omaha Public Emergency funding Schools Budget Management Tornado Agency NEMA FEMA Omaha Public School Severe Winter City of Omaha Storm Completion HMGP Douglas County 17 dependent on Thunderstorms /High Omaha Security film over glass New availability of Winds /Lightning /Hail $2,014,062 Public Omaha Public Douglas County 3.4 funding Schools Schools Budget g Emergency Tornado Management Agency Earthquake NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.92 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j a* J L u y - a a0 in U ++ •� u 0 Qd O R +' L _a,o L a / V! O L f4 � � c y o N liJ W ` EE C° r N N Q N x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn c L C d c c Papillion -La Vista Public Schools Papillion — La Vista School District HMGP Communities of Papillion — PDM La Vista School District Completion DED CDBG 1 dependent on Papillion -La Community Sarpy County School Safe Room New availability of All $100,000 Vista Public Development Emergency 1.2 funding Schools Program Management Agency USDA Community NEMA Facilities Loans and Grants FEMA Nebraska DED USDA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.93 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L � L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 c y o N N O O R L C fn d L u Q L y O R W Q N C a0 0 C o L `` r Q c c in a x w Communities of Papillion — Severe Winter La Vista School Storm District 2 Completion dependent on Thunderstorms /High Papillion -La Sarpy County Weather Radios for School New availability of Winds /Lightning /Hail $1,400 Vista Public HMGP Emergency 1.4 funding Schools Management Tornado Agency Flood NEMA FEMA Tekamah- Herman Community Schools Tekamah- Washington Herman Completion County Comm 1 Establishment of Snow dependent on Severe Winter Roads Washington and Routes New availability of Storm Unknown Burt Counties 1.5 staff and funds Burt County Washington Roads County Burt County Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.94 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j CL *' w y a0 U) U ++ •� u 0 Q d O R _a,o L a O L f4 � � c y o N W � `` 0 r N W Q x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL Tekamah - Herman Community Schools 2 Completion Tekamah- Communication Systems New dependent on All Unknown Herman HMGP Region 5/6 1.4 (radios, sirens) availability of Community Emergency funding Schools Management NEMA FEMA Tekamah - HMGP Herman Community PDM Schools DED CDBG Region 5/6 3 Completion Tekamah- Community Emergency School Safe Room and New dependent on All Unknown Herman Development Management 1.2 Shelter availability of Community Program funding Schools NEMA USDA FEMA Community Facilities Loans Nebraska DED and Grants USDA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.95 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• U O L N L N L L j ++ •� u 0 f4 � � c y o N N O O R L C a* Qd N U N fn d w y O R W Q N C a0 � `` 0 C _a,o L r Q c c U) a x w LL LL Tekamah - Herman Community Schools HMGP 4 Completion Tekamah- Region 5/6 Emergency Power New dependent on All Unknown Herman USDA Emergency 2.2 Generation availability of Community Community Management funding Schools Facilities Loans and Grants NEMA FEMA USDA Metropolitan Community College Counties Metropolitan Community HMGP College serves Flood PDM Douglas County Completion Severe Summer DED CDBG Douglas County 1 Replace overhead electrical dependent on Storm Metropolitan Community Emergency lines with underground for New availability of $80,000 Community Development Management 1.2 Elkhorn Valley Campus funding Tornado College Program Agency Earthquake USDA Nebraska DED Community Facilities Loans USDA and Grants NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.96 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j a* w y a0 in U ++ •� u 0 Qd O R _a,o L a O L f4 � � c y o N W � `` 0 r N N Q x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL Counties Metropolitan Community HMGP College serves Flood PDM Douglas County Completion Severe Summer DED CDBG Douglas County 2 Three storm shelters for Fort dependent on Storm Metropolitan Community Emergency Omaha Campus New availability of $1,260,000 Community Development Management 1.2 funding Tornado College Program Agency Earthquake USDA Nebraska DED Community Facilities Loans USDA and Grants NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.97 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j a* w y a0 in U ++ •� u 0 Qd O R _a,o L a O L f4 � � c y o N W � `` 0 r N N Q x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL Counties Metropolitan Community HMGP College serves Flood PDM Douglas County Completion Severe Summer DED CDBG Douglas County 3 Storm shelter for Elkhorn dependent on Storm Metropolitan Community Emergency Valley Campus New availability of $490,000 Community Development Management 1.2 funding Tornado College Program Agency Earthquake USDA Nebraska DED Community Facilities Loans USDA and Grants NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.98 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j a* w y a0 in U ++ •� u 0 Qd O R _a,o L a O L f4 � � c y o N W � `` 0 r N N Q x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL Counties Metropolitan Community HMGP College serves Flood PDM Douglas County Completion Severe Summer DED CDBG Douglas County 4 Two storm shelters for South dependent on Storm Metropolitan Community Emergency Omaha Campus New availability of $840,000 Community Development Management 1.2 funding Tornado College Program Agency Earthquake USDA Nebraska DED Community Facilities Loans USDA and Grants NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.99 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j a* w y a0 in U ++ •� u 0 Qd O R _a,o L a O L f4 � � c y o N W � `` 0 r N N Q x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL Counties Metropolitan Community HMGP College serves Flood PDM Douglas County Completion Severe Summer DED CDBG Douglas County 5 Storm shelters for Sarpy dependent on Storm Metropolitan Community Emergency Center New availability of $420,000 Community Development Management 1.2 funding Tornado College Program Agency Earthquake USDA Nebraska DED Community Facilities Loans USDA and Grants NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.100 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j a* w y a0 in U ++ •� u 0 Qd O R _a,o L a O L f4 � � c y o N W � `` 0 r N N Q x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c LL L C d C c LL Counties Metropolitan Community HMGP College serves Flood PDM Douglas County Completion Severe Summer DED CDBG Douglas County 6 Storm shelters for Applied dependent on Storm Metropolitan Community Emergency Technology Center New availability of $280,000 Community Development Management 1.2 funding Tornado College Program Agency Earthquake USDA Nebraska DED Community Facilities Loans USDA and Grants NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.101 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 • L > LV y a 0 cn a� O U . Z O E a o a fn 0 O L � C C y o B E N W - U) ` EE _ 0 W N V1 � Q x V1 O U N w L O R N N i fn C c 'L N W C d C c LL University of Nebraska Medical Center University of Nebraska Medical Center City of Omaha Address flooding along Douglas County Saddle Creek Road between Construction University of HMGP Dodge and Leavenworth in planned for 2013 Nebraska Douglas County 1 coordination with the Federal or 2014. Medical Nebraska Emergency Project to rebuild and /or New Environmental Flood $4,100,000 Center Department of Management 1.6 relocate Saddle Creek Road. study currently Roads (NDOR) Agency Involves construction of a being conducted. City of drainage swale to control the Omaha FHA NEMA stormwater runoff. FEMA NDOR FHA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.102 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 +• L j a* LV y a0 in U ++ •� u 0 Qd O R _a,o L a O L f4 � � c y o N W � `` 0 r U N N Q x N O U N w L O R N Q N L fn C c L C d C c University of Nebraska Medical Center Installation of backup University of City of Omaha generation on campus to Nebraska 2 support critical normal power Completion Medical Douglas County sources during a local, ew dependent on All $15,000,000 Center HMGP 2.2 regional, onal or national disaster. availability of Douglas County Requires a new west utility funding City of Emergency plant to support hospital and Omaha Management clinical areas. Agency NEMA FEMA University of Nebraska Medical Center Installation of mass alert University of City of Omaha system within the Campus Nebraska 3 and Hospital to improve Completion Medical Douglas County reliability of response during New dependent on All $5,000,000 Center HMGP 1.4 a local or national disaster. availability of Douglas County Requires installation of a funding City of Emergency communication Omaha Management announcement system. Agency NEMA FEMA Papio- Missouri River NRD 4.103 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 5 PLAN MAINTENANCE 44 CFR Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five -year cycle. 44 CFR Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. Unless otherwise designated by the P -MMNRD Board, the NRD project staff will oversee the plan evaluation and revision process. Monitoring the plan is an important step to ensure the information within the plan adequately reflects the hazards that could affect the communities within the P -MRNRD and the projects that can protect these communities from these hazards. This plan shall be reviewed and evaluated at least annually to consider the effectiveness of mitigation actions and to determine other issues regarding hazard mitigation in the planning area. The members of the advisory committee will be used to review the plan and recommend changes. The committee will evaluate the plan's effectiveness by asking the following questions: • Do the goals and objectives address current and expected conditions? • Have the nature, magnitude, and /or type of risks changed? • Have there been implementation problems? • Are current resources appropriate to implement the plan? • Were the outcomes as expected? • Are there other agencies which should be included in the revision process? • If any of the recommended projects have been completed did they have the desired impact on the goal for which they were identified? If not, what was the reason? During these annual reviews, representatives from the various jurisdictions within the P- MRNRD will be notified of the opportunity to update project lists. The representatives should track mitigation project construction and projects they are interested in adding in order to provide timely updates to the plan. Various contact methods should be used to notify stakeholders of the review including mailings, public notices in area publications, and phone calls. The contact information for community representatives is available in Appendix A: Planning Meeting Notice Documentation. Jurisdictions wishing to add new mitigation goals and actions may choose to do so during the annual review. Those jurisdictions submitting new goals and actions should develop a planning process narrative in accordance with available FEMA guidance, and submit any additional materials to NRD representatives and the advisory committee for incorporation into the plan. Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 5.1 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 FEMA requires that the plan be updated every five years. This update can also take place after a major hazard affects the project area. If regular annual reviews and monitoring take place, the five year update will be much simpler. The next update should take the same form as this update's planning process, including public participation and input. During the update period, deficiencies in data identified in past plans can be addressed based on new and best available data. A summary of data deficiencies that should be corrected in fixture updates (pending available information) is provided in Table 5.1 below, along with the action required to collect this information and the party responsible for this data collection. Table 5.1. Data Deficiencies Requiring Action Data Responsible Deficiencies Action Required Part Tornado Siren Advisory Coverage Data Work with communities to determine coverage areas Committee, and Maps (all and map any siren deficiencies in coverage areas P -MRNRD communities) Confirmation of County Bridge Verify locations of county road bridges through Advisory Locations (all available Nebraska Department of Roads records and Committee, counties) site visits P -MRNRD Vulnerability analysis for all Develop inundation maps and vulnerability analysis high hazard dams for high hazard dams not already analyzed, as P -MRNRD in P -MRNRD identified in Table 3.19 planning area Flooding information for Incorporate flooding information for the Village of Advisory Village of Jackson Jackson, if available Committee Flooding history for Village of Incorporate flooding history for the Village of Advisory Washington Washington, if available Committee Flooding history for Village of Incorporate flooding history for the Village of Decatur, Advisory if available Committee Decatur Flooding history Incorporate flooding history for the Village of Boys Advisory for Village of Boys Town, if available Committee Town Inclusion of all Educate non - participating communities on the Advisory eligible importance of being included in the Multi- Hazard Committee, ee, jurisdictions in Mitigation Plan and secure their intent to participate in plan the future Future Incorporate data on future development as it Advisory development data becomes available Committee, (all counties) P -MRNRD The timeline for the five -year update should approximately follow the schedule outlined in Table 5.2 Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 5.2 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Jnlc 2011 Table 5.2. Five -Year Update Schedule Time remaining until current plan expires Action Required a. Notify advisory committee, current and 20 months potential jurisdictions of upcoming update process a. Apply for grant funding 18 months b. Layout participation requirements and changes in regulations a. Complete a review of plan, list updates 15 months b. Begin research c. Advertise first round of public meeting dates and times 13 months a. Conduct first round of public meetings a. Begin collecting required information from 12 months jurisdictions b. Incorporate information received into draft update 10 months a. Advertise and conduct second round of public meetings a. Complete first draft of plan 8 months b. Advertise and conduct a public review and comment period a. Submit first draft of plan to NEMA for 5 months forwarding to FEMA b. Make any necessary corrections to draft a. Submit final draft to NEMA for forwarding to FEMA 3 months b. Once FEMA approves, begin formal adoption process through resolutions at each jurisdiction Papio- Missouri Ricer NRD 5.3 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 5.1 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms 44 CFR Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. The incorporation of mitigation strategies, goals, and actions into other planning mechanisms makes them more complete and comprehensive. The plan writers assessed available data to identify additional local planning mechanisms which should be adapted in order to incorporate this Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan. Table 5.3 below identifies how the mitigation strategies, goals, and actions should be incorporated. During the annual review period, local jurisdictions will be reminded of the benefits of incorporating the requirements of the mitigation plan into their local planning mechanisms. They will also be asked to provide the status of any updates that have already occurred in order to track these changes for future plan updates. Additionally, the plan writers and advisory committee will continue to identify and update the information regarding local planning mechanisms. The 2006 plan was available for use in any revisions or updates that were incorporated into the planning mechanisms listed below. Copies of the plan were available at the P -MRNRD and county offices as the personnel in each community reviewed and updated their local plans. As communities become more educated on the vital role a mitigation plan like this can play in their updates to other planning mechanisms and ordinances, it is anticipated that this plan will be incorporated into additional plans beyond those listed in the future. Papio- Missouri River NRD 5.4 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Table 5.3. Incorporation into Local Planning Mechanisms Papio- Missouri River NRD 5.5 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Local Other Natural Other Community Land Use Zoning Building Codes Emergency Floodplain Hazard Community Planning Operations Ordinance Mitigation Programs Plans Ordinances Use plan to Use plan to Identify hazard Identify hazard Use to identify Use to identify Burt County prone areas and prone areas and critical facilities critical facilities those targeted for those targeted for mitigation mitigation Incorporate Use plan to hazard Identify hazard Use to identify information, Decatur N/A prone areas and N/A N/A critical facilities N/A mitigation goals, those targeted for and actions into mitigation Comprehensive City Plan Use plan to Use plan to Identify hazard Identify hazard Use to identify Use to identify Dakota County prone areas and prone areas and critical facilities critical facilities those targeted for those targeted for mitigation mitigation Use plan to Identify hazard Use to identify Dakota City prone areas and critical l facilities those targeted for mitigation Incorporate Use plan to hazard Identify hazard Use t identify information, Jackson prone areas and N/A critical l facilities mitigation goals, those targeted for and actions into mitigation Comprehensive City Plan Papio- Missouri River NRD 5.5 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Papio- Missouri River NRD 5.6 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Local Other Natural Other Community Land Use Zoning Building Codes Emergency Floodplain Hazard Community Planning Operations Ordinance Mitigation Programs Plans Ordinances Incorporate Use plan to hazard Identify hazard Review for code Use to identify information, South Sioux City prone areas and compliance N/A critical facilities N/A mitigation goals, those targeted for and actions into mitigation Comprehensive City Plan Incorporate mitigation hazard Use plan to Use plan to information, Identify hazard Identify hazard Review for code Use to identify Use to identify goals, and Douglas County prone areas and prone areas and compliance critical facilities critical facilities actions into City areas targeted for areas targeted for Comprehensive mitigation mitigation Plan and Subdivision Regulations Incorporate Use plan to Use plan to Use plan to mitigation hazard information, Identify hazard Identify hazard Identify hazard Use to identify goals, and Omaha prone areas and prone areas and prone areas and N/A critical facilities actions into areas targeted for areas targeted for areas targeted for Capital mitigation mitigation mitigation Improvement Plan Incorporate hazard information, Valley N/A N/A Review for code N/A Use to identify N/A mitigation goals, compliance critical facilities and actions into Capital Improvement Plan Waterloo N/A Use to identify critical facilities Papio- Missouri River NRD 5.6 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Papio- Missouri River NRD 5.7 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Local Other Natural Other Community Land Use Zoning Building Codes Emergency Floodplain Hazard Community Planning Operations Ordinance Mitigation Programs Plans Ordinances Incorporate Use plan to hazard Sarpy County Identify hazard prone areas and Review for code Use to identify Use to identify information, mitigation goals, those targeted for compliance critical facilities critical facilities and actions into mitigation Comprehensive Plan Incorporate hazard Use plan to information, Identify hazard mitigation goals, Bellevue prone areas and Review for code N/A Use to identify and actions into those targeted for compliance critical facilities City mitigation Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Regulations Incorporate Use plan to Use plan to hazard information, Identify hazard Identify hazard Review for code Use to identify mitigation goals, La Vista prone areas and prone areas and compliance N/A critical facilities and actions into those targeted for those targeted for City mitigation mitigation Comprehensive Plan Incorporate hazard information, mitigation goals, Springfield N/A Use to identify and actions into critical facilities City Comprehensive Plan and Future Development Concept Papio- Missouri River NRD 5.7 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Papio- Missouri River NRD 5.8 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Local Other Natural Other Community Land Use Zoning Building Codes Emergency Floodplain Hazard Community Planning Operations Ordinance Mitigation Programs Plans Ordinances Walthill N/A Use to identify critical facilities Incorporate Use plan to Use plan to hazard information, Washington Identify hazard Identify hazard Review for code Use to identify Use to identify mitigation goals, County prone areas and prone areas and compliance critical facilities critical facilities and actions into those targeted for those targeted for Comprehensive mitigation mitigation Plan, Subdivision Regulations Incorporate hazard information, Fort Calhoun N/A Use to identify mitigation goals, critical facilities and actions into City Comprehensive Plan Papio- Missouri River NRD 5.8 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 Papio- Missouri River NRD 5.9 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan July 2011 APPENDIX A PLANNING PROCESS RESOLUTIONS FOR PARTICIPATION RESOLUTION FOR PARTICIPATION IN PAPIO- MISSOURI RIVER NRD MULTI - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Whereas, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and Whereas, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and Whereas, the Papio - Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, Therefore, be it resolved the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resources District hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. I WITNESS WHEREOF, this resolution was approved and executed this e M b e� , 200q . /1) f/' day of .s, PAPIO- MISSOURI , o. RIVER NRD MULTI - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 1' RESOLUTION # i0 O Whereas, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and Whereas, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and Whereas, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of the multi - jurisdictional Multi - Hazard Plan for their respective Districts and a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington , and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, Therefore, be it resolved the Burt County Board of Supervisors hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. Dated this {u"% day of I. , 2009 at Tekamah, Nebraska Attest: (� \\ o� BURT BflAS�P���`,` County Clerk , it, Board Chairman PAPIO- MISSOURI RIVER NRD MULTI - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN RESOLUTION # // 7 Whereas, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and Whereas, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and Whereas, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of the multi - jurisdictional Multi - Hazard Plan for their respective Districts and a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington , and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, Therefore, be it resolved the Decatur Village Board hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. Dated this _l day of :i� 02 w, 2009 at Decatur, Nebraska Attest: 0/,,, (L a&,A, V s� spa n ' illage Clerk tsoara Lnairman RESOLUTION 10C -011 FOR PARTICIPATION IN PAPIO- MISSOURI RIVER NRD MULTI - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Whereas, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and Whereas, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and Whereas, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi - jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, Therefore, be it resolved the Dakota County Board of Commissioners hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. t IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this resolution was approved and executed thi day of 2010 Board Chairperson f (Attest) City of Dakota City Resolution 2010 - 5 WHEREAS, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented or reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and WHEREAS, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Milti- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and WHEREAS, the Papio Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi jurisdictional Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six county area, including all of Sharpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dalcota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local government entities, NOW, THERE- EFORE , BE IT. RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DAKOTA CITY, NEBRASKA: That the city hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to ' attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 14 day of January', 2010 Jam& Roberts, Mayor ATTEST Robert D' Ci Administrator /Clerk/Treasurer OZ RESOLUTION FOR PARTICIPATION IN PAPIO - MISSOURI RIVER NRD MULTI - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Whereas, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and Whereas, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and Whereas, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi - jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, Therefore, be it resolved the V I A i t;',� ? i% JW - hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this resolution was approved and executed this 12— day of 2010 (Board Chairperson or M (Attest) AUG 4 2010 -1 . .- MAR. 3.2010 4:06PM CITIYOFSOUTHSIOUXCITY NO.354 P. 2 RESOLUTION 2010 -24 RESOLUTION FOR PARTICIPATION IN PAi'IO- MISSOURI RIVER NRD MULTI- HAZARD MITIGATION FLAN. WHEREAS, a Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure and, WHEREAS, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal fumding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters; and, WHEREAS, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for their respective Districts and a six-county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston counties and all associated local governmental entities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR. AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SIOUX CITY, NEBRASKA as follows: That the City of South Sioux City, Nebraska hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi - Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. PASSED AND APPROVED this 23r day of February, 2010. w Q -MAR, 3. 2010 4:06PM CITVOFSOUTHSIOUXCITV NO-354 P. 3 ATTEST: L - ITY CLERK i% Spp,L BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEBRASKA Resolved WHEREAS, Douglas County, Nebraska, is charged with certain duties associated with preparedness and response to community emergencies and natural disasters; and WHEREAS, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan as compiled by the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resources District serves to reduce Douglas County's vulnerability and consequence to certain natural disaster events; and WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters; and WHEREAS, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District will serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi - jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six - county area including Sarpy, Douglas, Washington and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THIS BOARD OF DOUGLAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi - Hazard Planning process described above and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve and the Chairperson of this Board is hereby authorized and directed to execute such agreement on behalf of Douglas County. Dated this 24 day of August, 2010. Motion by Duda, second by Tusa to approve Adopted: August 24, 2010 I move the adoption of the resolution. Yeas: Boyle, Duda, Hutchings, Kraft, Rodgers, Tusa, Borgeson (CERTIFIED COPY) F BZ7 5 Thomas F. Cavanaugh Douglas County Clerk DX 0 CD o M o' 0 � D > o c � cn w N N 0 0 City of Omaha Jim Suttle, Mayor June 8, 2010 Honorable President and Members of the City Council, Planning Department Omaha /Douglas Civic Center 1819 Farnam Street, Suite 1100 y. Omaha, Nebraska 68183 i s i' v ; =. ,1 i u• (402) 444 -5150 Telefax (402) 444 -6140 R. E. Cunningham, RA, ESAME Director The Planning Director is requesting approval of the attached Resolution which provides for City of Omaha participation in the proposed Multi - hazard Mitigation'Planning process and pledges its attendance at required meetings and participation in the activities necessary to complete an effective plan. The Multi- Hazard' Mitigation Planning process is under the guidance of the Papio- Missouri River NRD. FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting in natural disasters. This proposed Plan will be an update to the plan approved by the city on August 29, 2006. Respectfully submitted, Referred to City Council for Consideration: ��0 25 2dl o M o r'I O fice Date Pln5600mrc C -25A LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER Omaha, Nebraska June 8, 2010 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Y ATTORNEY DATE RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OMAHA: WHEREAS, a Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and WHEREAS, FEMA'now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and; WHEREAS, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, OF OMAHA: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY THAT, the city's participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above is hereby approved, and the city pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. p In 1000Amrc By :.... ......... Councilmember Adoptad............d .