LAC QUI PARLE COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGER Rick Halvorson

ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN FOR LLAC QUI PPARLE CCOUNTY A MULTI – JURISDICTIONAL PLAN

ADOPTED X 2011

Prepared by UPPER MINNESOTA VALLEY REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 323 West Schlieman Ave. Appleton, MN 56208 320.289.1981 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

LAC QUI PARLE COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGER Rick Halvorson

LAC QUI PARLE COUNTY TASK FORCE Rick Halvorson, Lac qui Parle Emergency Management Director Graylen Carlson, Lac qui Parle County Commissioner Harold Solem, Lac qui Parle County Commissioner Steve Kubista, County Engineer Jennifer Breberg , Environmental Office LeRoy Anderson, Lac qui Parle County Engineer

Curt Pederson, City of Bellingham Scott Thaemlitz, City of Boyd Dave Bovee, City of Dawson Richard Johnson, City of Louisburg Jon Radermacher, City of Madison Eva Adler, City of Marietta Marion Goetsch, City of Nassau Lisa Malecek, Townships David Mork, Townships Dan Larson, Townships Randell Pederson, Townships Bryan Kallhoff, Townships Bob Pehrson, Townships Paul Hill, Townships Gary Lee, Townships David Dahl, Townships David Dale, Townships Harold Kittelson, Townships Curt Baldwin, Townships Bill Croatt, Townships Luke Oie, Townships Gary Bauler, Townships Tim Patzer, Townships Roger Schuelke, Townships Ronald Beninga, Townships Kim Sundlee, Townships Joseph Roggenbuck, Townships James Croatt, Townships Paul Breberg, Townships Keith Stratmoen, Townships

PREPARED BY UMVRDC STAFF: Katie Meyer, Community Development Planner Henry Stroud, University of Minnesota, CURA / CAP Program Research Assistant TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter One: Overview

Definitions...... 1-1 Related Documents ...... 1-3 The Planning Process ...... 1-4 Community Profile (Summary) ...... 1-10 Prioritized Risk Assessment (Summary) ...... 1-11 Vulnerable Areas of the County (Summary) ...... 1-12 Mitigation Strategies (Summary) ...... 1-17

Chapter Two: Community Profile

Related Documents ...... 2-1 General County Information ...... 2-1 Historical Setting ...... 2-2 Physical Characteristics ...... 2-2 Climate and Precipitation ...... 2-2 Geology and Topography ...... 2-4 Soils ...... 2-4 Land Use and Cover ...... 2-5 Hydrology ...... 2-8 Socioeconomic ...... 2-12 Population Trends ...... 2-12 Age and Sex Characteristics ...... 2-16 Economic Synopsis ...... 2-17 Community Infrastructure ...... 2-22 Schools ...... 2-22 Public Facilities ...... 2-22 Transportation ...... 2-22 Telecommunication and Power Facilities ...... 2-24 Sewer and Water Systems ...... 2-25 Emergency Response ...... 2-25 Medical Facilities ...... 2-26 Fire Services ...... 2-26 Public Safety ...... 2-26 Property ...... 2-27 Land Uses ...... 2-27 Current Codes ...... 2-27

Chapter Three: Hazard Inventory

Natural Hazards – Presented by the Physical World ...... 3-1 Violent Storms ...... 3-2 Winter Storms ...... 3-2 Summer Storms ...... 3-4 Extreme Temperatures ...... 3-8 Flood ...... 3-10 Drought ...... 3-17 Wildfire ...... 3-19 Dam Failure ...... 3-23 Technological Hazards – Presented by Man ...... 3-25 Infectious Diseases ...... 3-25 Fire ...... 3-34 Hazardous Material ...... 3-36 Water Supply Contamination ...... 3-41 Wastewater Treatment System Failure ...... 3-42 Civil Disturbance/Terrorism ...... 3-43

Chapter Four: Risk Assessment

Overview ...... 4-1 Explanation of Prioritized Risk Assessment ...... 4-1 Violent Storms and Extreme Temperatures ...... 4-3 Flood ...... 4-4 Drought ...... 4-5 Wildfire ...... 4-6 Dam Failure ...... 4-7 Infectious Diseases ...... 4-8 Fire ...... 4-9 Hazardous Material ...... 4-10 Water Supply Contamination ...... 4-11 Wastewater Treatment System Failure ...... 4-12 Civil Disturbances/Terrorism ...... 4-13 Prioritized Hazards by Risk ...... 4-14 Vulnerable Areas of the County ...... 4-15 Tornados ...... 4-15 Floods ...... 4-18 Repetitive Flood Structures ...... 4-21 Wildfire ...... 4-23 Dam Failure ...... 4-25 Community-Based Risk Assessments...... 4-27 Bellingham...... 4-29 Boyd ...... 4-39 Dawson ...... 4-47 Louisburg ...... 4-58 Madison ...... 4-64 Marietta ...... 4-71 Nassau ...... 4-80