( .......... ...J"......... ..,.. ..... ........... City Clerk Approved......... � ...... :.-.......... Mayor v t NO. __ZA52 .............. Resolution ..................... ............................... Res. that the city's participation in the proposed Multi-Hazard Mitigition Planning process described above is hereby approved, and the city pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. PInI000Amrc Presented to City Council ................. ....... Adopted .... ;�- !::2 Adopted ............ ...... ................. .................................................................. &&, /2,-WIn ............................................... t , ...... City C lerk RESOLUTION 2010 -04 Whereas, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and Whereas, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and Whereas, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi - jurisdictional Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, Therefore, be it resolved the City of Valley hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. DATED THIS 9P day of February, 2010. CITY OF VALLEY, DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEBRASKA. Mary C , May Rod Marsh 1, Counci ember Arlene Cochran, Council Member o QRp� cm R°Ne °° Bryon kert, Council Member •UC9 , Cal Peacock, Council President 7oanuhr, City Motion to approve by council member Ueckert. Second by council member Cochran. VOTE: YES; Ueckert, Cocbian, Marshall, Peacock. NO; No one. Motion carried. RESOLUTION # 05- 11 -10 -1 Resolution for Participation in Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan Whereas, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and Whereas, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and Whereas, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi - jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for their respective Districts and a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local government entities, Therefore, be it resolved the Village of Waterloo hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. IN WITNESS WHEROF, this resolution was approved and executed this f day of 2010. Village of Waterloo Attest: N Clerk Douglas County, Nebraska A StanleyvE. t t ke, Jr., Cha an 2010 -153 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SARPY COUNTY, NEBRASKA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE PAPIO - MISSOURI RIVER NATURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT (NRD) MULTI- HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §23- 104(6) (Reissue 1997), the County has the power to do all acts in relation to the concerns of the County necessary to the exercise of its corporate powers; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §23 -103 (Reissue 1997), the powers of the County as a body are exercised by the County Board; and, WHEREAS, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure; and, WHEREAS, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters; and, WHEREAS, Sarpy County must update their current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan to be in compliance with FEMA; and, WHEREAS, the Papio - Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for their respective Districts and a six -county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as pars of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Sarpy County Board of Commissioners hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and Sarpy County pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. DATED this $day of , 2010 Moved by 't , seconded by ` dYy\ V C� , that the above Resolution be adopted. Carried. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: .Droved as to form: Duty County Attorney 11 Sarpy County Board of Commissioners 1210 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE PAPILLION, NE 68046 -2895 593 -4155 www.sarpy.com ADMINISTRATOR Mark Wayne DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR Scott Bovick FISCALADMIN. /PURCHASING AGT. Brian Hanson Q) 7� El A COMMISSIONERS Rusty Hike District 1 Joni Jones District 2 Tom Richards District 3 Pat Thomas District 4 Rich Jansen District 5 MEMO To: Sarpy County Board From: Lisa A. Haire RE: Papio - Missouri River Natural Resource District (NRD) Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan On May 18, 2010 the County Board will be asked to give permission allowing Sarpy County to participate in the Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for the County. The Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies vulnerabilities of public bodies to natural hazards. The Plan also proposes projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding. Sarpy County's plan is from 2006 and is in the process of being updated with assistance from Papio - Missouri NRD in consultation with Olsson Associates. In order for the process to begin, Sarpy County must approve to participate in the plan by order of resolution. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Lynn Marshall (593 -5785) if you have questions. May 14, 2010 Lisa A. Haire cc: Mark Wayne 593 -1565 Brian Hanson Scott Bovick Larry Lavelle Lynn Marshall Deb Houghtaling 14-/(" Mitigation Action Examples Bridge Replacement Road /Bridge Protection Back -up Generators Storm Shelters /Safe Rooms Bury Power and Service Lines Electrical System Looped Distribution Elevated Pad Mounted Transformers Windbreaks Tree Maintenance Programs Weather Radios Emergency Communications (Example: Reverse 911 System) Warning Sirens Alert Sirens Community Rating System (CRS) Evaluate and Improve Building Standards Levee Improvements Stream Bank Stabilization Grade Control Structures Remove Flow Constrictions Storm Water Systems Improvements Flood Prone Property Acquisition Floodplain Mapping /Remapping National Flood Insurance Program Flood Walls Anchoring Fuel Tanks Public Awareness Programs Infrastructure Protection Emergency Preparedness Training Drainage Improvements Evacuation Plan/ Emergency Snow Route Watershed Studies Structural Inventory Critical Facility Improvements (Example: Lower intake structures at water plants) Flood Control (Detention, Diversion, etc.) Dam improvements RESOLUTION NO. 2010-34 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE PAPIO- MISSOURI RIVER NATURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT (NRD) MULTI - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §16- 201(4) (Reissue 2007), the City of Bellevue has the power to do all acts in relation to the concerns of the City necessary to the exercise of its corporate powers, and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §16-401 (Reissue 2007), the powers of the City of Bellevue to transact business are exercised by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure; and, WHEREAS, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters; and, WHEREAS, the City of Bellevue must develop its own, or participate in a multi jurisdictional, Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan to be in compliance with FEMA; and, WHEREAS, the Papio - Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for their respective Districts and a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Bellevue City Council hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and the City of Bellevue pledges to have a representative, as designated by the City Administrator, attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public it serves. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of June, 2010. .F e RPa� ATTEST: 29 )%"� A M' yo () CITY OF GRETNA, NEBRASKA RESOLUTION NO. 12 -10 (1) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRETNA, NEBRASKA, FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE PAPIO- MISSOURI RIVER NRD MULTI - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and WHEREAS, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and WHEREAS, the City of Gretna, Nebraska must update their current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan to be in compliance with FEMA; and, WHEREAS, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi - jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City of Gretna, Nebraska hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. PASSED AND APPROVED this 7th day of December, 2010 ATTEST: a - L i Colleen K. Lawry, City Clerk CITY OF GRETNA, NEBRASKA / Id� �z nLOL/ Sally L McGuire, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 10 -062 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA VISTA, NEBRASKA APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN THE PAPIO- MISSOURI RIVER NATURAL RESOURCES DISTRICT MULTI - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN. WHEREAS, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and WHEREAS, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and WHEREAS, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Council of the City of La Vista, Nebraska, hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 1 ST DAY OF JUNE 2010. CITY OF LA VIST. Douglas K ndig, Mayor ATTEST: r Pamela A. Buethe, CMC City Clerk K:\APPS \City Hall \10 FINAL RESOLUTION S\10.062 Papio- Missouri River NRD multi- hazard mitigation plan. doc Motion Second Aye Nay Abstain Absent Kindig Carlisle Crawford J Ellerbeck Gowan Quick J J Ronan Sheehan Sell K:\APPS \City Hall \10 FINAL RESOLUTION S\10.062 Papio- Missouri River NRD multi- hazard mitigation plan. doc 4. RESOLUTION NO. R10 -0153 WHEREAS, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and WHEREAS, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and WHEREAS, the Papio - Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Council of the City of Papillion hereby approve participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledge to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 7I S4 DAY OF h ft f O 10. CITY OF PAPILLION, NEBRASKA D id P. Black, Mayor Attest: 5 (SEAL) RESOLUTION 2010 -15 BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Springfield, Nebraska as follows: WHEREAS, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure; and WHEREAS, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters; and WHEREAS, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington and Dakota Counties, as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local government entities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Governing Body of the City of Springfield, Nebraska that the City of Springfield hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. Introduced and Passed this 6 day of July, 2010. Ayes Nays 0 Abstain 0 Approved: Absent 0 �S VS � } j cR44�J r "1 � �� fi yy � y ca.d e�: ld YO� Attest: Mayor / Rig T. Mw I - .11 ' I ? % V%- W RESOLUTION FOR PARTICIPATION IN PAPIO - MISSOURI RIVER NRD MULTI - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Whereas, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and Whereas, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and Whereas, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi - jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, Therefore, be it resolved the Village of Walthill hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this resolution was approved and executed this 6th day of July 2010 (Board Chairperson or Mayor) (Attest) JUL 2 0 2010 -- - J RESOLUTION 2010 - 35 RESOLUTION FOR PARTICIPATION IN PAPIO- MISSOURI RIVER NRD MULTI - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Whereas, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and Whereas, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and Whereas, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, Therefore, be it resolved the Washington County Board of Supervisors hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this resolution was approved and executed this 27 day of July, 2010 Duane Wilcox, Chair Washington County Board of Supervisors o pC UN1y eat � TiUT ,lyV LLb C � op� Attest: Merry Truhlsen, Washington County Clerk RESOLUTION NO. — 30 COUNCIL MEMBER ABBOTT INTRODUCED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION: WHEREAS, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and WHEREAS, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and WHEREAS, the Papio- Missouri Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved the governing body of the City of Blair, Washington County, hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. PASSED AND APPROVED this 13TH day of July, 2010. COUNCIL MEMBER KEPHART THAT THE RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED AS READ, WHICH SAID MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN. UPON ROLL CALL, COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTING "AYE" SHEPARD, KEPHART, FANOELE, STEWART, CHRISTIANSEN, ABBOTT, WOLFF AND JENSEN COUNCIL MEMBERS NONE VOTING "NAY ", THE MAYOR DECLARED THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2010. CITY OF BLAIR, BY: _ w�-- -- AMNS E. REALPH, MAYOR ATTEST: &z 1 pc ) BRENDA WHEELER, CITY CLERK (SEAL) STATE OF NEBRASKA ) )ss WASHINGTON COUNTY ) BRENDA WHEELER, hereby certifies that she is the duly appointed, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Blair, Nebraska, and that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Mayor and City Council of said City held on the 13th of July, 2010. BRENDA WHEELER, CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO, 2010 - 05 RESOLUTION FOR PARTICIPATION IN PAPIO- MISSOURI RIVER NRD MULTI - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Whereas, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and Whereas, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and Whereas, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of multi - jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated governmental entities, Therefore, be it resolved the Fort Calhoun Mayor and City Council hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete and effectively plan for the public we serve. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this resolution was approved and executed this 17 day of May, 2010. (SEAL) ATTEST: THE CITY OF FORT CALHOUN, NEBR SKA Paul L. Oes mann, Mayor Linda Welsher, CIVIC, City Clerk 14 1600 Highway 370 NBELLEVUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS Bellevue, NE 68005 -3591 (402) 293 -4000 - FAX (402) 293 -5002 uHAMPIONS —FOR — CHILDREN "Proudly Serving the Bellevue /Offutt Community" www.bellevuepublicschools.org RESOLUTION FOR PARTICIPATION IN PAPIO- MISSOURI RIVER NRD MULTI - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and WHEREAS, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and WHEREAS, the Papio - Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, THEREFORE, be it resolved the Bellevue Public Schools hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this resolution was approved and executed this 2 "d day of August, 2010. Jo F. Hansen, President ellevue Board of Education Attest: 4' 1 t&_'_ ) Judy Po r, Se etary Bellevue Board of Education RESOLUTION FOR PARTICIPATION IN PAPIO- MISSOURI RIVER NRD MULTI - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Whereas, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and Whereas, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and Whereas, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi- jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, Therefore, be it resolved the Emerson - Hubbard Community School District hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this resolution was approved and executed this 14` day of June, 2010. (Board Chairperson or Mayor) (Attest) f � RESOLUTION FOR PARTICIPATION IN PAPIO- MISSOURI RIVER NRD MULTI - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Whereas, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce ore I im in ate vulnerability exposure, and Whereas, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and Whereas, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi - jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, Therefore, be it resolved the Omaha Public Schools hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this resolution was approved and executed this 25th day of February 2010 (Board Chairperson or M John Mackiel, Superintendent (Attest) RESOLUTION FOR PARTICIPATION iN PAPIO- MISSOURI RIVER NRD MULTI - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Whereas, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and Whereas, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and Whereas, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi - jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for their respective Districts and a six- county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, 'Pq ,n - Laa Vida S cl!nool ➢;s4ii e J Therefore, be it resolved the ( Ilio F iipj hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to'complete an effective plan for the public we serve. iN WITNESS WHEREOF, this resolution was approved and executed this day of UAFi 2060' .2 0 /0 (Board Chairperson or Mayor) S � Ar. ter= 5�oc s (Attest) RESOLUTION FOR PARTICIPATION IN PAPIO - MISSOURI RIVER NRD MULTI - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Whereas, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and Whereas, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and Whereas, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi - jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, / f ,J Therefore, be it resolved the Te- 4txG/� — Alexr7rm ,J n � cjdh A de Gc% hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this resolution was approved and executed this Ak� day of tTu�s/ 2010 (Board Chairperson or Mayor) (Attest) n� ° JUL 20WC) ���'� 1 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN PAPIO - MISSOURI RIVER 2 NATURAL RESOURCES DISTRICT MULTI - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 4 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 7 This resolution authorizes participation by the College in the Papio- Missouri River Natural 8 Resources District Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan. Our participation will allow MCC to identify 9 our vulnerability to natural hazards and help identify projects to reduce or eliminate our 10 exposure. Our participation in this project and creating a MCC Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 11 will assure us of eligibility for Federal funds for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation 12 efforts resulting from natural disasters. 13 14 15 RESOLUTION 16 17 WHEREAS, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to 18 natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability 19 exposure; and 20 21 WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) now requires that a public 22 entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place in order for the entity to be 23 eligible for Federal funding from FEMA under several of its hazard mitigation grant programs 24 and in order to receive post- disaster public assistance grants from FEMA; and 25 26 WHEREAS, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resources District is proposing to serve as the 27 coordinating agency for the development of a multi - jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 28 for a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties, as 29 well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties, and all associated local governmental entities. 30 31 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Governors of The Metropolitan 32 Community College Area hereby approves participation by the College in the proposed Multi - 33 Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to have appropriate and 34 required representatives of the College attend required meetings and participate in those 35 activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. 36 37 38 Introduced on behalf of the Administration by the Chair of the Board 39 40 Board of Governors 41 July 27, 2010 42 43 44 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this resolution was adopted and approved by the Board of 45 Governors of The Metropolitan Community College Area on this 27th day pf.,July, 2010. 46 48 49 Board Chair 50 51 ATTEST: 52 � Board Secretary (or Assistant Secretary) RESOLUTION FOR PARTICIPATION IN PAPIO- MISSOURI RIVER NRD MULTI - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Whereas, a Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the vulnerability of public bodies to natural hazards and the projects that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate vulnerability exposure, and Whereas, FEMA now requires that a public entity must have a current Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in place before they are eligible for Federal funding for hazard mitigation projects and mitigation efforts resulting from natural disasters, and Whereas, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resource District is proposing to serve as the coordinating agency for the development of a multi- jurisdictional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan for a six - county area including all of Sarpy, Douglas, Washington, and Dakota Counties as well as parts of Burt and Thurston Counties and all associated local governmental entities, Therefore, be it resolved the_UNMC —Ken Hansen hereby approves participation in the proposed Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning process described above, and pledges to attend required meetings and participate in those activities necessary to complete an effective plan for the public we serve. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this resolution was approved and executed this 4th_ day of_February_, 2010 (Board Chairperson or Mayor) (Attest) C M ska 2 ADVISORY GROUP MEETING DOCUMENTATION OkOLSSON ASSOCIATES MEETING AGENDA Advisory Group Meeting #1 NAME OF PROJECT: Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Update MEETING LOCATION & Dakota City (9:30 am) TIMES: Blair (1:00 pm) Omaha (3:30 pm) DATE: September 23, 2009 PROJECT #: 009 -0987 A. Sign -In and Introductions B. Project Purpose and Background • Why develop a Hazard Mitigation Plan • Briefly review existing plan and need for mitigation planning • FEMA requirements for plan • Public participation /facilitation C. Role of Advisory Group • Increase awareness within county of importance of participating in plan • Advise NRD on key community interests and vulnerabilities • Assist with data compilation /collection — public input sheets • Tentative Timeline • Procedures of Mitigation Planning D. Questions /Answers ■ Update contact list E. Public Meeting Planning • October 20, 22, and 27 • Overview of project and participation requirements • Invitation letters and public notice FAProjects \009 - 0987 \Pub1ic Involvement\Advisory Group Meeting #1\AGENDA_Advisory Group Meeting_09.23.09.Doc Page 1 of 1 OkOLSSON ASSOCIATES SIGN IN EVENT: Papio Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Advisory Group Meeting Presenter PMRNRD /OA Date 09.23.2009 Time 9:30 AM Location Dakota County Service Center Name Initials Agency /Contact Information South Sioux City /Dakota Co EMA 402.494.7512 Deanna Beckman Pender/Thurston Co. Emergency Management Tom Perez 402.385.3018 Winnebago Emergency Mgmt 402.878.2277 Cindy Scott Dakota County FP Admin Arnold Mellick 402.632.5006 (P pc__p;Pr) Yd . o -j t,.O L- aS -1'.er Ua � +oVrA. 6V LI ycEtI - It 2ZZ ,bAkot14 Go, 111C,111 r a ° o 9 3� - 4751 cr6wro (S MQ)n5u i +I . C.0 ,. �a w! W v o d U kv 0� 40Z q 38°- Z `p d OlsSbA Assoc, - .-4cr P�'`� Qwoodwardc oacorw"A .Cann OkO LSSON ASSOCIATES SIGN IN EVENT: Papio Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Advisory Group Meeting Presenter PMRNRD /OA Date 09.23.2009 Time 1:00 PM Location Blair City Hall Name Initials Agency/Contact Information Region 5/6 Emergency Management(Burt, Dan Douglas Dodge, Washington Co) 402 - 727 -2785 Burt County FP Admin Peggy Smith 402.374.2944 Washington County FP Admin Doug Cook J EC-, 402.426'6872 ��lury ti N e— Si)KS � j n) � dfl CO UA 4 tiff • O)e Blair Emergency Management Phil Green PC6 402.426.4191 �he t o1) s G-P 5 A 1' 01_fati c Y_h wo 5V P �. o ,o�.�ood�.o�c��►da«s��f �.� C " {�Q q0Z 10(J 0 M ►mayj C/d>� C )p X2 / _3w, A h n'ral , -p- MF_ mm L 1 4L4u -4P II Qsi-er v' "PtA?W Gc�» fP ionrd a� \ ,OLSSON ASSOCIATES SIGN IN EVENT: Papio Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Advisory Group Meeting Presenter PMRNRD /OA Date 09.23.2009 Time 3:30 PM Location PMR -NRD Offices Name Initials Agency /Contact Information Douglas County Emergency Manag. 402.444 -56 6 r 1_\ _ C %�� Paul Johnson � Sarpy County Emergency Manag. 