Chapter Five: Goals, Objectives, Mitigation Strategies and Implementation

Overview ...... 5-1 Definitions...... 5-1 General Mitigation Vision ...... 5-1 Development of Strategies ...... 5-2 HMGP-Funded Strategies: Lac qui Parle County and Cities...... 5-4 Natural Hazard Strategies – No Longer Relevant ...... 5-4 Completed Strategies – Natural and Manmade/Technological ...... 5-5 Goals, Objectives and Mitigation Strategies-Natural Hazards ...... 5-6 Violent Storms and Extreme Temperatures ...... 5-6 Flood ...... 5-8 Drought ...... 5-10 Wildfire ...... 5-11 National Flood Insurance Program Compliance ...... 5-12 Prioritizing Strategies...... 5-16

Chapter Six: Goals, Objectives, Strategies – Lac qui Parle County Cities

Overview ...... 6-1 Definitions...... 6-1 General Mitigation Vision ...... 6-1 Development of Strategies ...... 6-2 Bellingham...... 6-2 Boyd ...... 6-3 Dawson ...... 6-4 Louisburg ...... 6-5 Madison ...... 6-6 Marietta ...... 6-7 Nassau ...... 6-8

Chapter Seven: Goals, Objectives, Strategies – Manmade / Technological Hazards

Overview ...... 7-1 Definitions...... 7-1 General Mitigation Vision ...... 7-1 Development of Strategies ...... 7-2 Manmade / Technological Strategies – No Longer Relevant ...... 7-3 Goals, Objectives and Mitigation Strategies ...... 7-4 Infectious Diseases ...... 7-4 Fire ...... 7-5 Hazardous Materials ...... 7-6 Water Supply Contamination ...... 7-8 Wastewater Treatment Facility Failure ...... 7-9 Civil Disturbance / Terrorism ...... 7-10

Chapter Eight: Plan Maintenance & Implementation

Implementation & Maintenance ...... 8-1

Appendices: Table of Contents

Appendix 1: Additional Hazard Research Appendix 2: DNR Waters’ Description of 1997 Flooding Appendix 3: DNR Waters’ Description of 2001 Flooding Appendix 4: Complete Listing of Hazardous Spills in Lac qui Parle County (2002-2008) Appendix 5: NOAA Weather Radio Broadcasts Appendix 6: Normal Annual Precipitation Appendix 7: Community Asset Information Appendix 8: General Information Maps Map 8-1: Lac qui Parle County Civil Divisions Map 8-2: Lac qui Parle County Population Locations Map 8-3: Lac qui Parle County Land Use Map 8-4: Lac qui Parle County Natural Features Map 8-5: Lac qui Parle County Hydrology and Drainage Map 8-6: Lac qui Parle County Transportation System Map 8-7: Lac qui Parle County Feedlots Map 8-8: Lac qui Parle County Zoning Map 8-9: City of Bellingham Land Use Map 8-10: City of Boyd Land Use Map 8-11: City of Dawson Land Use Map 8-12: City of Louisburg Land Use Map 8-13: City of Madison Land Use Map 8-14: City of Marietta Land Use Map 8-15: City of Nassau Land Use Appendix 9: Public Participation Appendix 10: Letters of Participation Appendix 11: Plan Adoption Tables - Table of Contents

Chapter One: Overview

Table 1: LqP Co Documents Applicable to Hazard Mitigation ...... 1-3 Table 2: LqP Co & Cities Participation in All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update ...... 1-4