402.593.2283 Larry Lavelle Douglas County FP Admin 402.444.7189 Barb Frohlich / Sarpy County FP Admin Rebecca Horner "' 402.593.1555 MAPA Jake Hansen 402.444.6866x226 L/ 6Z Al P, ►� i Las- 11 dS-k-_K42, Q r Carrie, Z,- N,jo O15&,n U (�aGon�,(,,k 4, . Goy 0\,OLSSON ASSOCIATES MEETING AGENDA Advisory Group Meeting NAME OF PROJECT: Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Update MEETING LOCATION & Webinar and Conference Call TIMES: 2:00 pm DATE: February 4, 2010 PROJECT #: 009 -0987 A. Introduction B. Project Purpose Review C. Project Progress • Dam Breach and Emergency Action Plans • HAZUS Analysis • Additional Information • Risk Assessment • Community Participation • Outreach D. Updated Timeline • Next Step • Action Items List • Prioritizing Actions • Schedule E. Review of Example Mitigation Projects F. Questions /Comments F:\ Projects\ 009 - 0987\ Documents\ Meetings\ 100204 - Advisory_Meeting \AGENDA_Progress_ Meeting_02_04_10.doc Page 1 of 1 0\,OLSSON ASSOCIATES MEE­T-[NG MINUTES Advisory Committee Meeting Overnight Regular Mail Hand Delivery X Other: Email NAME OF PROJECT: Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Update MEETING LOCATION: Webinar and Conference Call DATE & TIME: February 04, 2010 2:00 PM PROJECT #: 009 -0987 PHASE /TASK #: ATTENDEES: NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE # EMAIL Deanna Beckman Dakota County EMA 402 - 494 -7512 dbeckman @southsiouxcity.org Pat Foust Dakota County EMA 402 - 494 -7512 pfoust @southsiouxcity.org Paul Johnson Douglas County EMA 444 -5040 Paul.Johnson@douglascounty- ne.gov Barb Frohlich Douglas County Floodplain Admin 402.444.7189 barb .frohlich @douglascounty- ne.gov Rebecca Horner Sarpy County Floodplain Admin 402.593.1555 rhorner @sarpy.com Doug Cook Washington County Floodplain Manager 402.426.6872 planning @washingtoncountyne.org Grant Anderson MAPA 402.444.6866x222 gandersonl @mapacog.org Shawn Smith City of Valley 402.359.2251 ssmith@dtnspeed.net Mary Caffey City of Valley 402.359.2251 Lance Hedquist South Sioux City 402.494.7517 Iedquist@southsiouxcity.org Carrie Romero OA 938 -2451 cromero@oaconsulting.com Paul Woodward OA 938 -2470 poodward@oaconsulting.com Lori Laster Papio NRD 444 -6222 Ilaster@papionrd.or Bill Pook Region 5/6 Emergency Management 402 - 727 -2785 bill @region5-6.org Dan Douglas Region 5/6 Emergency Mana ment 402 - 727 -2785 dan @region5-6.org Laurie Best en AMEC 816.637.6378 laurie.bestgen @amec.com Jamie Miller OA 458 -5994 'miller oaconsultin .com Page 1 of 3 A. Introduction ■ Everyone present on the call introduced themselves and who they represent. B. Project Purpose Review ■ Carrie Romero presented the background and overall purpose of the project to update the Papio- Missouri River NRD's Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan in order to allow new projects to be considered for federal grant funging, like HMGP and FMA. Each community is encouraged to review the existing Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan available on the project website: http: / /oapro /papionrd hazard / C. Project Progress • Paul Woodward described the work nearly completed for the Dam Breach and Emergency Action Plans. Upon completion, these maps and potentially affected areas will be utilized in HAZUS to review possible damage if a breach were to occur. • HAZUS Analysis will be performed by AMEC for all counties within the District. Data collected by AMEC is essential for developing HAZUS. All advisory committee members (county representatives) must complete a data collection form like the one attached to these minutes. • Laurie Bestgen with AMEC described their work for risk assessment. An assessment based on past disasters, available data, and HAZUS must be prepared for each natural disaster included in the State Hazard Mitigation Plan. • Carrie Romero reviewed efforts that had been made since the last meeting to contact and involve communities, school districts, and others throughout the NRD. These efforts included personal phone calls to request that forms and resolutions to participate be submitted ASAP. Only about 1/3 of the 71 identified entities have responded in some fashion. Additional effort is needed from the advisory committee to get public input forms and resolutions returned. • Carrie Romero described the remaining procedure for completing the plan, including the next steps prior to the next public meeting. The timing of the next public meeting was discussed and it was suggested that the meeting be held in early to mid -May during business hours to try and draw more participation. D. Updated Timeline ■ Carrie Romero reviewed and updated timeline that would postpone submitting a draft plan to FEMA until 2011 in order to avoid losing a year in the required 5 -year update cycle. This extended schedule provides greater opportunity to involve all available entities and projects in the plan. E. Review of Example Mitigation Projects ■ Paul Woodward reviewed the tremendous importance of identifying and being able to thoroughly document mitigation projects and actions. Important information for each proposed project must be collected, including: Hazards Addressed, Who is responsible for implementation, Estimate Cost, and available funding. For example, if each entity has at least 2 to 3 projects, and there are 71 entities, then data needs to be gathered for 140 to 210 project or actions. Olsson will complete a list of possible mitigation actions and deliver those to each entity to collect the necessary data. F. Questions /Comments Data collection guides need to be returned Will attendance at public meetings increase if meetings were held during regular business hours? Page 2 of 3 • Status of Washington County Flood maps and how they will affect the HMGP planning process (the preliminary maps should be available by March 2010, in time to address HMGP actions as a result of the maps) • Actions included in the plan should be broad to allow for funding of different projects (ie Installation of sirens in different parts of the county). Distribution: Advisory Committee F:\ Projects\ 009 - 0987\ Documents\ Meetings\ 100204- Advisory_Meeting \100204 - Advisory- MEETING MINUTES.docx Page 3of3 OkOLSSON ASSOCIATES MEETING AGENDA Advisory Group Meeting #3 NAME OF PROJECT: Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Update MEETING LOCATION & Conference Call and Webinar TIMES: 10 am -12 pm DATE: September 9, 2010 PROJECT #: 009 -0987 A. Introductions B. Schedule • Draft Plan • Local Review • NEMA/FEMA Submittal C. Mitigation Plan Goals ■ 2006 All-Hazards Mitigation Plan Goals and Objectives ■ Changes to Goals and Objectives for the plan update ■ Updated Goals and Objectives ■ Review and Comment on Goals and Objectives D. Hazard Summaries • Requirement to identify unique and varied risk across jurisdictions • Review and Comment on Hazard Summary Tables E. Mitigation Actions • Actions to be included by the NRD • Inclusion of actions from 2006 All — Hazards Mitigation Plan F. Status of Community Participation FAProjects \009 - 0987 \Pub1ic Involvement\Advisory Group Meeting #1\AGENDA_Advisory Group Meeting_09.09.10.Doc Page 1 of 1 0\,OLSSON ASSOCIATES MEE­T-[NG MINUTES Advisory Committee Meeting Overnight Regular Mail Hand Delivery X Other: Email NAME OF PROJECT: Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Update MEETING LOCATION: Webinar and Conference Call DATE & TIME: September 09, 2010 10:00 AM PROJECT #: 009 -0987 PHASE /TASK #: ATTENDEES: NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE # EMAIL Deanna Beckman Dakota County EMA 402 - 494 -7512 dbeckman @sou thsiouxcity.org Pat Foust Dakota County EMA 402 - 494 -7512 pfoust @southsiouxcity.org Paul Johnson Douglas County EMA 444 -5040 Paul.Johnson@douglascounty- ne.gov Barb Frohlich Douglas County Floodplain Admin 402.444.7189 barb .frohlich @douglascounty- ne.gov Rebecca Horner Sarpy County Floodplain Admin 402.593.1555 rhorner @sarpy.com Doug Cook Washington County Floodplain Manager 402.426.6872 planning @washingtoncountyne.org Carrie Romero OA 938 -2451 cromero@oaconsulting.com Paul Woodward OA 938 -2470 poodward@oaconsulting.com Lori Laster Pa io NRD 444 -6222 Ilaster@papionrd.or Lynn Marshall Sarpy County Emergency Management 402 - 593 -5785 1marshalI @sarpy.com Larry Lavelle Sarpy County Emergency Mana ment 402 - 593 -5785 Ilavelle @sarpy.com Michael Carter City of Omaha 402 - 444 -5495 Michael.Carter @ci.omaha.ne.us Peggy Smith Burt County Roads burtcoroad@huntel.net A. Introductions B. Schedule • Draft to be posted on project website October 1, 2010 • Notice will be sent out to advise that the draft is available • Comments can be submitted on the website or directly by contacting OA or the NRD Page 1 of 3 C. Mitigation Plan Goals • A requirement from FEMA for the plan is that each mitigation action be tied to a goal • Ideally, we would move the goals forward from the original 2006 All- Hazard Mitigation Plan • However, the numbering system used in 2006 would be hard to reference in this updated plan • Example on right is a page from the 2006 plan — showing objectives for Homer, NE • In 2006, the same objectives were utilized throughout the plan — but were numbered differently for each community • For the plan update, there was a desire to create a 'master list' of goals and objectives • Using the 2006 plan, guidance from FEMA, and the input we have received from jurisdictions in the planning area the following goals and objectives were developed • These were emailed to the advisory committee and are also on the project website • Please let us know if you have any comments on the goals and objectives by September 16. D. Hazard Summaries • Plan requirements state that "the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction's risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area" • In the risk assessment portion of the plan, the risks were defined for the entire planning area — the limits of the NRD • However, for some hazards the risks are greater in some communities that in others — FEMA wants to see documentation that this was evaluated • Therefore we utilized the methodology used in the Nebraska State Plan, and created hazard summary tables for those hazards that have risks that vary geographically. • To develop these tables, the public input forms and the results of the risk assessment were utilized • To view the hazard summary tables, visit the project website • There are tables for dam failure, levee failure, flooding, earthquakes, and wildfires • All other hazards were considered to have the same risks across the planning area • There is also a table that identifies the planning significance of the hazards for each jurisdiction • As with the goals and objectives — please let us know if you have any comments on the hazard summary tables before September 16 E. Mitigation Actions • One of the most important components of the plan is the mitigation actions • Lori may be able to elaborate more on these projects, but these are the actions that the Papio- Missouri River NRD is interested in including • Therefore, communities in the plan can partner with the NRD to apply for funding for these types of projects in their community • Any actions outside of these must be submitted by a community, using the STAPLEE form, if they are interested in applying for grant funding under HMGP Page 2 of 3 F. Status of Community Participation • Approximately 34 communities throughout the NRD were targeted as participants in this planning effort — along with a number of school districts, colleges, and non - profits • To date, 24 communities have passed a "Resolution for Participation" indicating their desire to be a part of the plan • Only 16 communities have returned completed STAPLEE form, indicating the mitigation actions they would like included. • There are 8 communities that have not returned their desired mitigation actions — and another 10 that we would like to include but still need paperwork from • The NRD is completing some more follow -up to get those communities involved — but we will need your help to continue to get the word out G. Questions • Can the advisory committee be provided with an update on the participation of communities in their area? Yes — The plan writers will supply this information to the advisory committee members. F:\Projects\ 009- 0987\Documents\Meetings \090910 - Advisory Meeting\MEETING MINUTES.docx Page 3 of 3 FIRST PUBLIC MEETING DOCUMENTATION Burt County Mailing List Entity Representative Agency / Title Phone Number E -mail Address Address 324 N 9th St. Carl Schroeder Region 5/6 Deputy Director 402.374.2505 Tekamah, NE 68061 Dan Douglas Region 5/6 Emergency Management 402.478.4880 dan@region5-6.org 20152 Co Road 32 Arlington, NE 68002 435 North Park Avenue, Ste 404 Bill Pook Region 5/6 402.727.2785 bill@region5-6.org Fremont, NE 68025 Burt County Roads Department / 111 N 13th St., Ste. 3 Peggy Smith 402.374.2944 burtcoroad @huntel.net Village of Decatur Floodplain Administrator Tekamah, NE 68061 522 S 15th St Gene TeSelle City Emergency Manager, Tekamah 402.374.1204 Tekamah, NE 68061 Mary Ducheneaux City Clerk/Treasurer, Tekamah 402.374.2521 tekcity @tekamah.net 1315 K Street Tekamah, NE 68061 Decatur Floodplain Administrator / 111 N 13th St., Ste. 3 Peggy Smith 402.374.2944 burtcoroad @huntel.net Burt County Roads Department Tekamah, NE 68061 400 S. 5th Street, PO Box 526 Fred Hanson Superintendent, Lyons- Decatur Northeast Schools 402.687.2363 fhansen @esu2.org Lyons, NE 68038 Superintendent, Tekamah- Herman Community 112 North 13 Street Kevin Nolan 402.374.2157 knolan @esu2.org Schools Tekamah, NE 68061 3245 Co Road D Gene Hansen Township Board Chair, Summit Township 402.374.1310 Tekamah, NE 68061 1960 Co Road 10 Ronald Brovont Township Board Chair, Everett Township 402.687.4121 Lyons, NE 68038 Patrick Foust Deanna Beckman William McLarty Jeanine Webb Trudy Jepsen Charlene Jensen Bob Peters Donna Hirsch Jack Harnett Lance Hedquist Joe Johnson Paul Nolan Kent Zimmerman Agency / Title ergency Management Agency / South ux City ergency Management Agency / South ux City kota County Commision lage Clerk, Homer Dakota County Mailing List Phone Number 402.494.7512 402.494.7512 402.698.2342 402.698.2155 402.632.4835 lage Clerk, Hubbard 402.632.4305 yAdministrator, Dakota City 402.987.3448 lage Clerk, Jackson 605.764.5305 lage of Jackson y Administrator, South Sioux City 402.494.7500 sistant City Administrator, South Sioux City 402- 494 -7573 uth Sioux City 402.494.7534 uth Sioux City FP Admin School- Lori Krahmer Administrative Support Staff, South Sioux 402.494.2425 City Community Schools Other: 712.490.2225 Rector (Superintendent, South Sioux City Community) 402.494.2425 Superintendent /Elementary Principal 402.698.2377 Russ Gade Cell: Homer Community Schools 402.380.4414 Superintentent, Emerson Hubbard Tom Becker 402.695.2621 Community Schools Pam Miller Regional Coordinator, Northeast Community 402.241.6400 College, South Sioux City 888.698.6322 E -mail Address pfoust @southsiouxcitv.org d beckman @ southsiouxcitv.org homervil @huntel.net tlepsen @nntc.net bobpeters @dakotacitv.net Iedguist@southsiouxcitv.org joejohnson @southsiouxcity.org i)nolan@southsiouxcity.org lori.krahmer @ssccardinals.org steve.rector @sscardinals.org rugade @esul.ore tbecker @esul.org pamm @northeast.edu Address 701 W 29 Street South Sioux City, NE 68776 701 W 29 Street South Sioux City, NE 68776 1601 Broadway St. Dakota City, NE 68731 PO Box 386, 111 John Street Homer, NE 68030 415 Walnut St Hubbard, NE 68741 PO Box 91 Hubbard, NE 68741 1521 Broadway St Dakota City, NE 68731 116 S. Catherine Jackson, NE 68743 113 S. Catherine Jackson, NE 68743 1615 1st Avenue South Sioux City, NE 68776 1615 1st Avenue South Sioux City, NE 68776 1615 1st Avenue South Sioux City, NE 68776 School: 210 West 39th Street South Sioux City, NE 68776 3625 G St South Sioux City, NE 68776 School: 210 West 39th Street South Sioux City, NE 68776 3625 G St South Sioux City, NE 68776 PO Box 340, 212 S. 3rd St. Homer, NE 68030 109 West 3rd Street, PO Box 9 Emerson, NE 68733 3309 Daniels Lane PO Box 989 South Sioux City, NE 68776 -0989 Douglas County Mailing List Entity Representative Agency / Title Phone Number E -mail Address Address Douglas County Emergency Management 1819 Farnam Street, Room 114 Paul Johnson 402.444.504 Pau l .Johnson @douglascounty- ne.goy Director Omaha, NE 68183 Douglas County Floodplain 3015 Menke Circle Barb Frohlich 402.444.7189 barb .frohlich @douglascounty- ne.goy Administrator Omaha, NE 68134 John Mollison Floodplain Administrator, Boystown 402.498.7121 mollisoni @bovstown.org 14100 Crawford St. Robert Hayes "Facilities Director" 402.498.1135 havesb(@bovstown.org Boys Town, NE 68010 Lamp Rynearson and Associates Village of Boystown Engineer Joe Prokupek Village of Boystown 5500 South 77th Street Dolores Costanza Floodplain Administrator, Ralston 402.331.6677 citvhall(?citvofralston.com Ralston, NE 68127 402.331.6677 5500 South 77th Street Dan Freshman Public Works, Ralston dfreshman @citvofralston.com ext, 1310 Ralston, NE 68127 15512 Warehouse Street Mindy Laaker City Clerk, Bennington 402.238.2375 city @bennineton.omhcoxmail.com Bennington, NE 68007 203 North Spruce Bryon Ueckert Emergency Management, Valley Valley, NE 68064 203 North Spruce Mike Burns Floodplain Administrator, Valley 402.359.2251 mburns @ vallev.omhcoxmail.com Valley, NE 68064 509 South Front Street Nancy Hert Administrator, Waterloo 402.779.2292 nhert @ waterloone.com Waterloo, NE 68069 2602 "J" Street eet Teresa Dameron Senior Planner, Ponca Tribe of NE 402.734.5275 teresad(c)poncatribe- ne.org Omaha, NE 2602 "J" Street Street Mike Boggs Hazard Mitigation Planner, Ponca Tribe of NE mboggs @ poncatribe- ne.org Omaha, NE 1819 Farnam St. Scott McIntyre City of Omaha Omaha, NE 68138 1819 Farnam St. Karen Klein City of Omaha Omaha, NE 68138 1819 Farnam St. Tom Blair Floodplain Administrator, Omaha 402.444.4979 tblair @ci.omaha.ne.us Omaha, NE 68138 16610 Bennington Road Terry Haack Superintendent, Bennington Public Schools 402 - 238 -3044 thaack @esu3.ore Bennington, NE 68007 Superintendent, Douglas County West 401 S. Pine, PO Box 378 Dr. George Conrad 402.359.2583 gconrad @dcwest.ore Community Schools Valley, NE 68064 20650 Glenn Street Stephen Baker Elkhorn Public Schools Elkhorn, NE 68022 402.289.2579 20650 Glenn Street Kevin Garrison Elkhorn Public Schools Cell: Elkhorn, NE 68022 402.699.9492 David Koebel Business Office, Metro Community College 402.457.2391 dkoebel @mccneb.edu PO Box 3777 Omaha, NE 68103 -0777 Assitant Facilities Manager, Millard Public 5606 s. 147 Street Ann Curran (402) 715 -8378 ancurran @mpsomaha.org Schools Omaha, NE 68137 Douglas County Mailing List Entity Representative Agency / Title Phone Number E -mail Address Address Environmental Specialist, Omaha Public 3215 Cuming Street Shelley Bengtson 402.557.2800 shellev.bengtson @ops.org Schools Omaha, NE 68131 8545 Park Drive Dr. Jerald Riibe Superintendent, Ralston Public Schools 402.898.3411 mars snyder @ralstonschools.org Ralston, NE 68127 -3621 John Amend Facilities Management, UNO 402.554.2241 iamend(c)unomaha.edu Omaha, NE 68182 Assistant to Vice Chancellor for Facilities/ (402) 559 -5301 987100 Nebraska Medical Center Kenneth Hansen hansenkl @unmc.edu Planning, UNMC Omaha, NE 68198 Superintendent, Westside Community 909 South 76th Street Jacquie Estee Schools Omaha, NE 68114 Prevent Maintenance, Westside Community 909 South 76th Street John Ulanowski 402.390.2100 Schools I 10maha, NE 68114 -4599 Sarpy County Mailing List Entity Representative Agency / Title Phone Number E -mail Address Address 1210 Golden Gate Drive Lynn Marshall County Emergency Management Agency 402.593.5785 imarshall@sarpy.com Papillion, NE 68046 1210 Golden Gate Drive Rebecca Horner County Floodplain Administrator 402.593.1555 rhorner @sarpy.com Papillion, NE 68046 1208 Golden Gate Dr. Jeff Davis Sarpy County Sheriff Dept. Papillion, NE 68046 1210 Golden Gate Drive Eric Herbert Sarpy County GIS Dept. Papillion, NE 68046 15100 S. 84th St. Rich Weber Sarpy County Highway Dept Papillion, NE 68046 1210 Golden Gate Drive Mark Wayne Sarpy County Administration Papillion, NE 68046 1210 Golden Gate Drive Dan Pittman Sarpy County Assessors Office Papillion, NE 68046 Sarpy Cass Department of Health & 701 Olson Dr. #101 Dianne Kelly Wellness Papillion, NE 68046 1210 Golden Gate Drive Roseann Dobesh- DeGraff Sarpy County Emergency Manag. Papillion, NE 68046 8116 Park View Blvd. Jeff Sinnett La Vista Floodplain Administrator 402.331.4343 jsinnett @citvoflavista.org La Vista, NE 68128 8116 Park View Blvd. Tom Koksal La Vista Emergency Management La Vista, NE 68128 7701 S 96th St. Bob Lausten La Vista Emergency Management La Vista, NE 68128 8116 Park View Blvd. Brenda Gunn City of LaVista La Vista, NE 68128 8116 Park View Blvd. Rich Uhl LaVista Fire La Vista, NE 68128 7701 S 96th St. Bob Lausten LaVista Police La Vista, NE 68128 8116 Park View Blvd. Joe Soucie LaVista Public Works La Vista, NE 68128 Rod Buethe 402.332.3265 firechief @citvofgretna.org 11175 S 204th Gretna Emergency Management Gretna Fire / ext. 8 Gretna, NE 68028 11175 S 204th Donna Lyman Gretna Floodplain Administrator (402) 332 -3336 ext 202 donna @citvofgretna.com Gretna, NE 68028 PO Box 185 Travis Mayer Grenta Emergency Management Gretna, NE 68028 204 N McKenna Colleen Lawry City of Gretna Gretna, NE 68028 Sally McGuire Gretna Mayor Steve Sherry Gretna Public Works 204 N McKenna Gretna, NE 68028 Sarpy County Mailing List Entity Representative Agency / Title Phone Number E -mail Address Address 170 N 3rd St Kathleen Fauver City of Springfield P 0 Box 189, Springfield, NE 68059 170 N 3rd St Dorothy Richards City of Springfield P 0 Box 189 Springfield, NE 68059 170 N 3rd St Mike Dill Springfield Emegency Management P 0 Box 189 Springfield, NE 68059 Jason Lutz Springfield Fire 505 S 1st St Springfield, NE 68059 170 N 3rd St; P 0 Box 189 Louie Post Springfield Public Works Springfield, NE 68059 Dale Tedder Bellevue Emergency Management Director 402.682.6603 dale.tedder @bellevuevfd.org; 210 W Mission Ave dale.tedder(?bellevue.net Bellevue, NE 68005 106 Peacekeeper Dr., Ste 2N3 Jon Pieters Offutt AFB Disaster Prep 402.294.3642 ion.pieters.usC@offutt.af.mil Offutt AFB, NE 68113 106 Peacekeeper Dr., Ste 2N3 Rhonda Woolridge Offutt AFB Emergency Management Offutt AFB, NE 68113 146 N Adams St Bill Bowes Emergency Manager, Papillion 402.339.8617 bbowes @papillion.org Papillion, NE 68046 122 E. 3rd St Mark Stursma City of Papillion mstursma @papillion.org Papillion, NE 68046 122 E. 3rd St Dan Hoins City of Papillion Papillion, NE 68046 122 E. 3rd St Marty Leming Papillion Public Works Papillion, NE 68046 Leonard Houloose Papillion Police 1000 E 1st St Papillion, NE 68046 122 E. 3rd St Marty Leming Papillion Public Works Papillion, NE 68046 Dr. John Deegan Superintendent, Bellevue Public Schools 1600 Hwy 370 402.293.4000 ripi(c)hotmail.com Jeff Rippe Asst. Superintendent Bellevue, NE 68005 Assistant Superintendent - Buildings and 420 South Washington St Doug Lewis Operations - Papillion La Vista Public Schools 402.537.6246 dlewis(Q?paplv.esu3.org Papillion, NE 68046 14801 S. 108th Street Chuck Chevalier Superintendent, South Sarpy District 46 402.592.1300 cchevalier @sarpv46.org Springfield, NE 68059 11717 S 216th St Dr. Kevin Riley Superintendent, Gretna Public Schools 402.332.3265 kriley @esu3.org Gretna, NE 68028 Thurston County Mailing List Entity Representative Agency / Title Phone Number E -mail Address Address PO Box 105 Tom Perez Emergency Manager 402.385.3018 tcemgt @msn.com Fender, NE 68047 Tony Wood Environmental Protection Manager 402.878.4060 PO Box 687 Ron Nohr Floodplain Administrator 402.878.3219 Winnebago, NE 68071 PO Box 246 Lisa Beaudette Floodplain Administrator 402.846.5921 Walthill, NE 68067 224 Main Street Janet Nielson Village of Walthill 402.846.5921 jcnielsen @huntel.net Walthill, NE 68067 PO Box FD Cindy Scott Emergency Management 402.878.2277 Winnebago, NE 68071 PO Box 683 Ramona Baker Floodplain Administrator 402.878.2938 villageofwinnebago @ huntel.net Winnebago, NE 68071 Ida Walker Village of Macy 402.837.5391 PO Box 368 Amen Sheridan Omaha Tribal Council 402.837.5391 Macy, NE 68039 Superintendent, Omaha Nation Public Morris Bates 402.837.5622 ext 3400 mbates @esul.org Schools 206 Main Street Maintenance Supervisor, Omaha Nation Robert Russell 402.837.5622 PO Box 280 Public Schools Macy, NE 68039 602 Main St. Llyod Stanberry Head Custodian, Walthill Public Schools 402.846.5432 PO Box 3C Walthill, NE 68067 602 Main St. Mr. Ed Stansberry Superintendent, Walthill Public Schools 402.846.5432 estansbe @esul.org PO Box 3C Walthill, NE 68067 Dan Fehring Superintendent, Winnebago Public Schools 402.878.2224 dfehring @esul.ore 206 Osborne James Frenchman Winnebago Public Schools Winnebago, NE 68071 Doug Cook Dan Douglas Bill Pook Phil Green Linda Welsher Paul Oestmann Mike Dwyer, Linda Douglas Vicky Kellogg Thomas Kegler Janelle Crone George Pearson Louis Kologenski Barbara Cook George Bosshard Lynn Johnson Amy Segura Jerry Beach Agency / Title Planning, Washington County Region 5/6 Region 5/6 Emergency Management, Blair Clerk, Fort Calhoun Mayor, Fort Calhoun Emergency Management, Arlington Clerk, Herman Village Board Chair, Herman Clerk, Kennard Village Board Chair, Kennard Fire Chief/ Clerk, Washington Principal, St Paul's Lutheran Elementary School Maintenance Supervisor, Arlington Public Superintendent, Arlington Public Schools Blair Community Schools ent Washington County Mailing List Phone Number E -mail Address 402.426.6872 planning @washingtoncountyne.org ftcalhouncitvhall @ huntel.net 402.478.4880 402.468.5303 dan @region5 -6.org 402.727.2785 FCmavor @huntel.net bill@region5-6.org 402.426.4191 pcgreen @ci.blair.ne.us 402.478.4121 gbosshart@esu3.org lyiohnson @esu3.org amy.segura @blairschools.org 402.468.5596 ext. 104 ibeach @esu3.org Address 1555 Colfax St. Blair, NE 68008 20152 Co Road 32 Arlington, NE 68002 435 North Park Avenue, Ste 404 Fremont, NE 68025 218 S 16th St. Blair, NE 68008 110 South 14th St. Fort Calhoun, NE 68023 PO Box 394 Fort Calhoun, NE 68023 304 W Eagle Arlington, NE 68002 PO Box 196 Herman, NE 68029 PO Box 196 Herman, NE 68029 208 Main Street Kennard, NE 68034 PO Box 151 Kennard, NE 68034 1297 County RD P25 Washington, NE 68068 8951 County Road 9 Arlington, NE 68002 705 North Ninth Street Arlington, NE 68002 705 North Ninth Street Arlington, NE 68002 140 S. 16th Street Blair, NE 68008 1506 Lincoln Street PO Box 430 Fort Calhoun, NE 68023 402.468.5303 ftcalhouncitvhall @ huntel.net 402.468.5303 FCmavor @huntel.net 402.478.4880 402.456.7500 villageofherman @gpcom.net 402.456.7500 villageofherman @gpcom.net 402.427.7311 kvfd @huntel.net 402.427.7311 402.238.2556 Ilkolo @vahoo.com 402.478.4121 gbosshart@esu3.org lyiohnson @esu3.org amy.segura @blairschools.org 402.468.5596 ext. 104 ibeach @esu3.org Address 1555 Colfax St. Blair, NE 68008 20152 Co Road 32 Arlington, NE 68002 435 North Park Avenue, Ste 404 Fremont, NE 68025 218 S 16th St. Blair, NE 68008 110 South 14th St. Fort Calhoun, NE 68023 PO Box 394 Fort Calhoun, NE 68023 304 W Eagle Arlington, NE 68002 PO Box 196 Herman, NE 68029 PO Box 196 Herman, NE 68029 208 Main Street Kennard, NE 68034 PO Box 151 Kennard, NE 68034 1297 County RD P25 Washington, NE 68068 8951 County Road 9 Arlington, NE 68002 705 North Ninth Street Arlington, NE 68002 705 North Ninth Street Arlington, NE 68002 140 S. 16th Street Blair, NE 68008 1506 Lincoln Street PO Box 430 Fort Calhoun, NE 68023 Miscellaneous Mailing List Entity Representative Agency / Title Phone Number E -mail Address Address 444 S 16th ST Mall Mary Finley OPPD Omaha, NE 68137 1414 15th Street, PO Box 499 Sharon Brown NPPD Columbus, NE 68602 Steve McMaster Nebraska Department of Natural Resources PO Box 94676 Lincoln, NE 68509 1300 Military Road Al Berndt Nebraska Emergency Management Lincoln, NE 68508 1300 Military Road Shelia Hascall Nebraska Emergency Management Lincoln, NE 68508 PO Box 98927 Megan Doxtator Nebraska Citizen Corps State Capitol, Sixth Floor -West Lincoln, NE 68509 Lela McNinch Nerbaska Department of Education PO Box 94676 Lincoln, NE 68509 Grant Anderson MAPA 2222 Cuming Street Omaha, NE 68102 0 s i� You're Invited! Please join us at a public meeting to help with the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resources District's Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan, as your community is included in this plan. Why is a Plan Needed? The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) now requires Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plans before any local governmental entity can receive funding for pre- hazard mitigation projects or post- hazard cleanup and damage repair. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds are administered by the state. How Does It Work? FEMA describes the process this way: "During the recovery phase of a disaster, local jurisdictions select projects that could reduce property damage from future disasters, and submit grant applications to the State. Indian tribes and certain non - profit organizations can also apply, and local governments can apply on behalf of individual property owners. The states administer the HMGP program. They establish mitigation priorities for the State, facilitate the development of applications, and submit applications to FEMA based on State criteria and available funding." History of Papio- Missouri River NRD's Plan In 2006, the Papio- Missouri River Natural Resources District (P- MRNRD) developed the first Multi- Jurisdictional All- Hazards Mitigation Plan in the state of Nebraska. Just three years later, the plan already has begun to serve its intended purpose by spurring on mitigation projects, including the acquisition of flood -prone structures in King Lake and the updating of floodplain maps in four of the six NRD counties. Some FEMA regulations have changed since 2006, and the P -MRNRD is starting the update of their plan to make sure that: • All communities and counties participate and are included in the plan • Time allows for ample public education and feedback • The latest technology in predicting the benefits of mitigation activities is utilized Through hazard mitigation planning, local entities are able to identify their individual risks and hazards, come up with possible eligible projects to minimize those risks, and then implement such plans to provide protection for lives, structures, resources, and critical infrastructure. Examples of such hazard mitigation issues that could impact any local entity include the severe winter storm of October 1997; the flooding in Burt, Douglas, and Washington counties in August 1999; the ice storm damage throughout central Nebraska in January 2007; and the severe summer storms that moved through the Omaha metro area in June 2008. Additional information about eligible projects and examples of what this plan and the HMGP program can do for your group or community are included on the reverse side of this page. continued... Additional information is available at the project website: http: / /oaprojects.com /papionrd_ hazard Updating the NRD's Plan continued... Your Role in the Plan Your involvement and cooperation in this joint inter - agency regional planning effort is critical to make this the most effective and beneficial plan for our whole area. One of the real benefits of this joint planning effort to your community, tribe, school district, or organization is that the required 25 percent local plan development costs are being covered by P -MRNRD funds. FEMA guidelines state that HMGP funds may be used to fund projects that will reduce or eliminate the losses from future disasters. Projects must provide a long -term solution to a problem — for example, elevating a home to reduce the risk of flood damage, as opposed to buying sandbags and pumps to fight the flood. Examples of projects include, but are not limited to: • Acquiring, demolishing, or elevating flood - prone structures • Retrofitting structures and facilities to minimize damage from high winds, earthquake, flood, wildfire, or other natural hazards • Creating community and individual storm shelter programs • Developing and initially implementing vegetative management programs • Designing minor flood - control projects that do not duplicate the flood - prevention activities of other federal agencies • Adding public awareness campaigns, enhanced hazard information systems, or enhanced warning capabilities Questions? For More Information... Remember, this is a joint cooperative effort, and we want you to have a share in this new partnership. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to call Lori Laster or Amanda Grint with the Papio- Missouri River NRD at 402.444.6222. Of .o Pa o- 2si1i5�datr3 Nzt�aral Resources : `, District Notice of Public : <.:,ttlegdaPngs . . The Papio- Missouri Riv- State of Nebraska, County of Douglas, ss: disasters;.:. ` problem areas, and ..Potential solutions:: All . public of- ficials.:and members. of the public.areencour- aged : .to.attnd. More information cah be found at the pro l'ect we site a� iittp; % /oaprojectsxom/ paplonrd_ hazard /.: The meting will be held .October 27 2049 at 6.30 pm at the::': ::.: Natural Resources Center, 5901 S. 154th St., z Omaha; P3E:.'y-;; Joyce Sawatzki, being duly sworn., deposes and says that he /she is an employee of The Omaha World - Herald, a legal daily newspaper printed and published in the county of Douglas and State of Nebraska, and of general circulation in the Counties of Douglas, and Sarpy and State of Nebraska, and that the attached printed notice was published in the said newspaper on the 22nd day of October, 2009, and that said newspaper is a legal newspaper under the statutes of the State of Nebraska. The above facts are within my personal knowledge.. The Omaha World - Herald has an average circulation of 163,972 Daily and 209,348 Sunday, in 2009. (Signed; SubM in my presence and sworn. to 2009. Title: Account Executive before me this 4,k day of Mob Iko U4=1- Notary ublic Printer's Fee $ Affidavit Paid By _ s1!t1 'ANt7A KAY Sl�Jll'il�j f� on(: rcl .icy; €ary S i ^ Of 1- qpl: }iC�31 .a,Et 'Cl M" Cory. i53i�lY ;IFC!' Jan Ili Duplicate Affidavits of this Publication have been filed in the office of County Clerk ❑ Clerk of Dist. Court ❑ounty Clerk ❑ec. State ❑N STATE OF NEBRASKA WASHINGTON COUNTY rl ,. 