Chapter Two: Community Profile

Table 3: LqP Co Average Monthly Temperature & Record Highs & Lows from 1962-1999 ...... 2-3 Table 4: LqP Co Average Precipitation & Snowfall ...... 2-3 Table 5: LqP Co Land Use & Land Covers ...... 2-5 Table 6 LqP Co Agricultural Changes During Last 100 Years ...... 2-6 Table 7: LqP Co Farm Comparisons from 1987 - 1997 ...... 2-6 Table 8: LqP Co Population, Households, and Projections ...... 2-12 Table 9: LqP Co Distribution of Population ...... 2-14 Table 10: LqP Co Population Profile ...... 2-15 Table 11: LqP Co Housing Characteristics in 2000 ...... 2-16 Table 12: LqP Co Vacant Housing Status ...... 2-16 Table 13: LqP Co Age Characteristics ...... 2-17 Table 14: LqP Co Sex Characteristics in 2007 ...... 2-17 Table 15: LqP Co Labor Statistics in 2000 ...... 2-18 Table 16: LqP Co Industries for the Employed Civilian Population in 2000 ...... 2-19 Table 17: LqP Co Major Employers ...... 2-19 Table 18: LqP Co Income Statistics in 1999 ...... 2-20 Table 19: LqP Co Regional Income Estimates from 1996 – 2006 ...... 2-20 Table 20: LqP Co Renter-Occupied Monthly Housing Expenses in 2000 ...... 2-21 Table 21: LqP Co Owner-Occupied Monthly Housing Expenses in 2000 ...... 2-21 Table 22: LqP Co Schools and Locations ...... 2-22 Table 23: LqP Co Trails ...... 2-24 Table 24: LqP Co Telecommunication and Power Facilities ...... 2-24 Table 25: LqP Co Sewer & Water Systems ...... 2-25 Table 26: LqP Co Hospitals & Clinics ...... 2-26 Table 27: LqP Co Fire Capabilities ...... 2-26 Table 28: LqP Co & Municipality Relevant Ordinances ...... 2-27

Chapter Three: Hazard Inventory

Table 29: LqP Co Winter Storms 1993-2003 ...... 3-2 Table 30: LqP Co Winter Storms 2003-2010 ...... 3-3 Table 31: LqP Co Snowfall Extremes by Month ...... 3-3 Table 32: LqP Co Summer Storms from 1955 - 2009 ...... 3-6 Table 33: LqP Co Extreme Temperatures ...... 3-8 Table 34: LqP Co Breakdowns of Fire-Related Information 2000- 2010 ...... 3-35 Table 35: LqP Co Hazardous Spills from 2002 - 2009 ...... 3-39 Chapter Four: Risk Assessment

Table 36: Hazard: Violent Storms and Extreme Temperatures ...... 4-3 Table 37: Hazard: Flood ...... 4-4 Table 38: Hazard: Drought ...... 4-5 Table 39: Hazard: Wildfire ...... 4-6 Table 40: Hazard: Dam Failure ...... 4-7 Table 41: Hazard: Infectious Diseases ...... 4-8 Table 42: Hazard: Fire...... 4-9 Table 43: Hazard: Hazardous Materials ...... 4-10 Table 44: Hazard: Water Supply Contamination ...... 4-11 Table 45: Hazard: Wastewater Treatment System Failure ...... 4-12 Table 46: Hazard: Civil Disturbance/Terrorism ...... 4-13 Table 47: LqP Co Overall Hazard Priority Levels ...... 4-14 Table 48: LqP Co Estimated Potential Damage by an F4/F5 Tornado ...... 4-16 Table 49: LqP Co & Cities 100 & 500-Year Floodplain Acreages ...... 4-18 Table 50: Number of Structures/Parcels in 1% Year Chance Floodplains ...... 4-19 Table 51: LqP Co Summary of Expenses to Fight Flooding ...... 4-19 Table 52: LqP Co General Wildfire Information ...... 4-23 Table 53: City of Bellingham – Land Use Category Allotments ...... 4-29 Table 54: Bellingham Hazard 1: F4-F5 Tornado ...... 4-30 Table 55: Bellingham Hazard 2: Straight-Line Winds ...... 4-32 Table 56: Bellingham Hazard 3: Train Derailment ...... 4-34 Table 57: Bellingham Hazard 4: Grain Elevator Fire ...... 4-36 Table 58: City of Bellingham – Inventory of Community Assets ...... 4-38 Table 59: City of Boyd – Land Use Category Allotments ...... 4-39 Table 60: Boyd Hazard 1: F4- F5 Tornado ...... 4-40 Table 61: Boyd Hazard 2: 100-Year Flood Event ...... 4-42 Table 62: Boyd Hazard 3: LP Storage Tank Explosion ...... 4-44 Table 63: City of Boyd – Inventory of Community Assets ...... 4-46 Table 64: City of Dawson – Land Use Category Allotments ...... 4-47 Table 65: Dawson Hazard 1: F4 – F5 Tornado ...... 4-49 Table 66: Dawson Hazard 2: 100-Year Flood Event ...... 4-51 Table 67: Dawson Hazard 3: 100-Year Flood Event (Proposed Floodplains) ...... 4-53 Table 68: Dawson Hazard 4: Fire/Explosion of Commercial Oil Tanks F4-F5 Tornado ...... 4-55 Table 69: City of Dawson – Inventory of Community Assets ...... 4-57 Table 70: City of Louisburg – Land Use Category Allotments ...... 4-58 Table 71: Louisburg Hazard 1: F4- F5 Tornado ...... 4-59 Table 72: Louisburg Hazard 2: Train Derailment ...... 4-61 Table 73: City of Louisburg – Inventory of Community Assets ...... 4-63 Table 74: City of Madison – Land Use Category Allotments ...... 4-64 Table 75: Madison Hazard 1: F4 – F5 Tornado ...... 4-66 Table 76: Madison Hazard 2: Train Derailment/Explosion at Grain Elevator ...... 4-68 Table 77: City of Madison – Inventory of Community Assets ...... 4-70 Table 78: City of Marietta – Land Use Category Allotments ...... 4-71 Table 79: Marietta Hazard 1: F4 – F5 Tornado...... 4-73 Table 80: Marietta Hazard 2: 100 – Year Flood Event ...... 4-75 Table 81: Marietta Hazard 3: Transportation of Hazardous Materials ...... 4-77 Table 82: City of Marietta – Inventory of Community Assets ...... 4-79 Table 83: City of Nassau – Land Use Category Allotments ...... 4-80 Table 84: Nassau Hazard 1: F4 – F5 Tornado ...... 4-81 Table 85: Nassau Hazard 2: 100-Year Flood Event ...... 4-83 Table 86: Nassau Hazard 3: Fire at Grain Elevator ...... 4-85 Table 87: City of Nassau – Inventory of Community Assets ...... 4-87