5oV e. rF _ 5•�, Mark Rhoades Being by me first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the publisher of THE ENTERPRISE, a legal weekly newspaper printed and published at Blair, in Washington County, Nebraska and of general circulation in said County and State: that said .newspaper has a bona fide circulation of more than 300 copies weekly, in said County: and has been published in said County for more than 52 successive weeks prior to the first publication of the attached notice, that the attached notice was published in said newspaper for 1 consecutive week(s) being the issues of. October 30 2009 �� Prot! e. i T�vver District. i4Teirtifigs .,u t ruvcr v4k aurat,i(esourm s the pistilic:t6 participate in ut's update of their: ti- � L ationl'lari: ByparEicipati ' frith 'pan community will. lie. eligible to,. ive grantfuadrigfroznFEIvIAs HazardMid ion Assistance I'uk�liciri riffs ested tg identi pptential disasters, problem areas, . Yom and potential solutions. All public officials and members of the public are encouraged Publisher Signature to attend,. More information can be found at. the project website at tigt /aaprojccts. . =Wpapionrd The meeting will be Subscribed in my presence, and sworn to before me held November 4.2 ©09 at6:3Q:pm at 19iair City Hall, 2l8 & l6th St:, Blak NF.° ' This 34) ° 3� day of October, 2009. L GENERAI. NOTARY - Stale of Nebraska ` 0-, Notary P ublic TRACY A. PREFTYMAN My Comm. Exp. Sept. 10, 2013 Printers Fee For Publishing This Notice $ 8.84 Preparation of Affidavit and Billing $ 1.50 Notary Fees $ .50 Copy $ 25% discount for minutes $ TOTAL $ 10.84 Public Meeting Agenda Regional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 1 St Public Meeting Goal: • Introduce the plan and personnel • Explain importance • Gather public input • Determine some mitigation alternatives Agenda: 6:30 p.m. Welcome attendees and sign -in 6:35 -6:50 Begin presentation Welcome Introductions Benefits of a Regional Multi- Hazards Mitigation Plan Explain why we're doing this and why it's important. Goal of tonight: to educate public and gain feedback 6:50 -7:15 Begin feedback - gathering exercise in groups of 4 -8 people Provide public input form for groups. 7:15 -7:30 Continue Presentation Review Planning Process 7:30 -7:45 Review potential Hazard Mitigation Projects Complete public input forms. 7:45 -8:00 Review Next Steps. Question and Answers. Review Critical Facilities Locations for HAZUS maps End of meeting CY\,OLSSON ASSOCIATES SIGN IN EVENT: Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Public Meeting Presenter PMRNRD /OA /AMEC Date 10.20.2009 Time 6:30 PM Location Dakota County Service Center Name Community /Group Rep resentin g Contact Info J � /� �" // ur Sou C� f 1 0 , IJh YJ l ' l v A R 9 — T /--� Oc G., / G��G« (2r1 P M e N l2b llas ;13 nirc to �Yf'C ✓J JG J�i//)c7G J OLSSON A S S O C I A T E S SIGN IN EVENT: Papio-Missouri River NRD Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Public Meeting Presenter PMRNRD/OA/AMEC Date 10.27.2009 Time 6:30 PM Location P-MRNRD Offices, Omaha, NE Name Community/Group Representing Contact Info t� CPO 61 lie V V 7 907-2 to 12 &Ileb Y02 - 19 6YI ^4— 4 Vqq— V" eye n L?4 %Ad f ��54 �1 dl f I a (b L A 7 1 t N\ *bz E M PN kA - 1 P Scw S 0 -:3 A rZ VAIL - Iwo OkOLSSON ASSOCIATES SIGN IN EVENT: Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Public Meeting Presenter PMRNRD /OA/AMEC Date 10.27.2009 Time 6:30 PM Location P -MRNRD Offices, Omaha, NE Name Community /Group Representin Contact Info OkOLSSON ASSOCIATES SIGN IN EVENT: Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Public Meeting Presenter PMRNRD /OA/AMEC Date 11.04.2009 Time 6:30 PM Location Blair City Hall, Blair, NE Name Community /Group Representing Contact Info k/;1►GS J D' C P �/J rC0JJNTy L�D,� 7 y'/'755 - 7 - �1vlcvl.�c[cti � ri "vt� P�` -tt�N �1� a 5 YrL�7� / 1 '- pIa!2 -/do 3 7 Lore Lases 2 AP'Na qq4 -L'ZZZ ao)j Co W AIK1 '4 TOYS CoLiji e WJl, .9Irn ctz+.IV'ry L/02 "126- 6272 r L 0 LA L IM 6I -A5 ):�(9 (C.1i 5-k r �C relI�✓5 -C b 7f i v o d ccUwv o 1 P 0) 60 OkOLSSON MEETING MINUTES (1 Public Meeting) NAME OF PROJECT: PMRNRD Regional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Update PROJECT LOCATION: MEETING LOCATION: PMRNRD DATE & TIME: October 27, 2009 6:30 PM PROJECT #: 009 -0987 PHASE /TASK #: A. Sign -In and Introductions B. Discuss Agenda and Overall Process C. Nebraska Forest Service — Scott Josiah • Trees — act as green infrastructure ❖ Lengthen life of hard infrastructure ❖ Can be very valuable but also cause a lot of destruction • In communities that perform tree maintenance, the 2007 ice storm caused 1/3 the damage as it did in communities that did not regularly perform tree maintenance • The Nebraska Forest Service can perform tree inventories and risk assessments for communities as a project under the MHMG Plan • Eastern Red Cedar eradication may also be an eligible project D. Urban Fires and Wildfires • FEMA considers them as different hazards in the plan E. Man -Made Hazard • Oil spills, toxic spills — can be included in plan but will not be funded by this program Page 1 of 1 Overnight Regular Mail Hand Delivery Other: Email SECOND PUBLIC MEETING DOCUMENTATION 0. Public Meetings: Input from your community is requested! Does your community need relief from damage caused by Natural Disasters? Please join us for our second round of public meetings to identify and discuss Hazard Mitigation Projects that may be eligible for federal funding. Please feel free to attend the meeting that is most convenient for you: Monday, May 10, 2010 10am — Dakota County Service Center, 1505 Broadway, Dakota City 3pm — Burt County Court House, 111 North 13th Street, Tekamah Thursday, May 13, 2010 3pm — Papio- Missouri River NRD Offices, 8901 S. 154th Street, Omaha Refreshments will be provided: For more information please visit the project website at http: / /0oprojects.com /Papionrd hazard/ or contact Lori Laster at 402.444.6222 or liaster @popionrd.org .A PAPIO- MISSOURI RIVER NATURAL RESOURCES DISTRICT 8901 S. 154th Street Omaha, NE 68138 -3621 402 - 444 -6222 www.papionrd.org STATE OF NEBRASKA COUNTY OF BURT I ss. PROOF OF PUBLICATION The undersigned, being first duly sworn deposes and says that he is one of the publishers of The Burt County Plaindealer, a weekly news- paper printed in the English language, in whole or in part in an office maintained in Tekamah, Nebraska, and having a bona fide circulation of at least 300 copies weekly, and published for more than 52 succes- sive weeks prior to publication of the notice attached hereto, which notice was published in said paper for _� consecutive weeks, the first publication being on the day of , 20 Publisher's Fee $ ' Subscribed and sworn to before me this— day of .. s Notary blic GENERAL NOTARY - State of Nebraska MARK A. JACKSON My Comm. Exp, Feb, 1, 2014 AFFIDAVIT OF PRINTER State of Nebraska, County of Dakota -ss. I, Michael Renning, Associate Editor of the Dakota County Star, a legal newspaper printed and published weekly at South Sioux City, Dakota County, Nebraska, do solemnly swear that a copy of the notice, as per clipping attached, was published weekly in the regular and entire issue of said news- paper and not in supplement thereof, for one week dated 2Ur � and that said newspaper is a legal newspaper under the Statutes of the State of Nebraska. VA)A j Associate Editor Copies ..................... $ Printer's Fees .............................. $ 3_1 Affidavit ....... ............................... $ Total ............. ............................... $ , 3 3-7 Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of Notary Public GERERAt NOTARY -State of Nebraska DEBERA L. BENTON My COMM. Exp. Dec. 24, 2012 (seal) Duplicate Affidavits of this Publication have been filed in the office of County Clerk ❑ Clerk of Dist. Court ❑ounty Clerk ❑ec. State ❑ AFFIDAVIT OF PRINTER STATE OF NEBRASKA WASHINGTON COUNTY Mark Rhoades Being by me first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the publisher of THE ENTERPRISE, a legal weekly newspaper printed and published at Blair, in Washington County, Nebraska and of general circulation in said County and State: that said newspaper has a bona fide circulation of more than 300 copies weekly, in said County: and has been published in said County for more than 52 successive weeks prior to the first publication of the attached notice, that the attached notice was published in said newspaper for 1 consecutive week(s) being the issues of. Subscribed in my presence, and sv This 7 jday of May, 2010. GaIERAL NOTAflY - State of Nebraska �, TRACY A. PREMMAN My Comm. UP. Sept 10, 2013 Printers Fee For Publishing This Notice $ 10.80 Preparation of Affidavit and Billing $ 1.50 Notary Fees $ .50 Copy $ 25% discount for minutes $ TOTAL $ 12.80 PAPIO RIVER March 11, 2010 Stan Staab Lower Elkhorn NRD 601 E. Benjamin St.e 101, PO Box 1204 Norfolk NE 68702 Dear Mr. Staab: 8901 S. 154TH ST. OMAHA, NE 68138 -3621 (402) 4.44 -6222 FAX (402) 895 -6543 w w w pap ionrd .orp The Papio- Missouri River Natural Resources District (P- MRNRD) has secured grant funding from FEMA and is in the process of updating the 2006 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan for jurisdictions within the P -MRNRD geographic limits (see map). Olsson Associates has been contracted to assist with the planning effort. The Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update will reassess the vulnerability of each community and county within the P -MRNRD to various natural hazards. With input from each community, the plan will identify projects that will decrease the threat from the identified hazards. To meet FEMA requirements, this letter is being sent to inform you of the P- MRNRD planning effort. If you have any questions or would like more details about the plan update, email me at Ilaster@papionrd.org. Sincerely, L Lori Ann Laster, CFM Papio- Missouri River NRD Stormwater Management Engineer Bruce Batchford PO Box 152 Ponca NE 68770 Bernie Hunke 200 S. Lincoln Street, Rm 301 West Point NE 68788 William M. Cover 346 Main Street Plattsmouth NE 68049 John Miyoshi Lower Platte North NRD PO Box 126 Wahoo NE 68066 Stan Staab Lower Elkhorn NRD 601 E. Benjamin St.e 101, PO Box 1204 Norfolk NE 68702 LeRoy Janssen 521 Lincoln Street Wayne NE 68787 Terry Miller 357 West 4th St. Wahoo NE 68066 Glenn Johnson Lower Platte South NRD 3125 Portia Street, PO Box 83581 Lincoln NE 68501 Tom Moser Lewis & Clark NRD 608 N. Robinson, PO Box 518 Hartington NE 68739 Public Meeting Agenda Regional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan 2nd Public Meeting Goal: • Review progress and information from first meeting • Explain and share Risk and Hazard Assessment • Explain project identification lists and STAPLEE form • Utilize break -out groups for discussion Agenda: 3:00 p.m. Welcome attendees and sign -in 3:05 -3:20 Begin presentation Welcome Introductions Review of the Regional Multi- Hazards Mitigation Plan Explain why we are here and the project progress Review Participation Requirements Goal of meeting: to educate public and gain feedback 3:20 -3:55 Review of Risk and Hazard Assessment Allow time for questions and comments on the assessments BREAK 4:00 -4:20 Review of Potential Projects Explanation of Project Identification forms Example of STAPLEE form 4:20 -4:40 Small group break -out to work on project identification and STAPLEE Complete project identification and STAPLEE forms 4:40 -5:00 Review Next Steps. Question and Answers. End of meeting CA,O LSSON ASSOCIATES - SIGN IN EVENT: Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Public Meeting Presenter PMRNRD /OA/AMEC Date 05.10.2010 Time 10:00 AM Location Dakota County Service Center Dakota City, NE Name Community /Group Representin Contact Info /W L o�uw�fG�L 0aC04)v`�I�f C� P a,l 06 QlSS6/1 r � 4 (<n /Z, 51, • � �'� V � � T `Gyp " � yy`", y�•'+, '" ��� ����� -�- - /� ✓��'4 OkOLSSON ASSOCIATES SIGN IN EVENT: Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Public Meeting Presenter PMRNRD /OA/AMEC Date 05.10.2010 Time 3:00 PM Location Burt County Courthouse Tekamah, NE Name Community /Group Representin Contact Info f� r' �� �c3raccC�x, 14 ►�� , �c t�Gf f�� �a f 7 �au Q l)C"d ' / W,�rf� gL w�j�ra� ro7tc�c; ` "d,�,'� Y✓�c..[r✓jQ�� -ev �1�b�R�sk t 4t'uX +mackt ,- Vj „ ril =A4 ��si" I TC'd uCtiC� c ( C im ,� r, I Aje �� �0LSS0N ASSOCIATES SIGN IN EVENT: Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Public Meeting Presenter PMRNRD /OA/AMEC Date 05.10.2010 Time 3:00 PM Location Burt County Courthouse Tekamah, NE Name Community /Group Representin Contact Info C R L_ SC;m 6 6 1? r O�OLSSON ASSOCIATES SIGN IN EVENT: Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Public Meeting Presenter PMRNRD /OA/AMEC Date 05.13.2010 Time 3:00 PM Location PMR -NRD Offices Omaha, NE Name Community /Group Contact Info Representin 1, Q r-ki K�7 V1 'v1 r �_0 3 f�2__/_ ^ r � � et k8vaI1P 1 Z A/ Z-5 0/111. 0 p/05 - 0 NO b 1- IVGoM3.5 G cAA) , Bait r ` r'hu y, Atz CQ.rri L �Mp.30 50(1 �55ac�0oJes ���1 �ec�watd O1S50A �SSoLi 5 .o 5� I _r OkOLSSON ASSOCIATES SIGN IN EVENT: Papio - Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Public Meeting Presenter PMRNRD /OA/AMEC Date 05.13.2010 Time 3:00 PM Location PMR -NRD Offices Omaha, NE Name Community /Group Representin Contact Info g { � G . LA lC�c ti 1 00 , 6J V J �-G Fern (V t d C �U ' 557 2 `J J d� ��� �� �,, gal, U <,, � � II r l ` C)k o�•� 1 9 7 p L) f Ufnq 65 0\,OLSSON ASSOCIATES MEETING MINUTE Project Progress Meeting NAME OF PROJECT: Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Update MEETING LOCATION & USDA Service Center, Dakota City, NE TIMES: 10:00 am DATE: May 10, 2010 PROJECT #: 009 -0987 A. Welcome and Sign -In B. Review of the Regional Multi- Hazards Mitigation Plan ■ Question: Can the Papio NRD /OA/AMEC team provide the stakeholders with a summary of their status of participation? C. Review of Risk and Hazard Assessment • Thurston County EMA noted that the numbers for the agriculatural value of livestock seemed high for the county. It is possible that some livestock population from the neighboring Cumming County may have been included in Thurston County. Values will be double checked. • The Dakota City Municipal Power needs to be identified as being located in Dakota City — not Homer • DNR created new floodplain maps, DFIRM data base for Thurston County. The DNR will need to be contacted to re -run the most current data for floodplain risk analysis. D. Review of Potential Projects E. STAPLEE Worksheet F. Questions /Comments ■ The Dakota County EMA is concerned about the lack of attendance at the meetings that have been held in Dakota County. He does not feel like he can adequately identify and prioritize projects without more input from the communities in the county. For the plan to be a success we need to get more communities and school districts involved.. F:\ Projects\ 009 - 0987 \Documents \Meetings \2nd Public Meeting \Dakota_Th urston_Meeting_May_10 \M i nutes_Public_Meeti ng_05.10.10.doc Page 1 of 1 0\,OLSSON ASSOCIATES MEETING MINUTE Project Progress Meeting NAME OF PROJECT: Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Update MEETING LOCATION & Burt County Courthouse, Tekamah, NE TIMES: 3:00 pm DATE: May 10, 2010 PROJECT #: 009 -0987 A. Welcome and Sign -In B. Review of the Regional Multi- Hazards Mitigation Plan C. Review of Risk and Hazard Assessment ■ Ft Calhoun and Kennard are piping sewage to Blair for treatment D. Review of Potential Projects E. STAPLEE Worksheet ■ Meeting attendants asked to be provided with a digital version (excel spreadsheet) of the STAPLEE form F. Questions /Comments F:\ Projects\ 009 - 0987 \Documents \Meetings \2nd Public Meeting \Burt_Washington_Meeting_May_10\ Minutes _Public_Meeting_05.10.10.doc Page 1 of 1 0\,OLSSON ASSOCIATES MEETING MINUTE Project Progress Meeting NAME OF PROJECT: Papio- Missouri River NRD Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Update MEETING LOCATION & PMR -NRD Office, Omaha, NE TIMES: 3:00 pm DATE: May 13, 2010 PROJECT #: 009 -0987 A. Welcome and Sign -In B. Review of the Regional Multi- Hazards Mitigation Plan ■ Sarpy County was part of Presidential Declaration DR -1878 C. Review of Risk and Hazard Assessment D. Review of Potential Projects ■ Would the purchase of 3M Security Window film be eligible for funding? E. STAPLEE Worksheet F. Questions /Comments ■ How can Creighton University participate and be elibigble for HMGP funds? Can they apply on their own or will the need to partner with the City of Omaha or Douglas County? F:\ Projects\ 009 - 0987 \Documents \Meetings \2nd Public Meeting \Douglas_Sarpy_Meeting_May_13\ Minutes _Public_Meeting_05.13.10.doc Page 1 of 1 DRAFT PLAN REVIEW PERIOD DOCUMENTATION Multi- Hazard Mitigation Draft Plan Available for Review PAPIO- MISSOURI RIVER NAVAL RESOURCES RES DISTRICT 8901 S. 154th Street Omaha, NE 68138 -3621 402 - 444-6222 www.papionrd.org As of October 1, 2010, the first draft of the Papio- Missouri River Natural Re- sources District's Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan is available for viewing online at htt / /www oaprolects com /papion Lhazarcl Please take some time to review it, and let us know if you have comments. The website provides a way to submit your comments online — or feel free to contact Lori Laster directly at (402) 444 -6222 or Ilaster @papionrd.org. The draft will be available for review until December 1, 2010. Papia- Missouri River. Natural Resources District .Draft Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan Available for Review The Papio- Missouri River Natural Resources District invites the public to review the District's draft of their Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan. Tha draft plan can be found at the project website at ' http:l loapmjects .com /papionrd_hazard /. The draft will be available for review until December 1, 2010. Comments may be submitted online or to Lori Laster at (402) 444 -6222 or Ilaster @papionrd .org• r Publish Oct. 20, 2010 ' STATE OF NEBRASKA ss. COUNTY OF BURT PROOF OF PUBLICATION The undersigned, being first duly sworn deposes and says that he is one of the publishers of The Burt; County Plaindealer, a weekly news- paper printed in the English language, in whole or in part in a-n office maintained in Tekamah, Nebraska, and having a bona fide circulation of at least 300 copies weekly, and published for more than 52 succes- sive weeks prior to publication of the notice attached hereto, which notice was published in said gaper for _� consecutive weeks, the first publication being on the — 10 day of 20 / . Publisher's Fee � Subscribed and swam to before me this day of , 20 Notary Public GENERAL NOTARY - State of Nebraska MARK A. JACKSON My Comm. Exp. Feb. 1, 2014 . Papio - Missourl River Natural Resources District Draft Multi- Hazard Mitigation plan Available for Review The Pa io- Missouri Riv- er Natural Resources District invites the pub- lic to review the Dis- trict's draft of their Multi -Hazard Mitiga- tion Plan. The draft plan can be found at the project website at http: / /oaprolects.com/ pa ionrd hazard /. The draft will be availa- ments may be submit- ted online or to Lori Laster at (402) 444 -6222 or Ilaster@papionrd.org. Proof of publication AFFIDAVIT State of Nebraska, County of Douglas, ss: Joyce Sawatzki, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he /she is an employee of The Omaha World- Herald, a legal daily newspaper printed and published in the county of Douglas and State of Nebraska, and of general circulation in the Counties of Douglas, and Sarpy and State of Nebraska, and that the attached printed notice was published in the said newspaper on the 15 day of October 2010, and that said newspaper is a legal newspaper under the statutes of the State of Nebraska. The above facts are within my personal knowledge. The Omaha World- Herald has an average circulation of 161,633 Daily and 203,662 Sunday, in 2010. (Signed) Title: Account Executive Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me this /S N day of 2010. GENERAL NOTARY - State of NebrasU ` A-1 MARCIA A. GUSTAFSON K.. My Comm. Exp. June 30, 2012 Notary Public Printer's Fee $ Affidavit Paid By ry N„ PUBLIC HEARING DOCUMENTATION Proof of publication AFFIDAVIT State of Nebraska, County of Douglas, ss: Joyce Sawatzki, being duly sworn, deposes and says that lie /she is an employee of The Omaha World- Herald, a legal daily newspaper printed and published in the county of Douglas and State of Nebraska, and of general circulation in the Counties of Douglas, and Sarpy and state of Nebraska, and that the attached printed notice was published in the said newspaper on the 3 day of November 2010, and that said newspaper is a legal newspaper under the statutes of die State of Nebraska. The above facts are within my personal knowledge. The Omaha World- Herald has an average circulation of 161,633 Daily and 203,662 Sunday, in 2010. {signed} &W Title: Account Executive U V f Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me this 4 /3" day of /�rOVQ, hA i 2010. GENERAL NOTARY -State of Nebraska MARCIA A. GUSTAFSON My Comm. Exp. June 30, 2012 Notary Public Printer's Fee $ Affidavit Paid By ;. ; t "; PAPIO- MISSOURI RIVER 0 NATURAL RESOURCES �7 DISTRICT 8901 S 154th Street � Dmsh4, NF. 68138 -3621 402 444 6272 www.papioned.org Final: November 9, 2010 Papio - Missouri River Natural Resources District Board of Directors Meeting Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:00 p.m. AGENDA * = Board action required ** = Items to be approved with adoption of Consent Agenda PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. Meeting Called to Order - Chairperson Kolowski 2. Notification of Open Meetings Act Posting and Meeting Procedure — Chairperson Kolowski 3. Quorum Call ** A. Excused Absences *4. Adoption of Agenda *5. Adoption of Consent Agenda (All agenda items indicated by a double asterisk will comprise the consent agenda and will be acted on in a single motion. Items may be deleted from the consent agenda by request of any Board member.) 6. Proofs of Publication of Meeting Notice * *7. Approval of Minutes: A. Approval of October 14, 2010 Board Meeting Minutes 8. Agency /Association Reports and Presentations: A. Natural Resources Conservation Service Report — Neil Jensen, District Conservationist 1 B. Nebraska Association of Resources Districts — Director Tesar 1. NARD Board Meeting, November 8, 2010, Crofton, NE 2. NARD Legislative Conference, January 25-26,2011, Lincoln, NE C. Lower Platte River Corridor Alliance Report — Meghan Sittler 9. Public Hearing — Draft P -MRNRD Hazard Mitigation Plan: John Winkler, Hearing Officer 10. Subcommittee Reports: *A. Programs, Projects and Operations Subcommittee (November 9, 2010) — Director John Conley 1. Washington County Service Center — Request for Increase in Professional Services 2. Missouri River Trail, Phase 2 — Construction Engineer Selection 3. MoPac Trail (Hwy 50 to Chalco) *B. Finance, Expenditures and Legal Subcommittee (November 9, 2010) — Director Tesar 1. Transfer $200,000 for the Silver Creek Dam Project to Conservation Assistance Program 2. Discussion of Draft FY 2010 Audit 3. Western Sarpy Levee Construction — RSP Management, LLC, Request for Hunting Impact Compensation [Executive Session, in needed] 4. Monthly Financial Report *11. Treasurer's Report --Director John Conley A. District B. Dakota County Rural Water Supply C. Washington County Rural Water Supply #1 D. Washington County Rural Water Supply #2 E. Thurston County Rural Water Supply F. Elkhorn River Improvement Project Area G. Elkhorn River Breakout Project H. Elk/Pigeon Creek Drainage Project L Western Sarpy Drainage Improvement Project Area 2 12. Chairperson's Report — Chairperson Kolowski A. Election Results 13. General Manager's Report — John Winkler A. I &E Report B. Personnel/Miscellaneous Items C. Report on Purchases — Construction Services, Professional Services, Personal Property D. Current and On -Going Programs — P -MRNRD Legal Counsel E. Papillion Creek Watershed Partnership Report F. Update On Trails Projects 1. West Douglas County Trail 2. Platte River Trail G. News Clips 14 Informational Items: A. Future Meetings: November 11, 2010 Veteran's Day — P -MRNRD Offices Closed November 18, 2010 Papillion Creek Watershed Partnership Meeting, 10:00 a.m., NRC November 25 -26, 2010 Thanksgiving Holiday — P -MRNRD Offices Closed December 7, 2010 P -MRNRD Subcommittee Meetings December 9, 2010 P -MRNRD Board Meeting December 16, 2010 Papillion Creek Watershed Partnership Meeting, 10:00 a.m., NRC December 24, 2010 Christmas Holiday — P -MRNRD Offices Closed December 31, 2010 New Year's Holiday — P -MRNRD Offices Closed January 11, 2011 P -MRNRD Subcommittee Meetings 3 January 13, 2011 P -MRNRD Board Meeting January 17, 2011 Martin Luther King Day — P -MRNRD Offices Closed January 18, 2010 Lower Platte River Corridor Alliance Quarterly Meeting, 9:30 a.m., LPNNRD Offices, Lincoln, NE January 25 -26, 2011 NARD Legislative Conference, Lincoln, NE January 27, 2011 Papillion Creek Watershed Partnership Meeting, 10:00 a.m., NRC Jan 30 — Feb 2, 2011 National Association of Conservation Districts 2011 Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN B. Next Meeting — December 9, 2010, at the NRC 15. Adjournment A9 PAPIO- MISSOURI RIVER NATURAL RESOURCES DISTRICT BOARD MEETINGS RIGHT TO SPEAK The following rules and regulations shall govern the conduct and privilege to speak of persons attending open meetings of the District: A. Prior to the convening of the meeting, the General Manager shall post an agenda at the door of the meeting room. B. A Request to Address the Board sheet shall be posted with the agenda and citizens wishing to speak at the meeting shall so indicate on this sheet and specify the agenda item or items on which they desire to be heard. C. During the consideration of each agenda item the Chairperson shall call upon citizens who have indicated a desire to be heard on such item, in the order in which the Chairperson shall determine. The Chairperson, in his or her discretion, may also allow other citizens to be heard after all those who have given prior indication of a desire to speak have been heard on such item. D. Every citizen speaking at the meeting shall begin his or her remarks by stating his or her name and postal address. E. All citizens' remarks shall be directed to the Chairperson who shall determine by whom any appropriate response shall be made. F. The Chairperson may limit or allot the time allowed for the remarks of citizens called upon to be heard, and may rule any such citizen out of order for exceeding such limitation, or for remarks which are repetitious or irrelevant. Papio - Missouri River Natural Resources District Directors' Policy Handbook Operations Policy 4.8 Board Meetings - Right to Speak [December 5,1986] 5 Agenda Item 9 Public Hearing On Draft P -MRNRD Hazard Mitigation Plan s Papio- Missouri River Natural Resources District November 10, 2010 (as a part of the Board of Directors Meeting) AGENDA 1. Hearing Called to Order — Chairperson Rick Kolowski 2. Appointment of Hearing Officer — General Manager, John Winkler 3. Evidence of Proof of Publication of Hearing Notice 4. Identification of Exhibits 5. Explanation of the Draft P -MR \TRD Hazard Mitigation Plan — Lori Laster and Paul Woodward, Olsson Associates 6. Receive Testimony and Statements 7. Hearing Adjournment * Plan is available for viewing online at www.oaprojects.com/pgpionrd hazard 4.1 Mitigation Goals This section of the plan focuses on mitigation strategies, developed by each jurisdiction, to reduce or eliminate vulnerabilities to any of the 11 identified hazards. In the 2006 P -MRNRD All- Hazards Mitigation Plan, four main goals were identified through research, data collection, and public participation in the planning effort. The four main goals of the 2006 P -MRNRD plan were: 1. Reduce or prevent future damage from natural hazard events 2. Increase public safety 3. Increase public education about natural hazard events in their community 4. Increase or enhance public green space In the 2006 plan, each participating community tied their mitigation actions to these four goals, but expanded on each goal by developing their own objectives (Summaries of the 2006 Mitigation Objectives, broken out by jurisdiction, are available in Appendix B). Since this plan update incorporates additional jurisdictions and hazards, beyond those addressed in the 2006 plan, a new methodology of organizing goals, objectives, and mitigation actions was adopted. This methodology makes it easier to tie each mitigation action to a specific goal and objective, as well as making it easier to update mitigation goals and actions in the future. Specific goals for the planning area were developed utilizing information from the risk assessment, feedback received from the public, and information obtained from FEMA's how -to guide titled "Developing the Mitigation Plan — Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementation Strategies ". 