Chapter Five: Goals, Objectives, Strategies – Natural Hazards

Table 88: LqP Co & Cities Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Funded Strategies (FEMA-Related) ...... 5-4 Table 89: LqP Co & Cities Natural Hazard Strategies – No Longer Relevant ...... 5-4 Table 90: LqP Co & Cities: Completed Strategies for Natural & Manmade Technological Hazards ...... 5-5 Table 91: LqP Co & Cities NFIP Participation ...... 5-12 Table 92: FEMA NFIP Insurance Report ...... 5-13 Table 93: LqP Co Prioritized Strategies (Natural Hazards) ...... 5-17

Chapter Seven: Goals, Objectives, Strategies – Manmade/Technological Hazards

Table 94: LqP Co & Cities: Manmade / Technological Strategies – No Longer Relevant ...... 7-3

Chapter Eight: Plan Maintenance & Implementation

Table 95: LqP Co & Cities - Local Planning Mechanisms ...... 8-3

Figures - Table of Contents

Chapter Three: Hazard Inventory Figure 1: NCDC & DNR Flood Summaries ...... 3-13 Figure 2: NCDC 1997 & 2001 Flood Reports ...... 3-14

Chapter Four: Risk Assessment Figure 3: Tornado Paths 1950-2006 ...... 4-17 Figure 4: FEMA Designated Floodplains ...... 4-20 Figure 5: Repetitive Loss Structures ...... 4-22 Figure 6: Areas of Elevated Wildfire Danger ...... 4-24 Figure 7: Locations of Dams ...... 4-26 Figure 8: Bellingham Hazard 1: F4-F5 Tornado ...... 4-31 Figure 9: Bellingham Hazard 2: Straight-Line Winds ...... 4-33 Figure 10: Bellingham Hazard 3: Train Derailment ...... 4-35 Figure 11: Bellingham Hazard 4: Bellingham Farmers Grain Elevator Fire ...... 4-37 Figure 12: Boyd Hazard 1: F4-F5 Tornado ...... 4-41 Figure 13: Boyd Hazard 2:100-Year Flood Event...... 4-43 Figure 14: Boyd Hazard 3: LP Storage Tank Explosion ...... 4-45 Figure 15: Dawson Hazard 1: F4-F5 Tornado ...... 4-50 Figure 16: Dawson Hazard 2:100-Year Flood Event ...... 4-52 Figure 17: Dawson Hazard 3: 100-Year Flood Event (Proposed New Floodplains) ...... 4-54 Figure 18: Dawson Hazard 4: Fire & Explosion of Commercial Oil Tanks ...... 4-56 Figure 19: Louisburg Hazard 1: F4-F5 Tornado...... 4-60 Figure 20: Louisburg Hazard 2: Train Derailment ...... 4-62 Figure 21: Madison Hazard 1: F4-F5 Tornado ...... 4-67 Figure 22: Madison Hazard 2: Train Derailment/Explosion at Cargill Grain Elevator ...... 4-69 Figure 23: Marietta Hazard 1: F4-F5 Tornado ...... 4-74 Figure 24: Marietta Hazard 2: 100-Year Flood Event ...... 4-76 Figure 25: Marietta Hazard 3: Transportation of Hazardous Materials ...... 4-78 Figure 26: Nassau Hazard 1: F4-F5 Tornado ...... 4-82 Figure 27: Nassau Hazard 2: 100-Year Flood Event ...... 4-84 Figure 28: Nassau Hazard 3: Fire at Nassau Farmers Grain Elevator ...... 4-86