4.1.1 Mitigation Goals and Objectives Goal 1: Protect the health and safety of the public Objectives: 1.1 Comply with NFIP 1.2 Construct safe rooms in schools, public buildings, and in select locations, at public outdoor venues 1.3 Update or obtain additional outdoor warning sirens, as needed, in the project area 1.4 Develop additional emergency notification methods to alert the public of potential hazards 1.5 Provide educational opportunities for the public to promote preparedness in the project area 1.6 Reduce flooding of developed residential and commercial areas Goal 2: Reduce or prevent future damage to critical facilities, critical infrastructure, and maintain their operation after a hazard Objectives: 2.1 Protect power lines throughout the NRD by burying them or reinforcing them 2.2 Obtain generators and other backup power systems required to keep critical facilities, critical infrastructure, and emergency operations running after a hazard event 2.3 Evaluate and identify infrastructure systems that require improvements in order to reduce or prevent damage from hazards 2.4 Protect all existing public infrastructure from flooding Goal 3: Reduce or prevent future damage to existing properties and natural resources Objectives: 3.1 Enforce regulations and building codes promoting wise development and construction that reduces the potential for damage to existing or future structures and property 3.2 Protect existing streambanks and beds from erosion /downcutting 3.3 Perform studies to determine locations of concern and evaluate projects to mitigate against the damage caused by hazards 3.4 Develop projects to reduce or prevent damage to public structures 3.5 Improve local drainage and stabilize creeks where necessary 3.6 Improve protection procedures for structures throughout the planning area to reduce damage from hazard events 3.7 Implement a mitigation plan for tree trimming and tree removal 3.8 Improve and protect area roads and drainage structures against hazards 3.9 Maintain and improve surface water quality Goal 4: Promote efficient use of public funds Objectives: 4.1 Maximize funding opportunities through grant money and other outside sources 4.2 Prioritize projects based on greatest risk 4.3 Encourage individual property owners to develop independent measures to protect their property and not rely on public funding APPENDIX B PUBLIC INPUT FORMS SUMMARY OF 2006 MITIGATION OBJECTIVES Arlington Objectives Objective 1: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 2: Mitigate these properties through voluntary acquisition or elevation Objective 3: Determine which buildings offer adequate tornado protection Objective 4: Determine specific ways to reduce flood flows in Bell Creek before it reaches Arlington Objective 5.1: Construct small upland dams Objective 5.2: Construct grade stabilization structures Objective 5.3: Bank Stabilization Structures The deeper the channel cuts, the more unstable the banks become. A stream under equilibrium will have a stable channel and banks with a consistent slope. On the other hand, when the channel of the stream is unstable and actively eroding the banks, the stream banks are often nearly vertical. Objective 6: The railroad bridge and Highway 30 bridges in close proximity to each other were viewed as impeding the flow of Bell Creek, especially when debris was trapped at either location. Objective 7: Purchasing or education of a weather radio Bennington Objectives Objective 1: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 2: Complete a drainage study Objective 3: Complete non - structural mitigation projects Objective 4: Keep flowage rates at its current level. If discharge increases from current levels, the floodplain will expand into residential neighborhoods. Objective 5: Provide emergency shelter(s) to which local residents would evacuate in the event of a tornado warning, especially those who live in vulnerable housing Objective 6: Reduce the duration or eliminate power outages from severe weather. Overhead power lines are vulnerable to collapse from icing in the cold weather months and from high winds or tree limbs falling on power lines in warm weather months. Objective 7: Purchasing or education of a weather radio Objective 8: Return local traffic flow as soon as possible following a large snow event Blair Objectives Objective 1: Have a more reliable structural inventory and to meet the federal requirements for the vulnerability assessment Objective 2: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 3: Complete a drainage study Objective 4: Increase public safety by reducing flood damages Objective 5: Keep flowage rates at its current level. If discharge increases from current levels, the floodplain will expand into residential neighborhoods. Objective 6: Install a lower intake structure at the City's water plant. Objective 7: Provide emergency shelter(s) to which local residents would evacuate in the event of a tornado warning Objective 8: Complete a tree inventory with assistance from the Nebraska Forest Service Objective 9: Work with major employers and critical facility owners to assess their capability to function in the event of a prolonged power outage. The wind storm of July 2004 knocked out power to the water plant for 48 hours, which could have created public health and safety problems. Also, Cargill (Blair's number -one employer) was without power for three hours. Objective 10: Return local traffic flow as soon as possible following a large snow event Objective 11: Purchasing or education of a weather radio Dakota County Objectives Objective 1: Have a reliable structural inventory and to meet the federal requirements for the vulnerability assessment Objective 2: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 3: Ensure local floodplain ordinance is regulating an accurate floodplain Objective 4: Increase the ability of vulnerable county bridges to withstand flooding Objective 5: Purchasing or education of a weather radio Douglas County Objectives Objective 1: Have a reliable structural inventory and to meet the federal requirements for the vulnerability assessment Objective 2: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 3: Increase the ability of vulnerable county bridges to withstand flooding Objective 4: Increase public safety and prevent a further drain on the National Flood Insurance Program Objective 5: Purchasing or education of a weather radio Elkhorn Objectives Objective 1: Have a reliable structural inventory and to meet the federal requirements for the vulnerability assessment Objective 2: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 3: Complete a drainage study Objective 4: Reduce the duration or eliminate power outages from severe weather. Overhead power lines are vulnerable to collapse from icing in the cold weather months and from high winds or tree limbs falling on power lines in warm weather months. Objective 5: Determine which buildings offer adequate tornado protection Objective 6: Purchasing or education of a weather radio Fort Calhoun Objectives Objective 1: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 2: Prevent stormwater problems from getting worse Objective 3: West of City Hall, keep minor tributary flow in the channel Objective 4: Reduce flood damage Objective 5: Reduce damage during intense rain events by keeping discharge in drainageways Objective 6: Open the north tributary to allow unhindered drainage Objective 7: Protect existing development and infrastructure Objective 8: Determine which buildings offer adequate tornado protection Objective 9: Reduce the duration or eliminate power outages from severe weather. Overhead power lines are vulnerable to collapse from icing in the cold weather months and from high winds or tree limbs falling on power lines in warm weather months. Objective 10: Purchasing or education of a weather radio Herman Objectives Objective 1: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas. Objective 2: Reduce the duration or eliminate power outages from severe weather. Overhead power lines are vulnerable to collapse from icing in the cold weather months and from high winds or tree limbs falling on power lines in warm weather months. Objective 3: Determine which buildings offer adequate tornado protection Objective 4: Purchasing or education of a weather radio Homer Objectives Objective 1: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 2: Ensure local floodplain ordinance is regulating an accurate floodplain Objective 3: Assess the options and potential costs for different flood reduction techniques — Objective 4: Allow Omaha Creek to carry more water and to shrink the floodplain Objective 5: Reduce flood flows on Omaha Creek Objective 6: Reduce or eliminate flooding and floodplain area in Homer Objective 7: Complete a drainage study Objective 8: Reduce the duration or eliminate power outages from severe weather. Overhead power lines are vulnerable to collapse from icing in the cold weather months and from high winds or tree limbs falling on power lines in warm weather months. Objective 9: Determine which buildings offer adequate tornado protection Objective 4 (10 ?): Purchasing or education of a weather radio Jackson Objectives Objective 1. Complete a structural inventory Objective 2: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 3: Determine which buildings offer adequate tornado protection Objective 4: Reduce the duration or eliminate power outages from severe weather. Overhead power lines are vulnerable to collapse from icing in the cold weather months and from high winds or tree limbs falling on power lines in warm weather months. Objective 5: Purchasing or education of a weather radio Kennard Objectives Objective 1: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 2: Reduce the quantity or manage the stormwater which results from intense warm weather rains. The topography in Kennard means that intense rainfall events cause rapid runoff which flows to creeks. On the way from the watershed uplands to the creeks, runoff has the potential to cause problems to development. Objective 3: Determine which buildings offer adequate tornado protection Objective 4: Reduce the duration or eliminate power outages from severe weather. Overhead power lines are vulnerable to collapse from icing in the cold weather months and from high winds or tree limbs falling on power lines in warm weather months. Objective 5: Purchasing or education of a weather radio LaVista Objectives Objective 1: Have a more reliable structural inventory and to meet the federal requirements for the vulnerability assessment Objective 2: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 3: Reduce /eliminate future flood damages and move homeowners from harm's way; improve the cleared land for public recreational use. Objective 4: Increase the capacity of Thompson Creek Objective 5: Reduce the duration or eliminate power outages from severe weather. Overhead power lines are vulnerable to collapse from icing in the cold weather months and from high winds or tree limbs falling on power lines in warm weather months. Objective 6: Purchasing or education of a weather radio Omaha Objectives Objective 1: Have a more reliable structural inventory and to meet the federal requirements for the vulnerability assessment Objective 2: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 3: Reduce future flood insurance payments and reduce flood losses by mitigating repetitive loss properties through acquisition, elevation, or other techniques. Acquisition should be first priority. Objective 4: Complete a potential wide range of flood mitigation projects Objective 5: Reduce the quantity or manage the stormwater which results from intense warm weather rains. The topography in some portions of Omaha means that intense rainfall events cause rapid runoff which flows to creeks. On the way from the watershed uplands to the creeks, runoff has the potential to cause problems to development. Objective 6: Reduce the duration or eliminate power outages from severe weather. Overhead power lines are vulnerable to collapse from icing in the cold weather months and from high winds or tree limbs falling on power lines in warm weather months. Objective 7: Determine which buildings offer adequate tornado protection Papillion Objectives Objective 1: Have a more reliable structural inventory and to meet the federal requirements for the vulnerability assessment Objective 2: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 3: Reduce the quantity or manage the stormwater which results from intense warm weather rains. The topography in Papillion means that intense rainfall events cause rapid runoff which flows to creeks. On the way from the watershed uplands to the creeks, runoff has the potential to cause problems to development. Objective 4: Reduce the duration or eliminate power outages from severe weather. Overhead power lines are vulnerable to collapse from icing in the cold weather months and from high winds or tree limbs falling on power lines in warm weather months. Objective 5: Complete a tree inventory Objective 6: Protect lives by creating a shelter(s) to which local residents would evacuate in the event of a tornado warning Objective 7: Purchasing or education of a weather radio Ralston Objectives Objective 1: Have a more reliable structural inventory and to meet the federal requirements for the vulnerability assessment Objective 2: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 3: Complete a drainage study Objective 4: Complete a tree inventory Objective 5: Determine which buildings offer adequate tornado protection Objective 6: Purchasing or education of a weather radio Sarpy County Objectives Objective 1: Have a reliable structural inventory and to meet the federal requirements for the vulnerability assessment Objective 2: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 3: Increase the ability of vulnerable county bridges to withstand flooding Objective 4: Reduce future disaster assistance and flood insurance payments Objective 5: Reduce future flood insurance payments and reduce flood losses by mitigating repetitive loss properties through acquisition, elevation, or other techniques. Objective 6: Purchasing or education of a weather radio South Sioux City Objectives Objective 1: Complete a structural inventory Objective 2: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 3: Ensure local floodplain ordinance is regulating an accurate floodplain Objective 4: Return emergency and normal traffic flow as soon as possible after large snowfall events Objective 5: Reduce traffic interruption and damage potential caused by this flooding Objective 6: Remove vulnerable populations from floodprone areas Objective 7: Protect lives by creating a shelter(s) to which local residents would evacuate in the event of a tornado warning Objective 8: Purchasing or education of a weather radio Springfield Objectives Objective 1. Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 2: Reduce the duration or eliminate power outages from severe weather. Overhead power lines are vulnerable to collapse from icing in the cold weather months and from high winds or tree limbs falling on power lines in warm weather months. Objective 3: Ensure adequate warning siren coverage for all Springfield citizens. The effective warning distance from a siren is typically a function of decibel and pitch levels. Objective 4: Reduce the quantity or manage the stormwater which results from intense warm weather rains. The steep west - sloping topography of Springfield means that intense rainfall events cause rapid runoff which flows to Springfield Creek on the City's west side. On the way from the uplands to Springfield Creek, runoff has the potential to cause problems to development. Objective 5: Allow Springfield Creek to carry more water Objective 6: Update FEMA's Repetitive Loss List and increase the list's accuracy. Since it is believed none of the three properties is in the Springfield jurisdiction, these properties should be reclassified to Sarpy County. Objective 7: Purchasing or education of a weather radio Tekamah Objectives Objective 1: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 2: Keep flowage rates at its current level. If discharge increases from current levels, the floodplain will expand into residential neighborhoods and potentially into adjacent watersheds. Objective 3: Provide emergency shelter(s) to which local residents would evacuate in the event of a tornado warning Objective 4: Reduce damages caused by falling trees and tree branches Objective 5: Purchasing or education of a weather radio Thurston County Objectives Objective 1. Have a reliable structural inventory and to meet the federal requirements for the vulnerability assessment Objective 2: Give people who live in unincorporated Thurston County the option to purchase flood insurance. The US Army Corps of Engineers and Nebraska Department of Natural Resources are currently working on completing preliminary floodplain maps for Thurston County with anticipated completion targeted for 2006 or 2007. Once preliminary maps are completed, there are official federal protocols which require public review and comment periods. After this period is completed, the preliminary maps are sent to the mapping contractor of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to revise them and to issue final maps. Thurston County will have one year from the effective date of these final maps to pass a floodplain management resolution or it will face being considered a "sanctioned" community. Sanctioning means floodplain maps have been completed, but the jurisdiction has not passed the ordinance and is not regulating floodplain development. A sanctioned status also may jeopardize various forms of grant funds. Objective 3: Increase the ability of vulnerable county bridges to withstand flooding Objective 4: Purchasing or education of a weather radio Washington Objectives Objective 1: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 2: Reduce the duration or eliminate power outages from severe weather. Overhead power lines are vulnerable to collapse from icing in the cold weather months and from high winds or tree limbs falling on power lines in warm weather months. Objective 3: Purchasing or education of a weather radio Washington County Objectives Objective 1: Have a reliable structural inventory and to meet the federal requirements for the vulnerability assessment Objective 2: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 3: Reduce lowland flooding and floodwater back -up by removing the flow restrictions currently caused by the box culverts Objective 4: Ensure local floodplain ordinance is regulating an accurate floodplain Objective 5: Increase the ability of vulnerable county bridges to withstand flooding Objective 6: Reduce future flood insurance payments and reduce flood losses by mitigating repetitive loss properties through acquisition, elevation, or other techniques. Objective 7: Determine specific ways to reduce flood flows in Bell Creek before it reaches Arlington Objective 8: Increase public safety by issuing flood and flash flood warnings in a timely manner Objective 9: Purchasing or education of a weather radio Waterloo Objectives Objective 1: Continue to regulate development in floodplain areas Objective 2: Protect the Village and prevent the mandatory purchase of flood insurance Objective 3: Prevent intense warm - weather rainfall events from flooding portions of land inside the levee Objective 4: Determine tornado warning siren needs which takes new development areas into consideration Objective 5: Construct a tornado shelter in the fire station as a component of the current remodeling project Objective 6: Return local traffic flow as soon as possible following a large snow event Objective 7: Ensure existing water supply is not being intercepted by illegal sandpoint wells PUBLIC COMMENT FORMS PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Papio- Missouri River NRD Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey — October 2009 Name: Street Address: City /State /Zip: Phone Number: E -mail Address: Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and then turn in at tonight's meeting or mail to the address listed. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or No Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown ( Example) X X X Flooding X �( Earthquake X Tornado X Landslide X Wildfire X X Severe Winter/ Ice Storm x X Severe Thunderstorm/ High Winds/ Lig htning/Hail X Drought X Dam Failure X Levee Failure Agricultural Incidents — Livestock/CropX Other: Other: 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? (over) 3. After the presentation, what are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? I f 14L 4. How did you hear about tonight's meeting? _ Flyer mailed to home Y Phone Call Newspaper Other: 5. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? 6. Other comments: Thank you for your comments! Please place your comment form in the basket provided at the meeting or mail to: Carrie Romero, Olsson Associates, 2111 South 67 Street, Suite 200, Omaha, NE 68106 Name: Street Address: City /State /Zip: Phone Number: E -mail Address: PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Papio- Missouri River NRD Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey — October 2009 )U Uert,Iur Alt- /t����l) C', # ;SON Nov Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and then turn in at tonight's meeting or mail to the address listed. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or No Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown ( Example) X X X Flooding X X Earthquake Tornado X x Landslide x Wildfire X Severe Winter/ Ice Storm X Severe Thunderstorm/ High Winds/ Li htnin /Hail Y X Drought X Dam Failure Levee Failure Agricultural Incidents — Livestock/Cro Other: Other: 7_ 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? (over) 3. After the presentation, what are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? II fJ t �1 f S ]a; M S�1rIk -' u1 �V A C1�r�l �f, I.���erU7d✓ �a✓ LU�'��/ �i�i�nl' Upt�l.���. �14ic��l✓1a n�l+�nc / 4. How did you hear about tonight's meeting? _ Flyer mailed to home Newspaper Phone Call Other: 5. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? 6. Other comments: Thank you for your comments! Please place your comment form in the basket provided at the meeting or mail to: Carrie Romero, Olsson Associates, 2111 South 67 Street, Suite 200, Omaha, NE 68106 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Name: 0_K o-1-a l�uni•� l - < C OL(i L� Street Address: _� (D3 N• T t Rd City /State /Zip: H ll ba y-A KI 1D S q Phone Number: H uZ - co 3 a - E -mail Address: cAal b acomaA Z Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and follow the submittal instructions at the bottom of page 2. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or No Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown ( Example) X X X Flood X k Earthquake Tornado Landslide Wildfire Severe Winter Storm Severe Summer Storm Drought Dam Failure Other: Other: 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? __/ / ' r 4, v Ye 'if en� 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? b z t-c h C 1Q0_v�_L.�o 5 /Cc h 1�'sh s�7 ,77� rou.k'°S 1 rye rnQ�r�.� Page 1 of 2 4. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? 5. Other comments: Thank you for your comments! Please email a completed copt of this form to cromero @oaconsulting.com or mail to Carrie Romero at Olsson Associates 12111 S. 67 Street I Suite 200 1 Omaha, NE 168106. Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Name: Street Address: City /State /Zip: Phone Number: E -mail Address: Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and follow the submittal instructions at the bottom of page 2. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or No Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown : Exam le X Flood Earthquake ?C Tornado Landslide Wildfire X Severe Winter Storm Severe Summer Storm x Drought Dam Failure 7� Other: Other: 77 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? Page 1 of 2 4. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? 5. Other comments: �L Thank you for your comments! Please email a completed cop't of this form to cromero @oaconsulting.com or mail to Carrie Romero at Olsson Associates 2111 S. 67 h Street I Suite 200 1 Omaha, NE 168106. Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Name: �afM6� Street Address: eGt'l[A-1' City /State /Zip: e ' i ud x W `C (� , i Phone Number: — LO✓Z_ q & l,t 0 � �I� � A�,5 E -mail Address: ' dk uboa ke-W• C�✓j� Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and follow the submittal instructions at the bottom of page 2. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or No Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown ( Example) X X X Flood Earthquake Tornado Landslide Wildfire Severe Winter Storm Severe Summer Storm Drought Dam Failure Other: Other: 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community?��� 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? g� wu� TAP- Page 1 of 2 4. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? 5. Other comments: Thank you for your comments! Please email a completed copy of this form to cromero @oaconsulting.com or mail to Carrie Romero at Olsson Associates 1 2111 S. 67 n Street I Suite 200 1 Omaha, NE 168106. Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORT Papio- Missouri River NRD Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey — October 2000., Name. Street Address: City /State /Zip: Phone Number: E -mail Address: �\� J A ry d no Nj 2009 )w S Vr ) ''r C\ U -• `7 Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and then turn in at tonight's meeting or mail to the address listed. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or No Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown ( Example) X X X Floodin Earthquake X 7 >1. Tornado k Landslide x Wildfire Severe Winter/ Ice Storm x Severe Thunderstorm/ High Winds/ Lightning/Hail Drought k x Dam Failure N1 x x Levee Failure X �X Agricultural Incidents — Livestock/Crop x Other: Other: 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? vh ho U4 (over) 3. After the presentation, what are the potential ,projects you'd like considered for your community? 4. How did you hear about tonight's meeting? _ Flyer mailed to home _ Newspaper _ Phone Call Other: 5. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? 6. Other comments: Thank you for your comments! Please place your comment form in the basket provided at the meeting or mail to: Carrie Romero, Olsson Associates, 2111 South 67 Street, Suite 200, Omaha, NE 68106 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Name: (h f L Q, Street Address: �ss.�� �&+ 64 ­ fV City /State /Zip: 6 � � 9 ( 8'` Phone Number: E -mail Address: !)L- ►Ae c� Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and follow the submittal instructions at the bottom of page 2. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or Na Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown ( Example) X X X Flood Earthquake Tornado Landslide K Wildfire Severe Winter Storm K Severe Summer Storm �( Drought Dam Failure Other: Other: 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding pq�sible hazards or isasters in your community? ,M(j(� 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? z t� Page 1 oft 4. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? 5. Other comments: Thank you for your comments! Please email a completed copt+ of this form to cromero @oaconsulting.com or mail to Carrie Romero at Olsson Associates 12111 S. 67 Street I Suite 200 1 Omaha, NE 168106. Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Name: Dan Freshman _ Community Representing: Cit of Ralston Street Address: 5500 S 77 St. - City /State /Zip: _ Ralston NE 68127 Phone Number: ( 402) 331-6677 Ext. 1310 E -mail Address: dfreshman @cityora sr o� n.com` Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and follow the submittal instructions at the bottom of page 2. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or No Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown ( Example) x x x Flooding x x x Earthquake x Tornado Landslide x Wildfire X Severe Winter/ Ice Storm X x X Severe Thunderstorm/ High Winds/ Lightning/Hail x x X Drought X X X Dam Failure x Levee Failure Agricultural Incidents - Livestock/Cro x Other: Other: 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? Four (High Risk) above. Page 1 of 2 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? BNSF railroad bridge to 72nd Street. Drainage and Erosion Control Project. 4. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? Not at this time. 5. Other comments: N/Z Thank you for your commentsl Please scan and email your comment form to cromero @oaconsulting.com or mail to: Carrie Romero, Olsson Associates, 2111 South 67` Street, Suite 200, Omaha, NE 68106 Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Papio- Missouri River NRD Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey — October 2009 Name: lYl;cln�� g�.�5 C;j� o� VU����i f1m�C Street Address: 6fol 5, 4S0 � A„t , City /State /Zip: dE a2 Phone Number: E -mail Address: �jU��.S vaite:i Ornli co k Mo.' co�m 9 Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and then turn in at toniglit's� meeting or mail to the address listed. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or No Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown ( Example). X X -_.x ..... Floodin Earthquake X Tornado �( Landslide X Wildfire k Severe Winter/ Ice Storm Severe Thunderstorm/ High Winds/ Lightning/Hail 1 � Drought k Dam Failure Levee Failure Agricultural Incidents — Livestock /Crop X x Other: Other: 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? I I1 + pi5ci5�2� Ct- ec��✓,� llr receive VPGQ.a( r d/ 5gc4� a,55,64c (over) 3. After the presentation, what community? Qu,k ,, y .PVWK(Jo, 5 �0 �PV1eV -40/ �v U p ffct 40✓ Ove✓ CdVAMV0 � C� k � Gl rec, bCACW are the potential projects you'd like considered for your tR PJC(e J -e (CV Iyt,o,� C, NC,II �,�d C( C I / Ip O fev e-6i92 aD c � - Yv ecti w� o✓l i! IIy 4. How did you hear about tonight's meeting? _ Flyer mailed to home Phone Call _ Newspaper k Other: -n }2r 46 5. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? �e ^� c .l �•�" le� Svvtall C'� COvtnNnKV, Y; a5 CoM V PCe1v<' •�� 6. Other comments: Thank you for your comments! Please place your comment form in the basket provided at the meeting or mail to: Carrie Romero, Olsson Associates, 2111 South 67 Street, Suite 200, Omaha, NE 68106 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Name: Nancy He Community Representing: Village of Waterloo Street Address: PO Bo 127, 509 S. Front Str City /State /zip: Waterloo, NE 68069 Phone Number: (402) 779 - 2292 E -mail Address: nhertwaterloo @aol.com Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and follow the submittal instructions at the bottom of page 2. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or No Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown Severe .Winter/ - Flooding x x Ice Storm x Earthquake x Severe Tornado x x x Landslide x Wildfire x Severe .Winter/ Ice Storm X X X Severe Thunderstorm/ High Winds/ x x X Lightning/Hall Drought . I . x x Darr! Failure x x Levee Failure x x Agricultural Incidents - X Livestock/Cro Other: Other: 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? > No public tornado shelter >Need to develop an early warning system to alert citizens, particularly the elderly and vulnerable of potential disasters, severe weather, flooding, etc. >Equipment/manpower needs - "small community "-"big disaster" Page 1 of 2 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? > Provide emergency tornado shelters for vulnerable citizens of the community_ >Improving drainage inside the levee /ditch clearing to avoid flooding >Implementation of an early warning /alert system >Need emergency power generation for critical facilities. 4. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? >Fundinglgrant opportunities >Ideas from other communities 5. Other comments: Thank you for your comments! Please scan and email your comment form to cromero @oaconsulting.com or mail to: Carrie Romero, Olsson Associates, 2111 South 67 Street, Suite 200, Omaha, NE 68106 Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Name: John M. Kottmann Community Representing: cit of La vista, Nebraska Street Address: 9900 Portal Road City /State /Zip: La vista, NE 68128_____ Phone Number: 4023318927 E-mail Address: jkottmannr7acityoflavista.org Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and follow the submittal instructions at the bottom of page 2. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or No Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown ( Example) x x x Flooding x x x Earthquake x x x Tornado x x x Landslide x x x Wildfire x x x Severe Winter/ Ice Storm X X X Severe Thunderstorm/ High Winds/ Lightning/Hail Drought x x x Dam Failure x x x Levee Failure x x x Agricultural Incidents — Livestock /Cro Other: Haz. Waste Spill X X X Other: 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? Flooding, tornado, ice storm and hazardous waste spill Page 1 of 2 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? Streambank stabilization, culvert upgrades, tornado shelters, emergency power, buried power 4. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? Do we have to have a natural disaster in order for funding of preventive measures to become available? Are there other potential funding sources? 5. Other comments: Thank you for your comments! Please scan and email your comment form to cromero @oaconsulting.com or mail to: Carrie Romero, Olsson Associates, 2111 South 67 Street, Suite 200, Omaha, NE 68106 Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Name: John M. Kottmann Community Representing: cit of La vista, Nebraska Street Address: 9900 Portal Road City /State /Zip: La vista, NE 68128_____ Phone Number: 4023318927 E-mail Address: jkottmannr7acityoflavista.org Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and follow the submittal instructions at the bottom of page 2. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or No Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown ( Example) x x x Flooding x x x Earthquake x x x Tornado x x x Landslide x x x Wildfire x x x Severe Winter/ Ice Storm X X X Severe Thunderstorm/ High Winds/ Lightning/Hail Drought x x x Dam Failure x x x Levee Failure x x x Agricultural Incidents — Livestock /Cro Other: Haz. Waste Spill X X X Other: 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? Flooding, tornado, ice storm and hazardous waste spill Page 1 of 2 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? Streambank stabilization, culvert upgrades, tornado shelters, emergency power, buried power 4. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? Do we have to have a natural disaster in order for funding of preventive measures to become available? Are there other potential funding sources? 5. Other comments: Thank you for your comments! Please scan and email your comment form to cromero @oaconsulting.com or mail to: Carrie Romero, Olsson Associates, 2111 South 67 Street, Suite 200, Omaha, NE 68106 Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Name: John M. Kottmann Community Representing: cit of La vista, Nebraska Street Address: 9900 Portal Road City /State /Zip: La vista, NE 68128_____ Phone Number: 4023318927 E-mail Address: jkottmannr7acityoflavista.org Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and follow the submittal instructions at the bottom of page 2. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or No Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown ( Example) x x x Flooding x x x Earthquake x x x Tornado x x x Landslide x x x Wildfire x x x Severe Winter/ Ice Storm X X X Severe Thunderstorm/ High Winds/ Lightning/Hail X X X Drought x x x Dam Failure x x x Levee Failure x x x Agricultural Incidents — Livestock/Cro X X X Other: Haz. Waste Spill X X X Other: 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? Flooding, tornado, ice storm and hazardous waste spill Page 1 of 2 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? Streambank stabilization, culvert upgrades, tornado shelters, emergency power, buried power 4. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? Do we have to have a natural disaster in order for funding of preventive measures to become available? Are there other potential funding sources? 5. Other comments: Thank you for your comments! Please scan and email your comment form to cromero @oaconsulting.com or mail to: Carrie Romero, Olsson Associates, 2111 South 67 Street, Suite 200, Omaha, NE 68106 Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Name: Street Address: City /State /Zip: Phone Number: E -mail Address: Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and follow the submittal instructions at the bottom of page 2. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or No Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown ( Example) X X X Flood 3C X Earthquake Tornado Landslide Wildfire Severe Winter Storm X x Severe Summer Storm X X x Drought Dam Failure Other: Other: T 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? r obi re a dow tvp a c-\ a�� . �2�h C bYz 3. What are t potential projects ou'd like considered fo your community? 5 k(, G " - For rn0'6o V\)Q-0.J� Ro'&c> Page 1 of 2 MUN _ •� ` • �_ • 4. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? M 5. Other comments: N�\ Thank you for your comments! Please email a completed copy of this form to cromero @oaconsulting.com or mail to Carrie Romero at Olsson Associates 12111 S. 67 h Street I Suite 200 1 Omaha, NE 168106. Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Name: Street Address: City /State /Zip: Phone Number: E -mail Address W Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and follow the submittal instructions at the bottom of page 2. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or No Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown ( Example) X X X Flood v ,/ Earthquake ✓ ✓ Tornado ✓ Landslide ✓ ,j Wildfire ✓ V Severe Winter Storm ✓ ✓ Severe Summer Storm ✓ ✓ Drought �✓ ✓ Dam Failure ✓ Other: Other: 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? Page 1 of 2 V i I l arhe C k\)# titi 1l e kVYkA--e,1.11 e�I' 4. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? 5. Other comments: Thank you for your comments! Please email a completed copy of this form to cromero @oaconsulting.com or mail to Carrie Romero at Olsson Associates 12111 S. 67 Street I Suite 200 1 Omaha, NE 168106. Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Name: CITY OF FORT C Street Address: 11 SOUTH 14TH STREET City /State /Zip: FORT CALHOUN, NE 68023 _ Phone Number: 402 -468 -5303 E -mail Address: ftc alhounctyhall ,huntel.net Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and follow the submittal instructions at the bottom of page 2. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? LOSS OF WATER SUPPLY - SINGLE SOURCE BACKUP - STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM HIGHLANDS WEST OF THE CITY 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? STORMWATER DETENTION CELL ON MAJOR UPLAND BASIN THAT IMPACTS TOWN CENTER COMMUNITY BUILDING WITH STORM SHELTER COMPONENTS CULVERT UPGRADES AND STORM SEWERS ESTABLISHMENT OF SNOW ROUTES Page 1 of 2 Likely to Risk Vulnerability Hazard Types Experience? (High, Medium, Low) (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes or No Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown Ago Flood X X X Earthquake X X X Tornado X X X Landslide X X X Wildfire X X X Severe Winter X X X Storm Severe Summer X X X Storm , Drought X X X Dam Failure X X Other: Other: 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? LOSS OF WATER SUPPLY - SINGLE SOURCE BACKUP - STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM HIGHLANDS WEST OF THE CITY 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? STORMWATER DETENTION CELL ON MAJOR UPLAND BASIN THAT IMPACTS TOWN CENTER COMMUNITY BUILDING WITH STORM SHELTER COMPONENTS CULVERT UPGRADES AND STORM SEWERS ESTABLISHMENT OF SNOW ROUTES Page 1 of 2 4, Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? 5. Other comments: BURYING OF POWER LINES THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY, NEW AREAS ARE DEVELOPED THAT WAY, BUT THE OLDER PARTS OF THE CITY HAVE POWER LINES AND BIG TREES. Thank you for your commentsl Please email a completed copy of this form to cromero@oaconsulting.com or mail to Carrie Romero at Olsson Associates 12111 S, 67" Street I Suite 200 1 Omaha, NE 168106. Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Name: Bellevue Public Schools — Dr. Doug Townsend Street Address: 1600 Highway 370 City /State /Zip: 'Re11 ev„e, Nebraska 69M5 Phone Number: 402 - 293 -4012 (office) 402 - 290 -4557 (cell) E -mail Address: dntdnug@hotmai l , coin Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and follow the submittal instructions at the bottom of page 2. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or No Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown ( Example) X X X Flood X X I X Earthquake X X X Tornado X X X Landslide X Wildfire X Severe Winter Storm X X X Severe Summer Storm X X X Drought X Dam Failure Other: Other: 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? Severe summer storms... Tornado's...Strong winds ... Hail Severe winter storms... Blizzards... Ice Storms Terroristic Activity... Mainly due to the presence of Offutt Air Force Base 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? Building back —up generators... weather radios ... safe house /room shelters Page 1 of 2 J U L 2 6 2010 4. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? 5. Other comments: Thank you for your comments! Please email a completed copy of this form to cromero @oaconsulting.com or mail to Carrie Romero at Olsson Associates 12111 S. 67 h Street I Suite 200 1 Omaha, NE 168106. Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Name: Thomas Becker, Superintendent Community Representing: Emerson - Hubbard Community Schools Street Address: 109 West 3rd Street City /State /Zip: Phone Number: Emerson, NE 68733 402 - 695 -2621 E-mail Address: tbecker@esul.org Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and follow the submittal instructions at the bottom of page 2. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or No Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No Hi h Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown ( Example) x x x Flooding x x x Earthquake x x I x Tornado x I x x Landslide x x x Wildfire x x X x Severe Winter/ Ice Storm X X Severe Thunderstorm/ High Winds/ Lightning/Hail X X X Drought x x I x Dam Failure x x x Levee Failure x x x Agricultural Incidents — Livestock /Cro Other: Other: 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? Our biggest concern comes from tornado damage, high winds, and severe winters. These hazards can cause the district considerable costs if they occur. Page 1 of 2 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? - Emergency power generation - School safe rooms - this may be difficult due to our facilities. 4. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? 5. Other comments: Thank you for your comments! Please scan and email your comment form to cromero@oaconsulting.com or mail to: Carrie Romero, Olsson Associates, 2111 South 67 Street, Suite 200, Omaha, NE 68106 Page 2of2 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Name: Papillion -La Vista Public Schools Dougl.ewis Community Representing: Papillionand Layista Street Address: 420 S. Washington St City /State /Zip: Phone Number: Papillion, NE 68046 (402)537.6246 E-mail Address: diewis @paplv.org Please answer as (many of these questions as you wish and follow the submittal instructions at the bottom of page 2. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? 2: What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? ii__ 5`cbY' tJ� i n� r � 'fiQy^ �^S G+ w K� 5tnrr r" - �r' a• , 5 , 4r S /5 .. if"�i 31 �r^ca per Lf roc +r, -� `�c '� bit. j h c vc i oss Of Chi m r�­' L'YYN � Gr r' 0Y% . Page 1 of 2 Likely to Risk Vulnerability Hazard Types Experience? (High, Medium, Low) (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes or No Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown m I .. Flooding x Earthquake X X Tornado X X X Landslide X X Wildfire X X Severe Winter/ Ice Storm X X X Severe Thunderstorm/ High Winds/ X X X Lightning/Hail Drou ht x X Dam Failure X X Levee Failure X X Agricultural Incidents — X X Livestock/Cro Other: Other: 2: What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? ii__ 5`cbY' tJ� i n� r � 'fiQy^ �^S G+ w K� 5tnrr r" - �r' a• , 5 , 4r S /5 .. if"�i 31 �r^ca per Lf roc +r, -� `�c '� bit. j h c vc i oss Of Chi m r�­' L'YYN � Gr r' 0Y% . Page 1 of 2 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? g W er, - e Rc14 o blAi Wc 4'0 pr o v0e , G�c vozr.c j 4. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? 5. Other comments: Thank you for your comments! Please scan and email your comment form to cromero @oaconsulting.com or mail to: Carrie Romero, Olsson Associates, 2111 South 67'" Street, Suite 200, Omaha, NE 68106 Page 2of2 Name: Street Address: City /State /Zip: Phone Number: E -mail Address: PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey /fi u I n /Ve la n - r eofm 1 /, -e7ai1 C6 rnmug�/y Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and follow the submittal instructions at the bottom of page 2. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or No Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown ( Example) X X X Flood Earthquake >C Tornado Landslide Wildfire Severe Winter Storm Severe Summer Storm x Drought Dam Failure X Other. - R o a /If c X >( x Other: 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in yo r community? 7`/7e tt �✓Gic7< a; / �6 , J'�l L!/Ov� /� �� / "e,/'7 nc e ?v rc aV,re -rye- r7a r:r�f c uvt /� Gqu ✓� rrn�,/ - air eIVW rr/ /Wi /y r� chfl e - � y'h de e ✓a o - i��i�r���✓ 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? We �Ie/e Ra a 12 / . LAI aR/I /� / r i /,Per//' o14/61 -el v /1 ✓�i cicP ee/ w o r J'h !G�`e c,-✓', ' 7 , / rE ��7�C i�'✓c CO r/7 lj7 u i7ill� W vt /d( f e i I,, �c r c., /> a a / I re Page 1 of 2 4. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? /Vv 7` '!'a RG - 5. Other comments: p r7 0 �l G / /Ja/� ��! c °` /'/lC✓y� ' �p /7l IZZ l l �/1 Aa, ro )eC -/ Tree e X7 c! 7 IM f' h e / /z' �l el 12 ✓'e,-i , � .�d o �/✓ a R e of // oz fv � c- h U v � v� /✓ ,�Y! c 7` �!/1 / /G�i/l�ri� f/e /! /Gle✓ -e 1 . rI � j 7�/J X -e x e ve � /'D / C—' �1� � �^ e G/IC'✓', /' Thank you for your comments! Please email a completed copy of this form to cromero @oaconsulting.com or mail to Carrie Romero at Olsson Associates 12111 S. 67 Street I Suite 200 1 Omaha, NE 168106. Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM(a) Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Name: M etropolitan Community College attn: David Friend $ ` Street Address: 5730 N. 30 City /State /Zip: O maha, NE 68111 Phone Number: 457 -2770 E -mail Address: djfriend @mccneb.edu Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and follow the submittal instructions at the bottom of page 2. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? Hazard Types Likely to Experience? Yes or No Risk (High, Medium, Low) Vulnerability (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown ( Example) X X X Flood X Earthquake X Tornado X X X Landslide X Wildfire X Severe Winter Storm X X X Severe Summer Storm X X X Drought X Dam Failure X Other: Other: 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? Tornado 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? Unknown Page 1 of 2 4. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? 5. Other comments: Thank you for your comments! Please email a completed copy of this form to cromero @oaconsulting.com or mail to Carrie Romero at Olsson Associates 12111 S. 67 Street I Suite 200 1 Omaha, NE 168106. Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey Name: Ken L. Hansen Street Address: Business Service Center - 987100 City /State /zip: Omaha, Nebra 6 8198 -7100 - -- - -- Phone Number: Business 402- 559 - 5301 Cell 402 -630 -9381 E -mail Address: hansenkl unmc.edu Please answer as many of these questions as you wish and follow the submittal instructions at the bottom of page 2. 1. The following chart lists many possible hazards. How likely is each in your community? 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? The Nebraska Medical Center is a regional trauma center and a member of the National Disaster Medical System. Remaining operational during local and national disasters is critical to the operation of the facility. Biggest concerns are losing power and access. 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? 1. Address the flooding on Saddle Creek Road to resolve safety and access concerns. 2. Installation of a mass alert system within the campus and hospital to improve reliability of response during a local or national incident. 3. Installation of additional backup power generation of the normal power system to ensure the facility is operational during a local or national disaster. Page 1 of 2 Likely to Risk Vulnerability Hazard Types Experience? (High, Medium, Low) (Severe, Limited, None, Unknown) (Yes or No) Yes No High Medium Low Severe Limited None Unknown __- � ;... ='_ t 7 _;:= X�'�- yz w �: ~:,�� =F "_ ��. Flood X X I Xx Earthquake Tornado Landslide Wildfire Severe Winter Storm Severe Summer Storm Drought Dam Failure Other: X X X Campus Alert Sir Other: K X X Normal Power Lo 2. What is /are your biggest concern(s) regarding possible hazards or disasters in your community? The Nebraska Medical Center is a regional trauma center and a member of the National Disaster Medical System. Remaining operational during local and national disasters is critical to the operation of the facility. Biggest concerns are losing power and access. 3. What are the potential projects you'd like considered for your community? 1. Address the flooding on Saddle Creek Road to resolve safety and access concerns. 2. Installation of a mass alert system within the campus and hospital to improve reliability of response during a local or national incident. 3. Installation of additional backup power generation of the normal power system to ensure the facility is operational during a local or national disaster. Page 1 of 2 4. Is there any additional information we can provide about this project? If so, what? The status of the project to map the Saddle Creek watershed. 5. Other comments: Some preliminary investigation of the Saddle Creek Road transportation and flooding concerns were completed in 2009 as part of a Federal Highway Feasibility Study. The facilities also house the Nebraska Medical Center's Biocontainment Unit - a 10 bed inpatient unit set up to handle highly contagious and deadly infectious conditions. The State of Nebraska Public Health Laboratory and the Douglas County forensic testing laboratory and facilities that house medication, ventilators, radiation portals and radiation treatment. Thank you for your comments! Please email a completed copy of this form to cromero @oaconsulting.com or mail to Carrie Romero at Olsson Associates 12111 S. 67`' Street I Suite 200 1 Omaha, NE 168106. Page 2 of 2 STAPLEE EVALUATION FORMS STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity P -MRNRD STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments 5 T A P L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Political) (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) ssouR���G� a� aMI a ° N o ., o v s & a v N 3 m ■��II m o o v L Z u ° Y_ c < u o w 3 a r z < y LL v E o n o L v a o « — c a 3 c 3 �^ ri T E 2' < m a o ¢ v w x E gfSOURC� V u < c _ G o o N `- v E u - - ° M ° u u Y o � � � u w 1. u i Example: Back -up generator Village, County, USDA Community Facilities $50,000 Loans and Grants H M H H H H H H M M H H H M H H H M N N N H H 2 Drainage Studies $50,000+ Clues, Villages, Counties, Drainage Districts H H H M M H H H H H H N N N H H M H N N N N N 3 Floodplain Buyouts $50,000+ Cities, Villages, Counties M M H H M H H H H H M H H N H H H H H N N H H 4 Channel Improvements $100,000+ Cities, Villages, Counties, Drainage Districts H H H H M H H H H H H H H N H H M M H N N H H 5 Flood Warning System Upgrades $50,000+ Cities, Counties H H H H H H H H H H H N H N H H H H N N N H N 6 Bridge Raises $500,000+ Cities, Counties, Villages, Department of Roads H M H H M H M H H H H H H H H M M M H H H H H 7 Elevation of Structures In the Floodplain $20,000+ Cities, Villages, Counties M L H M H H M M M M M H H M L M L H M H H M M S Tree Mitigation Plan $100,000+ Cities, Villages, Counties I H I H I H I H I H I H I M IM I H I H I H I N H H H H H H H H H H H STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity BURT COUNTY& WASHINGTON COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT aka: REGION 5/6 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments s T A L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Political) (L.gal` (Economic) (Environmental) 4�Q`p�A1550U/� o o o N - E — o L s 76 c w Y 3 oo 0 E w ' m O o o ¢ _ o w m i' o J '° W �9f E c o E m ¢ m c m ,. o o ¢ o 0 0 E Do h S R fSG� E s m o a' v o V 0 V OUR w LL a a - w a o o o � w w w w 1 Example: Back -up generator $50,000 Village, County, USDA Community Facilities H M H H H H H H M M H h H M H H H M N N N H H Loans and Grants 2 Increase Public awareness of tornado, high wind & flood mitigaiton actions $10,000 All Burt & Washington County citizens H H H H H H H H H High H H H H L H H H M N N M N H 3 Complete Flood Mitigation and watershed study for the Bell Creek $35,000 Arlington and Washington Counties H H H H H H H H H High H H H N L H H M H H N N H H 4 5. Provide adequate emergency notification system for severve weather and othe disaster notificaiton $200,000 All Burt & Washington County citizens H H H H H H H H H H H H H H L H H N N N H N N 6 Establsih safe /Evacuation routes $20,000 City of Blair, Fort Calhoun & Kennard and Washington County H H H IH _ H H H H H H H H L H H M M N IN N N IN 7 Emergency power generation for critical facilities $ tbd UPON SURVEY RESULTS: EST, $100,000 Where identified within Burt & Washington County H H H H L H H H M H M MediL N N L H H L H N N N N N 8 STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity urt L UJY y � kn; I k 8", �� �� N�� Su «J'A, 4 STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments 5 T A P L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Political) (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) SSW) R��' °F N ;aL N u Y N E - o c G a' o w c m 3 r LL 2. o o k OUR F o o o °� v u o' u w u i Example: Back -up generator $50,000 Village, County, a Community Facilities H M H H H H H H M M H H H M H H H M N N N H H Loans ns an d Grants Z Lhyn �� hw..tt Hrcc 4 C na �� 4, NRd it 14 N H l+ 4 N �'�ac.vnc 3 GIs mHpp;�� N M H NI 1N 10 W H 1f !j N N 4 U� 6Gtt t��acdP�u� n H 14 H >♦ n H IAnI`n tliV n 5 6 7 8 STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity fl cu �, �, I �a t �r STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments 5 T A P L E E (Social) (Technical) (Admi (Political) (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) �MISSOUR� 7i n a ° •�• o w u ° o 3 m a r v _ = a a I L Q 9 J o .Q J o w 0 = o �� 3 fSOURGF E o o o m 9 — o u N o c u o' w u u i Example: Back -up generator $50,000 Village, Coun A C Facilities H M H H H H H H M M H H H M H H H M N N N H H Loans arants Loans and Grants z ❑lx GK,nP S Cner41'o+ Ni N ti N U I+ M !J h N h IJ �3v.oec rr B Slai m Stir ��cr lsf I J 1+ I+ l{ N 1} N N N N N I+ d }{ !I ){ FF FI N Ill H 0 I //�� 1 �. I 25.O y ll 4 LA i'16ct�f IAA 11 mops "s, 066 5L` ! ` ' —el maln![nG nC C( Vi IIGL1t �VVU...fy I� R f' Jl 'I 17 ,I IV �f M If 14 1 !I I IT ,.A S'lu6;li Cl— Cr« k tie,aea e U Prub6» ll (A"J A" A Id- ll� � eb, 7 8 STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity _F Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Potential Cost Comments H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable s (Social) T (Technical) A (Administrative) p (Political) L (Legal) E (Economic) E (Environmental) S£3!l�,p�� o o lo o '& Y ° m E LD 2 0 E 01 U 0 r ° v a ° o m v U O u w u 1 Example: Back -up generator $50,000 Village, County, USDA Community Facilities H M H H H H H H M M H H H M H H H M N N N H H Loans and Grants co P1 P 1 ' Y� o eon boo 4 H �Yq 14 P, 6 7 8 STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity 7E a W it `, STAPLEE Cri ria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments S T A P L E E (social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Political) (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) ',ssoUR� o V v o N o ` �' �°1 3 E a t o a a o �_ 3 00 , ' E - a °° w R � fs G o r m o - _ Y _ — - _ _ v o Y s 8w OUR o o o' Example: Back -up generator $50,000 Village, County, s Community Facilities M H H H H H H M V! M H H H M H H H M N N N H H Loans and Grants ? "c�scSZ�cRS N�Zs'J, JiP,c� k4�= ��U,aoa � M N � N H � ►� (�� � N �! � {�� N K H Nr � N N N � a 5LfY8� �1RYL:AN T')&. 5 lssr+�M�.Ni� 7 8 STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity =" 6' d t STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments s T A L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Political) (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) 0 dj� N °° o cv ° c m J u a o > o a E o v o m .S, (7 3 r 3 > N o @ o c c y cn. m o a m ii °�' a o c « a @ w 0 w 0 ¢ x o c E - t°1 °° u _ _ _ N !? V H O o d g O O ° m V U O w U w U 1 Example: Back -up generator $50,000 Village, County, USDA Community Facilities H M H H H H H H M M H H H M H H H M N N N H H Loans d and z SJf n('vl'S "} Y P 16 Ctc�1+"1 J� w r 1I �T �1 j� �( (Yl I� l jA 4'1 3 p r�t'l�lh° " WA, � � ,1, � � 1- }-� ►N1 1� 1. � l ��" l� � � '1Y ,\ ,�- 4 5 6 7 8 STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity I s. h Sioux City; Joe Johnson STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments s T A L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (political) (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) M550U/��� /GF o o V - N - E - ,. o o L° Y o c - w Y 3 0 0 E w ' ° m e o o ¢ — ° $ m 3 en a L v v ' t' o o 1 2 J 12 W �9f c o E m ¢ m c m ,. o o ¢ o 0 0 E Do h S R fSOURG� s m o G — a' v o 0 w LL a - a - w a o w w w w 1 Emergency Power Generation for critical facilities $300,000 City, PMRNRD, Dakota County, FEMA Local, state and federal funds H H H H H H M H M M H H H L H H H H L L L L 2 Update 100 year and 500 year Floodplain Map $50,000 City, PMRNRD, Dakota County, FEMA Local, state and federal funds H H H H H H M H H H M H H L H H H L N N N N N 3 Identify, designate, and publicize the locations of tornado shelters $30,000 City, PMRNRD, Dakota County, FEMA Local, state and federal funds H H H H H H M H M M M M M L H H H M N N N 4 N 4 Develop an urban tree management plan and hire tree service Prim to provide service City, PMRNRD, Dakota County, FEMA Annual Cost $20,000 Local, state and federal funds H H H H H H M H L L M M M L H H H M N L N L L 5 Assess storm shelter locations and provide emergency shelters to vulnerable populations City, PMRNRD, Dakota County, FEMA $15,000 Local, state and federal funds H H H H H H M H M M M H H L H H H M N N N N N 6 Assess current severe weather warning system and provide adequate warning for severe City, PMRNRD, Dakota County, FEMA weather as needed. Use City Local, state and federal funds H H H H H H M H M M M H H L H H H M N N N V N Fiber network to notify citizens of warnings. $30,000 7 Purchase and use an anti hail device /cannon to protect community from hail storms City, PMRNRD, Dakota County, FEMA $150,000 Local, state and federal funds L M M M H H M H L L M H H M H H H H N M N N N 8 Maintain good standing in the Nationa Flood Insurance Program $0.00 City, PMRNRD, Dakota County, FEMA Local, state and federal funds H H H H H H M H H H H L L L H H H L N N N N N STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity Douglas County STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments s T A P L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Political) (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) 1SSO 4 0 _ - o s `o 01 0 v 3 E —' 1W Z w 5 u oL o t; 0 0 a u o u, �° 3 '° < 0 s s 0 um o F v 3 ¢ J°q ° a P 0 0 o E V _ o w o v _ N o s RfSoURGF- E 3 r nu - 0 � o s s s 8 w o 1 Example: Back -up generator $50 Village, County, USDA Community Facilities H M H H H H H H M M H H H M H H H M N N N H H Loans and Grants Burial of power supply to outdoor Douglas County H L H M L M H H H i H H N H H H H H N N H H warning sirens $100,000 Remote monitoring and warning Douglas County H L H H L N M H H H H H H L H H H H H N N H H unit $85,000 4 5 6 7 8 STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity 7.tymh STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments s T A L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Political) (Leg,') (Economic) (Environmental) MSSOU/��� /GF o o V - N - E - ,. o - o L° Y o c - w Y 3 0 0 o ,. ° e o $ m 3 en a L v �9f o m m c o 0 0 Do h E s o a' v o 0 S R fSO U RG� m — - 8 o w i Example: Back -up generator $50000 Village, County, USDA Community Facilities H M H H H H H H M M H H H M H H H M N N N H H Loans and Grants Complete inventory of vulnerable Nebraska DNR, Nebraska Emergency structures in Omaha - Cost Management Agency, Hazard Mitigation Unknown Grant Program (HMGP) H L H N. L M M M M. M M H M N/A M M M M N/A N/A N/A M H Mitigate repetitive loss Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), properties through voluntary City Of Omaha, Douglas County Emergency acquisition, elevation, etc. - Cost Management, Nebraska Emergency Unknown Management Agency H H M H M H L M H M M H M N/A H H M H H L N/A H H Continue maintenance and enforcement of the stormwater City of Omaha, PMR -N RD management ordinance H M H H H M H M M M M H H N/A H M M L H L N/A H H Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Identify, designate and publicize City Of Omaha, Douglas County Emergency tornado shelters - Cost Unknown Management, Nebraska Emergency Management Agency H L H H M M M M H M M H M N/A H M M M L L N/A H H Develop an urban tree management program including City of Omaha, Douglas County, Nebraska a comprehensive inventory-Cost Forest Service, Nebraska Emergency Unknown Management Agency H L M K. M M M M M M M H M N/A M M M L L N/A N/A M H City of Omaha, Douglas County, Public Initiate a power line burying Power District, Nebraska Emergency project - Cost Unknown Management Agency H L M M M M M M M M M H M N/A M M M L L L N/A M H Ensure adequate severe weather notifications to critical facilities City of Omaha, Douglas County Emergency by purchasing weather radios - Management, Local Businesses, Nebraska $50/radio Emergency Management Agency H L M H M M L L M M M H M N/A H M M F. L N/A N/A H H w n t3j d 3 .- - 0 0 n �i $$ O n 7 qQ a �:j 0 0) M - r - (� N. 5 m Il I- 7 a O > a .�tti P Q s C t n R U 3 A a m d TO 0 b o Z 3 H W " � r � m Z a m fo x Community Acceptance _ r m 9 Effect on Segment of Population x x Technically Feasible �+ x Long -Term Solution ? -1 t-I x Wcondarvimpacts ftj 1 x Stalling I^� a N X Funding Alfocatlon xi y a x Maintenance/ Operations Z � x 9 Political Support w s n 9 Laeal Champlon 0 x A rt L _ x R 3 �0 X Public Support m E . 3 1 z z State Authority 0 x X Existing Local Authority 0 k-I 9 Potential Legal Challenge H Z X Benefit of Action z lip x x Cost of Actfpn — a $ Si 0 M IF z Contriboiesto Economic Goals 3 m Outside Funding Required x+ z Effect on Land/ Water Z z Met on Endangered Species m K a Effect on HAZMAT/ Waste Sites m ►� r Consistent with Community = Environmental Goofs �+ x l Consistent with Federal Laws STAPLEE ACFION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity City of Valley STAPLEE Criteria Cortskkratloits Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium LLow N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments s T A P L E E (Soc40 (Technical) (Administrati-) (P°IiHnl) (Lapq (Ec°n°mic) (Envimnmantal) �a�s�ou�r $ A d n E E N 3 E E 9 E 0 5 .' 9 3 « � E ° H °° H B u 6 3 e d o a ' e o 0 0 &„ e o > o o Ex pia: Back -up pneratnr $SOA00 VII4ya, Coumy, USDA Community as Fecilltl H M H H H H H H M M H H H M H H N M N N N H H loanaend Gram. 2 City, Loans, Grants and H L H H H H M H H H H H H N H H H H r N N H H Street Storm Water NRD Imp 5 0 City, Loans, Grants, FEMA, H M H H H H L H H H H H H N H H H H N N H H Gardiner St. Lift Stap1 and NEMA T 3� City, Grants and FEMA H L H H H H M L H H H H H L H M H M { N N H H Drainage Improveme L 1 t 5 City, Grants, FEMA, NEMA H M H H H H M H H H M H H N H M M H N N H H Back -Up Generators and Loans l City, Grants, Loans, FEMA M L H H H H L H H H M H H N H L M H N N N M Storm Shelters and NEMA 7 City, County, Grants, Loans H L H H H M L L M H M L N M H L H L L N H H Remove Flow Constr and Property Owners B City, Loans and Grants H N H H H H M H M M L L H N M L L L I N N M H Grade Control sewer l;4 bAA% l0 0 STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity City of Valley STAPLEE Criteria Consideration Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources / H Nit M Medium LLow N Not Applicable Potentlal Cost Comments s r A P L E E (SocuQ (TschnL.1) (Adminixtrativa) (Political) (Lapl) (Economic) (Environmental) McssQU,�� o y A y 6 _ E c ei 3 _ E q y - 9 LL E LL ° .Q �$Q 4yLiC 6 & o b ° 19 a tt 1 Example: Back -up generator 5501000 Villap, county, USDA community Facilities H M H H H H H H M M H H H M H H H M N N N H H Loans and Garda Z City, County, Grants FEMA, H N H H H H L L M M H L L N H M L H M N N L N Reverse 911 and NEMA a City, Grant & Loans M N H H H H L L M M M M H N M L M L L N N H H Fuel Tank Anchoring a s 6 7 8 STAPLES ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & En t ity Villa e: of Waterloo, Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ STAPLE.E Criteria Considerations Potential Cost :: .. Comments H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable {sonall. (Technical} (Administrative) (Political) (Lega 1 ) : (Economic (environmental) �aR�S°uf]Llf `o 3 ;e" k(Ea aY "'0 o 2 u E. — N E Z_° >casi.e a 0 O o v N Q m H E o ' 1•: o q a c 9 c F , t c 5 °�' 1 O W U w U E.ample4 Back -up generator $50,000 V€41age, Cou nsnA C Pacil dies boan and G rants Loan H M R H H H H H M M H H H M H H H M N N N H H 2 M L H H L M M M H M H M H L H L H L N N N N N Maintain NFIP standil LA 3 H N L H H M L M M L H L L L H H M M N N N N N Tornado shelters a Cost share new levee with H N H H L H H H H H H M M M H H H H M L N M H Maintain levee NRD s H N H H L H M H H M H L H L H M M H M N N M H Improve interior drain 6 H N L H H M L L M M H L L M H M M M N N N L L Early alert system 7 H N H H L H M H M L H L H L H H H M H N N H H Maintain watersuppl) s H N H H L H L M H L M L H L H M H H N N N N N Emergency power 5TAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name &Entity Village-of Waterloo Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ 5TAPLEE Criteria Considerations . Potential Cost: Comments ' H High M Mediurn LLow N Not Applicable (5 ST W11 (Technical) {pdministrative) p . p . (Political) (legal] (EctlnOmlc) E (Enaironmental) E n ew t v Fe:eF N 93.1E :a3 V` ei �i a eY ��.<, `33S ll' W o R p a Y, 12 'S a a ¢ S c v E c o m g 6 ]4R`d O L �` 1 A v Example: Back -up generator $50,006 Village, County, USDA Community Facilities H M H H H H H Loansand Grants H M M H H H M H H H M N N N H H 2 Improve disaster recovery H N M M H L M M L L H L L L H M M M L N N L see next column time & effectiveness N 3 A 5 6 7 S STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity Sarpy County STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments s T A P L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Politica. (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) ssou * .44Y Cpb eQ�� p � G F` 10 a A E 'r a u o o r E z ¢ cJ 0 1W _ 1W T mu 1W U - 6 u u o' U w 14 INCH Capacity Brush Chipper Sarpy County Highway Department, Brush $33,000 Chipper, would be used for debriscleanup during and after high wind storm events. Also will be utilized as the impending Ash H L M M L H M M M M M N N N H L H M L L H H L Beetle takes it toll on the Ash Tree population. Emergency Backup Power- Sarpy County, Sarpy County EMA, Sarpy Generator - $35,000 County Fleet Services - Support Critical Infrastructure, County Highway H L H I L H M M H H H N N F K H P7 N N N M N Department Gretna Facility. Will support Command Operations for Sarpy County Solar Powered Portable Message Sarpy County Highway Department, Board Communities, Sheriffs' Department, NRD, $14,000 Emergency Management. Message Board will be utilized to alert the public for road H L L N I H N M M M M N N - H M N M N N N P N closures, road detours, traffic management for Law Enforcement and Emergency Management in support of Emergency Backup Power- Sarpy County, Sarpy County EMA, Sarpy Generator - $75,000 County Fleet Services- Support to Critical Infrastructure /Key Resources. (Example) H L H I L H M M H H N N ' F' M H M N N N M N Sarpy County EOC /E911 Center, Fleet Maintenance 6 7 8 STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: City of Bellevue STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments 5 T A P L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Political) (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) 0 \T Y 0A — 1 . _ a° ° Y 0 `v ..o o. v E 9 .5 1 p o o Y Q u Y Y a o r <> LL d1F'r a e L' �n > �, a N Y o — o v w x Ew �E NE — Y v `c Y 9 ° ° ° — Y u ° ° ° ° m u u 0' u w u 1. Backup Generator for City, School District /Loans, Grants, Budget H M H H H H H H H H M I - L H H H H N N N u H Emergency Shelter/$79,200 2. Safe House Shelter at Softball City /Budget and Grants H M H F' f' H H H I H M H H L H H H H N N N I H Complex / $400,000 3. Safe House Shelter for City /Budget and Grants H M H F. H H H H H H M H H L H H H H N N N H H Haworth Park/ $400,000 4 5 6 7 STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity City of Gretna STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments s T A P L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Po cal) gr (Economic) (Environmental) # #{ okssOURj _ v * * 1 COQ #« Quo '��- - u - i7i Q E c° _ u a' _ — v _ _ Emergency Backup Power- City of Gretna Water Department, would Generator - $35,000 be used for backup power due to loss of power at water tower location. Water tower is also the location for Emergency H L H H L H M H H H H N H L H H H M H N N H N Service Radio System SCADA System for Centralized computer control system Water /Wastewater System which monitors and controls critical $50,000. utilities /infrastructure components H L H H L H H H H H H H H L H H H M H H H H N Warning Sirens $45,000. City of Gretna needsto supplement their warning sirens in place but due to the location. There is a portion of the cities jurisdiction that is not adequately H L H M M H M M M M M N M L H f 9 I M N N 'I M N covered. Storm Shelters /Safe Houses Incorporate a safe house in the $150,000. construction of con cession /restroom /storage facility at H L H H L H H M H H H N H H H I M N N N H N the new City Sports Complex or an existing city park. Weather Radios Implement a new program to assure that all schools, medical facilities, assisted living, nursing homes, etc are furnished H L H N H M M M M M 7 H M M M N N N L N with a weather radio for use during severe weather and emergencies. Drainage Improvements Continue to work towards a solution for $500,000. improved storm water /drainage improvementsfor properties downstream H L H L L 'd L L L L N M L H L L M `4 L L N of development 7 8 STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity JOHN KOTTMANN, CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF LA VISTA, NEBRASKA STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments s T A P L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Political) (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) ISSOUR /�'G�A o N c o o v V F a o t 5 u 3 c a n ° v = w E w E Z o ¢ c Y a' c o a `o 0 0 O�5 q�souR�ti E o r _ — w o — w v - s o w s Channel maintenance and bank stabilizations $3,000,000 City of La Vista, Papio- Missouri River NRD, H M H H M M L H H M M H H L H H N H H N N H H and Nebraska Environmental. Trust Identiy, designate and publicize tornado shelters $S0 City of La Vista, Sarpy County, NEMA H L M N M M M N M L M N N N M L N L N N N N N Develop an urban tree management program $S0 City of La Vista, State of Nebraska H N H H M M L M M L H N M L M L M M H N N H M Bury power lines $10,000,000 Omaha Public Power District, NEMA H N H H M N L H H N H N N N H H N H N N N N N Provide severe weather notifications to residents via Reverse 911 system or similar. City of La Vista, Sarpy County, NEMA H N H H M M M M M L M N N N M L N N N N N N N $S0,000 Reduce impacts of storm water $1,000,000 City of La Vista, Papio - Missouri River NRD, H M H H M M L H H M M H H L H H N H H N N H H and Nebraska Environmental- Trust Emergency power generation for critical facilities $S00 City of La Vista, Sarpy County, NEMA H L M M M M M L M L M N N N M M N M N N N N N Upgrade problem bridges and culverts $2,000,000 City of La Vista, Paplo- Missouri River NRD, H M H M M M L M H M M H H L H H M H M N N M M NDOR, FHWA STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity Mark Stursma, City of Papillion Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ STAPLEE Criteria Considerations H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments s T A p L E E (Social) (Technical) [Administrative) (Political) Le n ( gaI ) (Economic) (Environmental) o o o m " o m ° o a -6 E o o ° t: ? — ,o = i4 E ¢ v_ E £ 9 _ `o a 3 i 3 3 � {yU RC� � E t o ~ _ u = o o o u u Example: Back -up generator w w w $50,000 Village, County, USDA Community Facilities Loans and Grants H M H H H H H H M M H H H M H H H M N N N H H 2 Wash. St. Bridge City, PMR -NRD, NDOR, M M H H H N M H H M M H L M H H M H H N N H H Elevation Grants, Fed. Hwy $3.5 Million s PY 66th St. Bridge Sar Co., PMR -NRD, H M H H M N L H H H H L M L H H H H 1 H N N H H Elevation Grants $1.5 Million a Storm Shelter at City, Grant H L H H L L M H H M H L H L H M L M L L N N H Walnut Creek Park Campground $175,000 p s Storm Shelters at City, Grant H L H H L L M H H M H L H L H M L M L L N N H Halleck, City, & Schwer Parks $300,000 6 CRS Points - inspection City, PMR -NRD H L H H L L M H H M H L H L M L H M H N N H H Program $20,000 7 Channel Stabilization at City, PMR -NRD, Grant M M H H M L M M M L L H H M M H L H H M N H H Midland Creek $2.5 Million a Tree Maintenance Ed. City, Grant, Tree Board, Ne. H M H H M L M M M M M M M M M M L H L M N H M Program Forestry Div., Arbor $50,000 Foundation APLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity Mark Stursma, City of Papillion ligation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ STAPLEE Criteria Considerations tential Cost Comments H High M Medium L Low N Not s r A P L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Political) (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) Zl t tytSSGifl�,+ f E c Z E Y ° _ L _ c Y 3 E e t w E o e _ c ° ,a 3 0 a 8 w E —° n E n ° ° 9 9 c 3 c3 u 1 w A — ° L 9 uc o Kample: Back -up generator 50,000 Village, County, USDA Community Facilities Loans and Grants H M H H H H H H M M H H H M H H H M N N N H H Disaster Response City, Grant H M H H H H H H M M H H H L H M H M N N H H H Equipment Purchase Dump Truck $180,000 Snow Blower Attachment City,Grant H M H H H H H H M M H H H L H M H M N N N H H $90,000 Front End $180,000 Loader I y Grant ! H I M I H I H I H I H I H I H M M H I H H 1 L I H M I H I M I N I N I N I H I H City, f ` i I l STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity C 6� > , Q)6 STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments s T A P L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) I (Political) (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) ©U� o � o i m - o u GyNI C m y o O � T o = 0 'c ,v, n v 3 E m `w Is o R 'E o = E Z v m a o °� LL 3 o w o x `o m `w SO `t C �ESOU E _ Y a -aa N o o o u ti o — o o — o m o u o u O w w o u w o u 1 Example: Back -up generator $50,000 Village, County, USDA Community Facilities H M H H H H H H M M H H H M H H H M N N N H H Loans and Grants z 3 4 {� S 6 7 8 00 V A ti K o D r o o D 0 D O Z O D o � LP m C ; b O Z 3 m D 3 W _ m = Z - of x Community Acceptance (D o K Effect on Segment of Population - M :3 e-t e-h x Technically Feasible x Long -Term Solution y –i M Secondary Impacts m � CD O M x Staffing n — 3 3 Funding Allocation a x Maintenance / Operations 2 K Political Support = as C" 3 Local Champion 0 D M x Public Support 3 m m n a c .l, 3 d x State Authority n O x Existing Local Authority ou r _ r . 3 N F a fD 'm 3 Potential Legal Challenge O H z x Benefit of Action z . D v x Cost of Action _ M n o y a o 3 m m x Contributes to Economic Goals 3 Outside Funding Required Z z z Effect on Land/ Water Effect on Endangered Species 5. Z z Effect on HAZMAT/ Waste Sites o 3 m m Consistent with Community x Environmental Goals x Consistent with Federal Laws STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity BURT COUNTY &WASHINGTON COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT aka: REGION 5/6 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments s T A L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Political) (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) MSSOU/��� /GF o o o oc - N - E - ,. o - o L° Y o c - w Y 3 0 0 E w o ' ,. ° m O e o o ¢ — ° $ c 3 en a L v t' o 1 2 12 �_ 3 c 3 �9f E c o E m a m c m s o a � o 0 0 E Do h S R fSOURG� E s en o — a' v o 0 u w LL g a _ a - w a o w w w w 1 Example: Back -up generator $50,000 Village, County, USDA Community Facilities H M H H H H H H M M H h H M H H H M N N N H H Loans and Grants 2 Increase Public awareness of tornado, high wind & flood mitigaiton actions $10,000 All Burt & Washington County citizens H H H H H H H H H High H H H H L H H H M N N M N H 3 Complete Flood Mitigation and watershed study for the Bell Creek $35,000 Arlington and Washington Counties H H H H H H H H H High H H H N L H H M H H N N H H 4 5. Provide adequate emergency notification system for severve weather and othe disaster notificaiton $200,000 All Burt & Washington County citizens H H H H H H H H H H H H H H L H H N N N H N N 6 Establsih safe /Evacuation routes $20,000 City of Blair, Fort Calhoun & Kennard and Washington County H IH H H _ H IH H IH IH H IH IH L H H IM M I N N N N IN 7 Emergency power generation for critical facilities $ tbd UPON SURVEY RESULTS: EST, $100,000 Where identified within Burt & Washington County H H H H L H H H M H M MediL N N L H H L H N N N N N 8 STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: City of Blair, Phil Green STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments s T A P L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Political) (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) / o o `o > — m r o o 3 w u o v > = E a E Y o o�° x OJ t o — m = - o o oo E Promise° E C t m `o c = a c - v 'v o „ ° E w F `o LL o a o : 2 1 a w ° a u u O w w w u w u 1 Complete structural inventory of Blair Blair, NEMA, FEMA M M H H H H M H M H M F. H L L L H L L N L H H $50,000 2 Maintain good standing with National Flood Insurance Blair, NRD, NEMA, FEMA H L H H H H M H H H H H H L H L H M H L L H H Program and Raise CRS Rating $2,000 annually 3 Channel Maintenance and Stabilization in order to protect more than one parcel Blair, NRD FEMA M L M H H L L M M L M M L M 0 H L H H L N H H $ Unknown 4 Increase channel capacity of area creeks at culverts to reduce flood Blair, NRD, NEMA, FEMA M L M H H L L M M L M M L M M H L H H L N H H plain area $1,000,000+ 5 Adopt a stormwater management ordinance for all commercial and residential subdivision development to limit Blair, NRD M H H H H H H H H H H H H H L L L H L L H H the future impact of local floods $10,000 6 Install a lower intake structure at Blair's Blair, NRD, FEMA H L H H H H H H H H H H H H H L H L L M L H H water treatment plant $100,000 7 Identify, designate and publicize tornado (storm) shelters Blair, NRD, NEMA, FEMA H L H H L H H H H M H H H L L L M L N N N N N $10,000 I 8 Assess storm shelter needs and availability and provide shelters to vulnerable populations Blair, NRD, NEMA, FEMA M L H H L M M M M L M H H L M M L H L L L N N $100,000+ 9 Develop an urban tree management plan Blair, NRD, NEMA, FEMA H M H H H H H H H H M H H L L L N L M L N H H $50,000 10 Plan for and acquire on -site emergency power generation for major employers and critical Blair, NRD, NEMA, FEMA H L H H H H H H H H H H H L H H H H N N M L N facilities $500,000 11 Ensure adequate severe weather notifications to critical facilities by purchasing weather radios Blair, NEMA, FEMA H L H M H H H H H H H H H H M L L L N N N N N $50 per radio 12 Provide severe weather notifications to residents via Reverse 911 or other new media Blair, NEMA =MA M L H H H L M M M H M H H L M M L M N N N N N $50,000 STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity CITY OF FORT CALHOUN STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments S T A L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (political) (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) M550U o o V - N - E - ,. o - o L° Y o c - w Y 3 0 0 o ,. ° e o $ m 3 en a L v E o o cL L 1 Q `o m c �9f o m m c o 0 0 Do h S R fSOURO� E s m o — a' v o 0 - uo o � t t uo w Example: Back -up generator $50,000 Village, County, USDA Community Facilities H M H H H H H H M M H h H M H H H M N N N H H Loans and Grants Detention Cells west of 16th City of Fort Calhoun Street - $175,000 PMRNRD H H H H H H M H H H M N H M H M H H M N N H H US HWY 7S Storm Sewer City of Fort Calhoun Improvements Courtst. to NDOR M M H H L H M H M M L H H L L M L H M N N H H Jefferson St. $137,DDD US HWY 7SDrainage City of Fort Calhoun 100 Year Flood Path PMRNRD M H H H L H M H M M L H H M H H H H H N N H H $48,000 Develop an urban Tree City of Fort Calhoun M M M M L M M ance /O N M L H H M H H L M M M N H N management plan Contractor- Sids /grants Maintain good Standing with National Flood Insurance City of Fort Calhoun H M H H M M M ance /O M M M M M L M M M M M N N M M Program STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity T Bellevue Public Schools STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments S T A P L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Political) (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) M�SSOQ! o v v m V m Y o a c o °c c Y a E—" v C 0 0 6 U o 3 m 3 a E Z ¢ m ° ° °�� o G o LL w = w f+ 'fSOURG o o o o n a m u u O i Example: Back -up generator $50,000 Village, County, USDA Community Facilities H M H H H H H H M M H H H M H H H M N N N H H Loans and Grants 2Back —up School District — Generators City — Grants- 2 5 Bldgs. $5010,000 Budget H M H H H H H H H H H H H L H H H H N N N H H 3 Weather Radios School Distric 25 Bldgs . City— Grants— Budget H M H M L H H H N H N N N L M L L M N N N H H $5000 a , Safe House/ School District — Room /Shelters City— Grants— H M H H H H H H H H H H H L H H H H N N N H H $ 6 7 8 STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity � Y p Olt S C- LC N SW Z� e >/C h - ���� �2'� � • ScG o mss" STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments s T A p L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Poltical) (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) Q`p�A15S0U/���,' GF 1� o Y Y 4 a N o ` v _ E – E v 9� V a E E o N E o o 'Zr c – m o a N Y ¢ u — - o o ¢ So a 9 ° v E o v �' RfSOUR� 5 E E _ �w F g vo m - ° ° a ¢' _ _ o o u ° o u U c N 7 Example: Back -up generator $50,000 Village, County, USDA Community facilities H M H H H H H H M M H H H M H H H M N N N H H Loans and Grants B C4 I '4 4 5 6 7 8 OMAHA PUBLIC SCHOOLS -PAPIO NRD /FEMA PROJECT DESIGN PLAN Q e P� e PL�`0�\e ekSS�O ENTERED BY: TOTAL Early warn ing- prevention of personal injury Early warning - prevention of personal injury Early warn ing - prevention of personal injury Early warn ing-prevent ion of personal injury Early warning- prevention of personal injury Early warning-prevention of personal injury Early warning- prevention of personal injury Early warning- prevention of personal injury Enhance communication to protection life and property Earlywarning haz weather, protect life and property Early warning- prevention of personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injurl Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injurl Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injurl Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injurl maintain access & preventative measures to damage Differing elevations favor accumulation Prevent driftingsnow damage to property maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage Suggested topics from meeting COMMUNICATIONS M. Stebbins Intercom system replacements Joslyn Edison Western Hill Conestoga Gilder Alert notification reverse 911 On -line training Weather siren —TAC Replace walkie- talkies schools S. Bengtson 42nd and "U" intercom system ,�O Fire Alarm Sytem Voice Activation POWER M. Stebbins Generator new /replacement rcc' `OS Lewis & Clark F Highland $ 12,709,838.61 Suggested CS from meeting Emergency lighting Beveridge; corridors, stairwells Boyd; corridors Catlin; corridor Security Staff -- students, school staff Conestoga; corridors, stairwells Crestridge; corridors $ 18,000.00 Students, all staff Edison; corridors Florence; corridors $ 18,000.00 Students, all staff Hartman; corridors Indian Hill; corridors, stairwel $ 18,000.00 Students, all staff Dodge; corridors Lathrop, corridors $ 18,000.00 Students, all staff Morton; corridors, stairwells Hale; corridors $ 18,000.00 Students, all staff Norris; corridors, stairwells Oak Valley; corridors $ 7,650,000.00 Students, all staff Ponca; corridor Western Hill; corridors — Security Staff students, school staff Yates; corridors, stairwell SNOW $ 30,000.00 TAC, Apartments, Creighton Removal equipment- Babcats Shoring up roofs M. Stebbins Distribution Center S. Bengtson Saddlebrook J. Morgan Snow Fences S. Bengtson Beveridge (1 roll) — Students & Staff Elementary School Bryan Middle (2 rolls) Bryan High (20 rolls) Security Staff- Students, Dodge (2 rolls) Edison (2 rolls) $ 66,000.00 Gilder (7 rolls) Hale Middle (2 rolls) $ 50,000.00 Harrison (11 rolls) Hartman (2 rolls) Highland (4 rolls) Joslyn (1 roll) $ 24,000.00 Students, all staff &visitors Lewis &Clark (8 rolls) Morton Middle (3 rolls) $ 3,200.00 Students, all staff &visitors NWHS (30 rolls) Early warn ing- prevention of personal injury Early warning - prevention of personal injury Early warn ing - prevention of personal injury Early warn ing-prevent ion of personal injury Early warning- prevention of personal injury Early warning-prevention of personal injury Early warning- prevention of personal injury Early warning- prevention of personal injury Enhance communication to protection life and property Earlywarning haz weather, protect life and property Early warning- prevention of personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injurl Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injurl Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injurl Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injury Aid in evacuation of property, prevent personal injurl maintain access & preventative measures to damage Differing elevations favor accumulation Prevent driftingsnow damage to property maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage maintain access preventative measures to damage ac ,�O oc y \ �O O Q O rcc' `OS OQS`�;E F s P PS J $ 12,709,838.61 Suggested CS from meeting $ 3,177,459.65 75 %FEMA 25%OPS /Partner$ No Federal $ allowed Security Staff -- students, school staff $ 18,000.00 Students, all staff 14 -18K each $ 18,000.00 Students, all staff 14 -18K each $ 18,000.00 Students, all staff 14 -18K each $ 18,000.00 Students, all staff 14 -18K each $ 18,000.00 Students, all staff 14 -18K each $ 7,650,000.00 Students, all staff on -line estimates — Security Staff students, school staff $ 30,000.00 TAC, Apartments, Creighton — Students, all staff, visitors $ 20,000.00 Students& Staff Elementary School — Students & Staff Elementary School Security Staff- Students, $ 66,000.00 25OKW $ 50,000.00 $800.00 /each fixture $ 24,000.00 Students, all staff &visitors 5 corridors /5 ea $ 3,200.00 Students, all staff &visitors 2 corridors 2 ea $ 2,400.00 Students, all staff &visitors 1 corridor /3 $ 9,600.00 Students, all staff &visitors 4 corridors /2 ea $ 6,400.00 Students, all staff &visitors 4 corridors /2 ea $ 6,400.00 Students, all staff &visitors 4 corridors /2 ea $ 7,200.00 Students, all staff &visitors 3 corridors /3 $ 3,200.00 Students, all staff &visitors 2 corridors 2 ea $ 16,000.00 Students, all staff &visitors 6 corridors /3 ea $ 3,200.00 Students, all staff & visitors 2 corridors /2 ea $ 6,400.00 Students, all staff & visitors 4 corridors /2 ea $ 15,200.00 Students, all staff & visitors 5 corridors /3 sa $ 14,400.00 Students, all staff & visitors 6 corridors /3 ea $ 9,600.00 Students, all staff & visitors 3 corridors /3 $ 4,800.00 Students, all staff &visitors 2 corridors /3 ea $ 1,600.00 Students, all staff & visitors 1 corridor /2 $ 4,800.00 Students, all staff & visitors 3 corridors /2 $ 5,600.00 Students, all staff & visitors 2 corridors /2 ea $ 27,500.00 Prevent property damage /personal injury Safety $ 150,000.00 $ 100,000.00 Prevent property damage /personal injury $ 8,550.00 167 man hours General Budget Assumed 50' roll /$75 $ 75.00 2 man hrs $ 150.00 4 man hrs $ 1,500.00 36 man hrs $ 150.00 4 man hrs $ 150.00 4 man hrs $ 525.00 2 man hrs $ 150.00 4 man hrs $ 825,00 16 man hrs $ 150.00 4 man hrs $ 300.00 8 man hrs $ 75.00 2 man hrs $ 600.00 8 man hrs $ 225.00 4 man hrs $ 2,250.00 42 man hrs .80 /sf 5000 sf /building $700 /property 75 locations harnesses, eye protection, gloves $250 /sf 5 sf /person 1000 person capacity Pawnee (7 rolls) maintain access preventative measures to damage $ 525.00 8 man hrs Ponca (3 rolls) maintain access preventative measures to damage $ 225.00 3 man hrs Prairie Wind (7 rolls) maintain access preventative measures to damage $ 525.00 8 man hrs Western Hills (2 rolls) maintain access preventative measures to damage $ 150.00 2 man hrs Roof Snow/ Ice accumulation Safety M. Stebbins NWHS $ 30,000.00 Prevent personal injury to staff /students WATER /STORM WATER — Storm water retention ponds Storm sewer bock -up $.Bengtson Woter intrusion during storms Miller Park Waterproofing to prevent structural damage $ 4,000.00 Limit property damage Sherman Waterproofing to prevent structural damage $ 4,000.00 Limit property damage King Science Waterproofingto prevent structural damage $ 4,000.00 Limit property damage DAMAGE MITIGATION S. Bengtson Tree Pruning Prevent property d amage and bodily inj ury $ 52,500.00 Stud ents, staff, pa rents, visitors, Shelter belt -- snow /ice occumulotion Prevent property damage and disruption services — Students, staff,& parents, SAFETY AND SECURITY Cameras Students, staff, parents Access Control Systems Students & Staff J Madson Safety equipment $ 6,000.00 Students, staff, parents J Madson Storm shelters elementary (600 person capasity) $ 750,000.00 Students & Staff S. Bengtson Storm Shelter 42nd & "U" Shelter from violent weather $ 1,250,000.00 Students& staff at elementary school S. Bengtson Securityfilm over gloss $12.00 /sf Belle Ryan Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 17,902.79 Students, staff, parents, visitors Beveridge Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 68,000.00 Boyd Prevent bodily injury during severeweather $ 17,902.79 Catlin Prevent bodily injury during severeweather $ 35,1305.58 Conestoga Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 35,805.513 Crestidge Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 35,805.58 Edison Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 35,1305.513 Florence Prevent bodily Injury during severeweather $ 35,805.513 Hartman Prevent bodily injury during severeweather $ 35,805.58 Indian Hill Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 71,611.16 1.P.Lord Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 17,902.79 Dodge Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 35,805.58 Lewis & Clark Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 613,000.00 Lothrop Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 35,805.58 Morton Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 613,000.00 Hale Prevent bodily Injury during severe weather $ 613,000.00 Norris Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 68,000.00 Oak Valley Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 35,805.58 Ponca Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 53,708.37 Western Hill Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 35,805.58 Yates Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 17,902.79 Kellom Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 53,708.37 South HS Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 250,675.00 North H5 Prevent bodily injury during severeweather $ 250,675.00 Benson H5 Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 250,675.00 Northwest HS Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 125,337.50 Burke HS Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 125,337.50 Blackburn HS Prevent bodily injury during severe weather $ 62,668.75 .80 /sf 5000 sf /building $700 /property 75 locations harnesses, eye protection, gloves $250 /sf 5 sf /person 1000 person capacity Example: Back- upgene ator Vi€ #age, County, USDACommunity FaalTties $50,000 Loans and Grants ti M H H H H N H Ni M H Ff N M N H H M N N N H H Z School District, Grants, City H M H M L H H H N H H N N N M L L M N N N R H Weather Radios Scat , Lq 0 o. a a School District, Grants, City H M H H M H H H M M Mi H H M H H M M N N N H H Schaal Sate Rooms Vitd,000 STAFCE) =. ACTI O "N:ame: &'Entity..::. ' t j" :: Pa !pion -La 1listaSchQO) Dis r c ".. �.. ... . T P EE�Cr[teria C � 5AL a nsiderations Mttl at oa. Ct .............. .. ". ". I . _........ ......_...., �::., ::.: ":.:...:. ".: ". ":..:::..�... ... ��:. edium�..:L1oMrNNofA � " licabfe ..: . . . ".... . i & PF .... ::::::........:: PotenttaiCost (Adminlstrahve( .. (Po #itical ) '1 : "." ( Lege13 , , €Economic)jfievironrrieritai) - i ,�g', Ji e n i( o — c 9 p 16 _ ILI _ ,_ •, a •, 4 c ,°. e 3 Example: Back- upgene ator Vi€ #age, County, USDACommunity FaalTties $50,000 Loans and Grants ti M H H H H N H Ni M H Ff N M N H H M N N N H H Z School District, Grants, City H M H M L H H H N H H N N N M L L M N N N R H Weather Radios Scat , Lq 0 o. a a School District, Grants, City H M H H M H H H M M Mi H H M H H M M N N N H H Schaal Sate Rooms Vitd,000 STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity Tekamah Herman Community Schools STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ Potential Cost Comments H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable s T A P L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Political) (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) so �y P o o m a v a ,� m . c 2 o a o v` > E z F v m a w o E O C n- o. m u — o w m 3 ¢ o s t7 .E w _ o E o L + a m a o ¢ w i a E 3 c : o V _ m B o m _ _ u u a v w ° 72 a o 0 0 o ¢ � p � cc 'SOUP. E o a c m = u F 0 0 o m o u O u w ol 1 Example: Back -up generator $50,000 Village, County, USDA Community Facilities H M H H H H H H M M H H H M H H H M Loans and Grants N N N H H 2 L -r - G / / 0 6 J flit ., n J J c J, e e / l /! IL/ l ( � , C' "r""' v S' to .4 ­ a H M (YZ I_Y L Y� }J YYl ]( N rq rn M }f ✓/1 I 3 h- ,?Pc rre nc 9cr 1�ia f r tit rn H Yvj r'1 r✓1 N lF rn IV N y FI I 4 C'vmrnuni«>7aa/ s y r XC m I f rr L ry) r'1 r q u�iol J"i4e6L/ 5 c v� I n a �✓ Ro u Yep H n l� M L yv1 }{ m I }� }� yv� 14 m N v vt rl 6 7 8 STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity F 11 1 11 : 4 i��6>✓l Col(p P Car5 -- STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments S T A P L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Political) tLegal) (Economic) (Environmental) m 3 J .' c r c Y S o v E o 'E �° E 'o o , y n E u n r o v a 3 o a' c o c . c w E o tg 0 _ cg t ° a ° ° m u u O S w u 1 Example: Back -up generator $50,000 Village, County, USDA Community Facilities H M H H H H H M M H H H M H H H M N N N H H Loans and Grants z 3 S steelff'-s & Sbr fv.,f OmAhjl Cl ' / .2 &o, 000 v CCC �f N n1 rvJ c nt �/ ✓{J ff nl N N nl ►v / 3 5'f"o ✓m 5ACHer f.v- RKAo"wdl / /e� „ / t f! G �i` �f N N lY fi! ¢90000 K n1 W lYI G. L f - m ff ,v A/ N iv irr s � 3( t-EO DOo 5 rIN SAP / /f , � - gr ,sf &o ✓v/r ✓� 1 t�N1E✓' rl -H L y11 YY1 L 4f 1I 1 Ail -Lf tl 1� l /� N N Al Al x'(2 00 o M I - L 6 ,+.,— 5,4e l l E � d -.�or �& ' �L'r I/ t l 44 L. {� /11 L - �f 1. L, ''II 1U H -H /'11 I✓ N fJ N N fQG�NO {odr }� A I /�ptpcP Ddtr{,gq� Z(ectl 1c1>I IJAMSCU/� // // }f I H -H f( L L L fF ff ff (�� � N A) /1/ Al w4ero�r far 61A erN; /jj C D as s i STAPLEE ACTION EVALUATION TABLE: Name & Entity University of Nebraska Medical Center -The Nebraska Medical Center is a regional trauma center and a memberof the National Disaster Medical System. Remaining operational during local a STAPLEE Criteria Considerations Mitigation Actions/ Partners/ Resources/ H High M Medium L Low N Not Applicable Potential Cost Comments s T A L E E (Social) (Technical) (Administrative) (Political) (Legal) (Economic) (Environmental) o �MISSOUR� 4 QQ \ / GF� o o oc v m ,. o w — ° L° Y o c o w Y 3 E 0 0 v o ,. o < _ 3 en ¢ L m s o a c '� E m ¢ m c a a n o 0 o N E N o s a o v o 0 S g fSOURGF. m - w LL a a w a u u o w w w w u Address flooding along Saddle Creek Road between Dodge and Leavenworth in coordination University, City of Omaha, Nebraska with the Federal Project to Department of Roads, Federal Highway, rebuild and /or relocation of Other available private and public sources H M H H M M M M H H H M M M H H H M H H H H H Saddle Creek Road. Involves such as tax incremental financing, bonds, construction of a drainage swale loans and /or grants. to control the storm water run- off. $4.1 million. Installation of mass alert system within the Campus and Hospital to improve reliability of response during a local or national disaster. Requires installation of a communication announcement State, University, Hospital, Federal and system. $5.0 million. local grants. H H H H H H M H H M H H H H H M M M N N N N H Installation of backup generation on campus to support critical normal power sources during a local, regional, or national disaster. Requires a new west State, Uiversity, Federal and private funds. H H H H M H M H H H H H H H H M H M N N N N H 4 5 6 7 STAPLEE Analysis Summary As shown in the Excel files titled "STAPLEE Evaluation Spreadsheet ", which were created to complete this evaluation, and as shown below, columns H through N summarize the results of the STAPLEE evaluation forms for each project. The numbers of high, medium, low, and not applicable answers taken from each project's STAPLEE evaluation were entered into columns H, I, J, and K. The sum of columns H through K is included in column L to ensure that there was no error in transferring the data from the STAPLEE form to the Excel spreadsheet. If all information is correctly transferred, the sum of columns H through K should equal 23. Column N determines the final evaluation number, therefore, determining each project's priority. Column N has an equation entered into each cell which uses the following formula: = (High * 2) + (Medium * 1) + (Low * — 1) + (Not Applicable * 0) For example, for a mitigation project that classified 14 categories as high, three categories as medium, five categories as low and one category as not applicable, the project would have the following break -down: STAPLEE Evaluation 3 i E E E E E O N O E 3 2 3— 3­3 3 Y 7 J Y 7 Z O O O O O O U U U U U U STAPLEE Evaluation 3 i O N O J Y O E O E D II I T O tn 5 Jv � iTV .O- to O Z E-- 7 !Z Z O + O N Z O E t + O 0 iTT n � �jj = 14 3 5 =1 23 26 So for this evaluation, the formula would read as follows: (14 * 2) + (3 * 1) + (5 * — 1) + (1 * 0) = 26 This procedure was repeated for every project STAPLEE evaluation to determine the prioritization. In the spreadsheet the projects with the higher numbers are classified as higher priority than those with lower values. APPENDIX C FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND SIREN COVERAGE MAPS \ CURREJ. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN P MAN Pr ...... . ..... . q rl k.A*9— ] W—F I . . ..... • .... - 0 zz we By "nom Wt Al�rM Low Density Rem aGntiai 7 Multi— Family Residential I Y zz Light Commercial Heavy Commercial Light Manufacturing /Industrial Heavy Manufacturing /Industrial Open Space & Recreationol 1 "I" Pawne Rd. - � 1 Benning on Rd. / 1 ► # t / ♦ ' /� Rai nwobd Rd. C _ Rai ry / 1 .. \.. ..... .�. . L i s �•� n3 - _ 1 ♦�� /, J \]fir L•� � ♦ / `State St. It 7-7 � ,• 1 1\ q - ' 1 � 1 l Ida St. VALLE , Fortst. Urban Residential 1 1 1 J IIIIIIIIIII� Existing Residential Developments 1 1 1 Ma e L �� Urban Reserve 1 1 �Lnvironmcnlally C:onslmincd ) � St. Floodplain l - rte^•" - - � + Resource Extraction • • ♦' 1 , ♦ 1 I Preserve Landfill Buffer EZ Blond. St. nvxed Use i i N (Neighhorhood Commerci al /lie.sidenrial) n� \ ` t s _ Mixed Use 2 m (Commercial /Bussiness Park) " —� ' \ L �! �. OMAH Highway 3h Mixed Use Cerridor I.. /' _ (Regional Dod eRd. Commen:ial,Riesidential) r +� Venice Mixed U se Area A (Neighhorhood Cam . cial /Residential) I / �� 60Y TOWN Landfill ` f ��_� / ► 1 - Civic 1 Pacific St. Map 5.1 Iry ° m GS 1 F St. � � IIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIJ _ � ry N 0 1 Z MILES �� St. ♦ N _ �.��.R._._._._.�._._„_._._._. - - - - - LAND USE CONCEPT -RP9 "This map is diagrammatic and specific proposals are reviewed on a Douglas County Covsiprehensive Plan Nj d925044.00 case by case basis according to specific standards for site inventory." r6— ,y.mnb Q - - LL oO �,9i Nah s h 1 1 MLDR LS .M3', iR;I JI L It -� r �� D NiuDR -0DUn J Ictlon MLDR Tr �r r�w> -i "zS�.FY •& .I _ tea V. mDa Y v, Roa - F �_ m L. -� II � I 77 ' � f� I t - F RF 1 - �_ Rc T r t {T 0 _ I =1r _ -1 -� I_ 97 - - — r L f _? iF 3 GILESROAD� - Douglas County I Omaha r CORNHUSKER ROAD'` City of Gretn Legend LINCOLN STREiT ® Existing Interlocal Agreement _ Current Future Land Use i W. r Gretna Public Schools- Distnct Boundary SCHRAM R +AD tom aNaclos Raalaamlai CAPEHART ROAD' ,- ( h,cl ding ool District 77 -0037 Sch FAIRVIEW °1 an Rasmenaai NILI.LA RO i g u q a q m I PLAI'TEVIEW RO ly. ® _tnq Reaid —ai Deve1o0ment llR ban aesiaenViai PFLUG ROAD. U I' •,,• : Two I Three M le Growth Areas RUIF ROAD ® ema ycor,sira aetl rlue� urv, City of Gretna Future Land Use AG Agriculture Future Transportation BUFFALO ROAD T't Transitional Agriculture Interstate Highway Rr Residential Estates — Major Arterial 17R Low Density Residential Other Arteral Medium to Low Density Residential = Collector Medium to High Density Residential Local Roads Mixed Use ®g ' n0a1 cmVnn General Commercial Central Business District ® Highway Commercial R2 I Business Park Commercial [§ Flex Space - Gretna School District :S Light Industrial Heavy Industrial "^ use Public / Quasi Public ® Parks, Recreation, and Open Space h 1 1 MLDR LS .M3', iR;I JI L It -� r �� D NiuDR -0DUn J Ictlon MLDR Tr �r r�w> -i "zS�.FY •& .I _ tea V. mDa Y v, Roa - F �_ m L. -� II � I 77 ' � f� I t - F RF 1 - �_ Rc T r t {T 0 _ I =1r _ -1 -� I_ 97 - - — r L f _? iF 3 Douglas County I Omaha Sarpy County City of Gretn Legend D is, ® Existing Interlocal Agreement _ Current Future Land Use Current Future Land Use Sarpy County Nebraska Gretna Public Schools- Distnct Boundary Low De y smem�ai tom aNaclos Raalaamlai ®amer m- c'. t h,cl ding ool District 77 -0037 Sch °1 an Rasmenaai ® r: .ata r-r-o i g u q a q m Futurc Land Usc and l'ransportation Map One -Mile Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ® _tnq Reaid —ai Deve1o0ment llR ban aesiaenViai any n,iuetriai 9n .9a U I' •,,• : Two I Three M le Growth Areas ® ema ycor,sira aetl rlue� urv, a atna u u r __ . .... ... . 0 IM to Comm y Sy l. s a e scale in M­ Gretna Corporate Limits Gretna Parcel Boundaries aegtlbornootl usenrea Caic ®g ' n0a1 cmVnn =G" µ'as" see - Gretna School District ® Existing Floodplain ®R spume ,anon "^ use CD v R a rt� MAN 0 pl- ONE Sole M- � FIGURE 5 -1 PROGRAMMED PROJECTS 2008- 2010 AND FUTURE PROJECTS AND RELIEF 2011 -2050 Pe,rnae RU I : ■a- Segment M ledlbu['pctenti ally " not en in[ercepttbr prq ect t 7 w a ■ s r ` �� an Zone Figure 5 -1 h _r ■ v j ' "t � Zone 7 i,;I, '. Papillion Creek Watershed Programmed Projects - 2008 -2010 Future Projects and Relief - 2011 -2050 smesr� Legend .0 qd5 `2m 2 N Modeling Area N �`_� ` \ \ \� Study Area (North of Line) Idu Si FDZ 6ourde y. r i � -' -/� Basin Present Development Zone (PDZ) ■ Proposed PDZ Changes Y75 n =rts ■ +•■ ♦ 1 LITTLE PAPIO Future Development Zone (FDZ) j .,, . • t Zone 2 °+ ` - ' Program Project Flow Meter Locations ■�� qn�� "lo Ra t ; , ��� N?`� ■._�� /l/ -� © Permanent ;' r ■ 41 y ` v a JJJ ♦ Temporary �Ihrao st y� --J « ? �J Temporary or Permanent � z _ ii,,„ - Zone -3 rr ,� y% ® New Lift Stations a T Future Extensions f ■ i ` ] I - TM N '- ' + ti" _ �� �' °� B Zane Zone 2008 -2010 ■ -MdOe A - - ~ a Rd • ^� J. BIG PAP I / �� _ _ 2011 -2020 Zane C a $1 - - 2021 -2030 -01 Nacinc sr ♦ Zane4 2031 -2040 _ 2041 -2050 • �1 s2050 ":" 20 ` i� ■ Relief Sewer Projects Sanctuary SlD #520 + _,f. i� _�0g I �. ° — Existing Sewers (No Project) ■' - si WEST P,API,O `"s ,_ — 2008 -2010 TZa re - 2011 -2020 tm' Hamps SID ,4517. 5 n_ I l - 2021 -2030 • qRa ,y ,�j l- �� ,�,./���- 2031 -2040 2041 -2050 DOUGLAS ne 6n Force Main Gravity Main SARPY CO � I alt f I Y = &o� - 1 272 ' j w Gies Poj a QOZ� 2 75 cornhusl­ OUTH-PAPIO a tT iDR7pe ' -• R � ii oa t� 7 \ — ID_ G Feh,111d _ ONE COMPrt. \Y 71oa..Yr;oeinn- I — I .... I t _ Source: City of Omaha GIS 2 1 0 2 anolmon c -eeu NastsNa[er Miles Tr tment''Imt Scale 0 Page 39 �:■ V� V✓ ■ Vl V� Us I" %� - V ► � �.� 1-2 1 NO �I a� a mr oeoe us otl� omcus. ammio .mss �oorm ema m rm nsoe inoerm ma � nn a aux� amen. cm offi !I LEGEND F TAI Treneit ,I Api-l— 2 — � R�a�anat5abdiha[na R -1 Luw Deaeiiy Reid —UJ R -2 Med. / High Dm,ity Residential I13 Lakefront Resldl, —I — C Geneal Commercial ® C—1 uns;nes, Di-i; Highway B-i— 1 -1 Light Industrial Hcavy ]ndu,u7al C -1 ® Mobile Home Residential ® G--y C —id- 0—ky H—dplain Overlay City of Valley Douglas County, Nebraska Official Zoning -dap Oil N ' macs ■ �= K....Ta.JEO (.nnsislting Grnrrp, Inr. -ee uroamanov usrnro rer�vaaenm mne. xxersnnrmm�Lesanx 2.443x661 1'0 Rex 2M Wahoa. NeAraka GBa65 GC-F r' it ldmini�t R 61 -F i GI O 1 Ra f AN 1 lk Printed: Oct 13, 2010 www.dcgi s.org/dogis 1 a {3 C d' R 0 H �' C ntenni J a r r d �r " -ornhu er-R I- . e , - h-5 mhuskerRdd a g \F colni2 a. •�$� 10 �,� d L Q ngusi2d us-5 W / �~ Ordale chram ef` E irvie R t ,� �• _ A,` : �. _ � 1 r o y, n-.f -Ah J \' / w IL latte ie d � t f 6 �\ Comprehensive Development Plan I Figure 5.1: Development Structure elan Sarpy County, Nebraska �• � � Legend Jena 91 h, 2009 a- { Bellevue Future Growth - Mixed Use Cross County Arterial Business Park - Mixed Use Center City Limit Civic L „ i New Richfield Village City ETJ Conservation Residential ® Park/School Site Estate Residential - Pflug Interchange Development 0 Greenway ® Residential - Community Systems 0 0.450.9 1.8 2.7 ® Industrial 0 Urban Residential Miles Light Industrial/Storage ® Urban Residential 11 Long Term Residential Growth Amended 6 -09 -2009 Bellevue Comprehensive Plan Appendix E: Development Alternatives 287 Bellevue Comprehensive Plan Appendix E: Development Alternatives 289 Bellevue Comprehensive Plan Appendix E: Development Alternatives 291 Bellevue Comprehensive Plan Appendix E: Development Alternatives 293 R1 ;TA R3 R3 R9 R -3 R 3 R3 g�3 La Vista ra � I Rt R.; R3 i C1 Ra R3 n., r r m Zonng Districts 3 Flood N.in Slapping* 1 R. _ H �i iR V[..mi � �m•Tnm...n. - �'� — — �{ Hiry t: �aa Y�mam trroro_ FM1TP .Plate -d In �zn.c Ra P Eo-e�ntonxll deecn MINW-4 _ i TA City of La Vista, NE - Zoning Map Revisted 3/1611010 D Urba Reserve e D Re iden[ial Estates F Low Density Residential 1 \ Medium Density Residential High Density Residential j Commercial j `I Neighborhood Mixed Use: Residential, Limited Commercial, and Limited Office M Mixed Use 1: High Density Residential, Office, and Limited Commercial Mixed Use 2: Commercial /Industrial City Center Existing Town Center Urban Corridor Business Park D Industry Open Space Park/Recreation 0 School /Park Z Buffer Zone/Greenway _ Environmental Preserve i O 5Ocho S pace /Floodplain f ' Retirement Horne /Assisted Living Civic /Public Utilities j N Metro Trails { G T S� Proposed Trails D Jurisdiction Drainageway Papillion, NE Future Land Use Revised February, 2004 RDG Planning &Design Omaha and Des Moines 0 1 2D Q 4000 noarx In Feet CITY OF GRETNA, NEBRASKA OFFICIAL ZONING MAP t __ _ - X - - OORRIDOR �_ ONE MILE ZONING I J uMT 'ETJ)' F— F _[ "�,i - +SCHRAM ROAD ONE MILE ZONING - LIM (E J) CAPEHART ROD J — FAIRVIEW ROAD - F-1 Mlrs TA y ?L I 2; I \ T HIGF4_WAY 370 OVERLY O TN 1 R � r ' s - .j 1 2 z R1 J " I' c SCH RAM ROAD L R� R J ti I t � �LATMt J ) ,O N , -- CAH EHART ROAD 0� J P� p I — CORRIDOR N INTERSTATE I CORRF] — SiJERLA _ l F AIRVI EW ROAD I — RE A LMITS N E — \ — — OVE R RSTAT L OR o oo m =aw / TA J -- H= — — OVERLAY _ ZONING LEGEND MELIA ROAD _ — — — AG AGRICULTURAL F TA TRANSITIONAL AGRICULTURAL — — — RE -A RESIDENTIAL ESTATES- ANIMALS ORATE RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATES _ TS J" / IT R -2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL T L_I R -3 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RE -ACI 0 MUC MIXED USE COMMERCIAL & BUSINESS PARK GO GENERAL IOMME I HC HIGHWAYCOMMERCIAL — — — — D NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL Q DC DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL r -1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL I -2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL r CMD CLUSTERED /MIXED USE w — PLATTEVIEW ROAD ® FX FLEX SPACE I I I I Y �` ® FFIFW FLOOD PLAIN (OVERLAY) ® CO CORRIDOR (OVERLAY) T F IC INTERSTATE CORRIDOR (OVERLAY) / �NE MILE ZONING IT (ETJ) aril E aReFna oe `�1`��� pry., PERRY -0LMSIED & I CONSULTING NNGIN I,NC OMAHA i � m COF.PORATE TAI HO HC RE -A \ I TA RET TA_ L -TF u ��; �I W z II II ONE MILE ZONING I J uMT 'ETJ)' F— F _[ "�,i - +SCHRAM ROAD ONE MILE ZONING - LIM (E J) CAPEHART ROD J — FAIRVIEW ROAD - F-1 Mlrs TA y ?L I 2; I \ T HIGF4_WAY 370 OVERLY O TN 1 R � r ' s - .j 1 2 z R1 J " I' c SCH RAM ROAD L R� R J ti I t � �LATMt J ) ,O N , -- CAH EHART ROAD 0� J P� p I — CORRIDOR N INTERSTATE I CORRF] — SiJERLA _ l F AIRVI EW ROAD I — RE A LMITS N E — \ — — OVE R RSTAT L OR o oo m =aw / TA J -- H= — — OVERLAY _ ZONING LEGEND MELIA ROAD _ — — — AG AGRICULTURAL F TA TRANSITIONAL AGRICULTURAL — — — RE -A RESIDENTIAL ESTATES- ANIMALS ORATE RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATES _ TS J" / IT R -2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL T L_I R -3 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RE -ACI 0 MUC MIXED USE COMMERCIAL & BUSINESS PARK GO GENERAL IOMME I HC HIGHWAYCOMMERCIAL — — — — D NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL Q DC DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL r -1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL I -2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL r CMD CLUSTERED /MIXED USE w — PLATTEVIEW ROAD ® FX FLEX SPACE I I I I Y �` ® FFIFW FLOOD PLAIN (OVERLAY) ® CO CORRIDOR (OVERLAY) T F IC INTERSTATE CORRIDOR (OVERLAY) / �NE MILE ZONING IT (ETJ) aril E aReFna oe `�1`��� pry., PERRY -0LMSIED & I CONSULTING NNGIN I,NC OMAHA i � m COF.PORATE TAI HO HC RE -A \ I TA RET TA_ L -TF M///// aal Trail lenua] Izntial(F'uture) caidmul n Space ■ oPc Development Concept ■ Springfield, Nebraska ■ RDG C— Gardner Shckert 0 -nah:. aad Dca hf—, i!1 /.1 r 1 1 , � I s I Al b e .► �. C. ri 1 R k �'.1 WMI MIS , Legend EKI Agriolltund 1'A I1'rimptimul Apnrullut, 11;1 IZUrAI AeoA6c hiui« lndU4trlAl Roodway 5�� fioodplaen 1:: - I Crmmltt'. ilyjxlratrrrilort�llµtift�ICllOit [E] lntnmunily Cn1ilt�rtte Lflnllntnmunily Cnl�t�r�tc �In11s Q f Induelri.11 f ommPrchl (i nlur Airrprl ( Vowvr Co:nmortial Center 0 WellW Ad frmallpn Art.1 WA I III\C,TONI COUNTY T� {� Iwo City of Fort Calhoun Future Land Use Map 8/24/2010 N ✓ / 1 SV , \ \ V I I uUl 1 , T H Ing ■ma i G s yci �I �s I Future Land Use Agricultural ® Mobile Home Residential Major Public Facilities City Limits Rural Residential - town Center i Parks Extraterritorial Jurisdiction - Single Family Resid -i,l Commercial C ,ation Areas ® New Urban Residential ® Urban Corridor Fort Atkinson St Park - MO, Family Residential IId -1,11 Proposed Future Regional Park 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet City of Blair Washington County, Nebraska Zoning Map + 2 -Mile Jurisdiction I I AGG Sunrise Estates I — II North RRE Creek Hills I � RL ( 'I I RML RM RL_ r i RMH RM A /MH , II I' I RM I South - -{ Rolling Creek RMH I RM RMH RML \ � HIIIS Estates RMH � RL RML RRE AGG .— .. —.. —• - _ ! /AICHi RRE RML CC8 ftr Cedar RRE Jensen :RL- - � ' �illVlew CL OPD AML Springs Acres RMH RRE Quick $states RMH ! - J A MH A/CH ---- Hill I �\ RM OPD r � RM RL RML • RL \ Southerr Ridge RRE Country Air Estates I RRE Spring Ridge I i I I ' RL Oak Park 1st Add. Oak Park 4th Add. Oak Park Add. Z Oak Park rk 3rd Add. 2nd Add. Deer j Crystal Lake RRE RRE Run' 1stAdd. Du DAY Crystal Lake AGGG Dunes Estates G r_�Irao High - -- Point Estates N Legend Prepared: October 19, 2007 © Tva_Mle_ETJ C__j C­—L-s suutlivisons O AGO - Ayrlwllurel Disl-1 _ Nl.L - Ayricullursl LIyM1I Indus4wl & Msrn bclurlriy Disl�cl _ NlAH - Ayriwllural H%mvy IndusUinl BM—ry luring --t _NCH - lydcultuM Buslnaw nrd Commxciel Dietdsl Centre! Business and Ccmmerclal D,- - CL Limped Commerce) - OPD - Offi— — Dislrld RL Residential Low Densty _ M•1- Resltlentlal Medium Density _ Rl.L- Residenlal Mulli Fssiily Lmv Densely _- H- Rnm—[.l M,Ih Feruily PiyM1 Danmly t RRE - Rursl Rased —W E— Dislret Highland Estates RRE ,MI IN III T IME 14 out_- Lam lilt 11111111 1 all 111111 111111 Bill ■ 11111411- mill, 111111 IWI'..illaallll @11'1 111111 nlm . w F7.z mi. IN 1111111 F 7L' II11 mm Iln Inn _ II__ 1111 1111 III mil 111 1111111 Ill ��i'`.I.I..n� �I'III• • J '11-0 r- ammu ::, ■ • Dakota County — South Sioux City • Douglas County — Waterloo • Sarpy County — Springfield • Washington County — Fort Calhoun The following figures show the locations of outdoor warning sirens within the participating jurisdictions (where data is available). It must be recognized, however, that these are outdoor warning sirens which are designed to alert residents who are outside and in close proximity to the sirens. They are not designed to warn persons indoors at- distance, traveling in vehicles, or in noisy environments. In addition, a warning system works best if there are operational redundancies — meaning that it is always safer to have additional sirens in a network in case a siren malfunctions or is destroyed. An additional consideration is that periods during which warning sirens are needed are often noisy in themselves with high wind, intense rain, and hail which all act to reduce peoples' ability to hear the sirens. It is easier to hear a warning for people who are downwind of the siren. Papio- Missouri River NRD DRAFT Appendix C.1 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan September 201 D DAKOTA COUNTY Papio- Missouri River NRD DRAFT Appendix C.2 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2010 SOUTH SIOUX CITY This figure shows the potential ranges of the tornado warning sirens in South Sioux City, with the yellow shading being a half -mile from the siren and red one mile from the siren. As shown by the figure, the majority of current development within the corporate limits is in the yellow shaded area. Papio- Missouri River NRD DRAFT Appendix C.3 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2010 DOUGLAS COUNTY Papio- Missouri River NRD DRAFT Appendix CA Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2010 WATERLOO This figure shows the potential ranges of the tornado warning sirens in Waterloo, with the yellow shading being a half -mile from the siren, and the red 1 mile from the siren. As shown by the figure, the majority of current development within the Waterloo corporate limits is in the yellow shaded area. Papio- Missouri River NRD DRAFP Appendix' Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2010 _ * — AN SARPY COUNTY Papio- Missouri River NRD DRAFT Appendix C.6 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2010 SPRINGFIELD This figure shows the potential ranges of the tornado warning sirens in Springfield, with the green shading being a half -mile from the siren and yellow one mile from the siren. As shown by the figure, the entire current development within the Springfield corporate limits is in the green shaded area. r Papio- Missouri River NRD DRAFT Appendix C.7 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2010 WASHINGTON COUNTY Papio- Missouri River NRD DRAFT Appendix C.8 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2010 FORT CALHOUN This figure shows the potential ranges of the tornado warning sirens in Fort Calhoun, with the yellow shading being a half -mile from the siren and red one mile from the siren. As shown by the figure, almost the entire development in the Fort Calhoun corporate limits is in the yellow shaded area. Papio- Missouri River NRD DRAFT Appendix C.9 Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2010