CHAPTERS LAC QUI PARLE COUNTY CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW

Definitions

Hazard Mitigation Hazard mitigation may be defined as any action taken to eliminate or reduce the long-term risk to human life and property from natural and technological hazards. Potential types of hazard mitigation measures include the following:

 Structural hazard control or protection projects  Retrofitting of facilities  Acquisition and relocation of structures  Development of mitigation standards, regulations, policies, and programs  Public awareness and education programs  Development or improvement of warning systems

Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard mitigation planning can break the cycle of disaster-repair-disaster in a community and prepare it for a more sustainable future. Developing and putting into place long-term strategies that reduce or alleviate loss of life, injuries and property resulting from natural or human caused hazards accomplish this. These long-term strategies must incorporate a range of community resources including planning, policies, programs and other activities that can make a community more resistant to disaster. Mitigation planning efforts should both protect people and structures and minimize the costs of disaster response and recovery. Mitigation is the cornerstone for emergency management and should be viewed as a method for decreasing demand on scarce and valuable disaster response resources.

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 As a result of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, FEMA now requires that in order to be eligible for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds, jurisdictions must first have in place a multi-hazard mitigation plan. This becomes effective November 1, 2004. FEMA has provided states with funding to help local governments partially fund such plans.

This new legislation amended Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) establishes a national program for pre-disaster mitigation. The program is meant to control Federal costs of disaster assistance and streamline administration of disaster relief.

Hazard Although FEMA does not have an official definition of hazard, for the purposes of this plan hazard is described as a “past or potential area of loss in your community”. This “area of loss” can include but is not limited to economic loss, loss of health and safety, loss of homes or critical utilities.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 1 Pg. 1 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Goal The goal of hazard mitigation is to eliminate or reduce vulnerability to significant1 damage and/or repetitive damage from one or more hazards.

Benefits The benefits of hazard mitigation include the following:

 Saving lives, protecting the health of the public, and reducing injuries  Preventing or reducing property damage  Reducing economic losses  Minimizing social dislocation and stress  Reducing agricultural losses  Maintaining critical facilities in functioning order  Protecting infrastructure from damage  Protecting mental health  Reducing legal liability of government and public officials.

Process The process of hazard mitigation involves many steps, including the following:

 Identification and screening of major hazards  Analysis of the risks posed by those hazards  Review of existing capabilities and resources  Development and implementation of specific hazard mitigation measures.

Although most mitigation measures are implemented on a continual basis, the post-disaster period often presents special hazard mitigation opportunities. Because such mitigation opportunities may be more apparent immediately following a disaster, both public officials and the general public may be more willing to consider them, and special funding may be available to assist in their implementation.

Several post-disaster mitigation activities are "automatically" implemented in the event of a Presidential Disaster Declaration. One of the state's most notable activities involves the activation of the Minnesota Recovers Disaster Task Force. The task force is comprised of both state and federal agencies2, and is chaired by the Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. In the event of a Presidential Disaster Declaration, all or part of the task force is activated and normally meets on a weekly or monthly basis. The meetings facilitate a coordinated and timely distribution of state/federal post-disaster recovery/mitigation funds by establishing mutually agreed upon (project) priorities, identifying eligible projects, and mixing

1 Defined as damage greater than 50% from one event. 2The state and federal agencies requested to provide a representative for the Minnesota Recovers Disaster Task Force will generally include those that typically provide personnel to serve on an Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team/Hazard Mitigation Survey Team and/or a damage survey team. These members include Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s Division of Emergency Management, FEMA, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Trade and Economic Development, Housing Finance Agency, Pollution Control Agency, and the state Historic Preservation Office. In addition, other agencies that have applicable programs, regulations, and/or funding may be asked to provide a representative. The specific agencies selected will be determined by the nature of the disaster.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 1 Pg. 2 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan establishing mutually agreed upon (project) priorities, identifying eligible projects, and mixing and maximizing available funds in order to be able to implement projects.

Another post-disaster mitigation activity involves the implementation of state and federal disaster recovery assistance and hazard mitigation programs, including the following:

1. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Programs For on-line program information, see http://www.fema.gov/.

2. Other Federal and State Programs Refer to Section VII (Capabilities Assessment) of this plan for a listing of applicable (mitigation) programs.

Related Documents

The Community Profile is an intricate piece in the updated Lac qui Parle County All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. This profile is used as a factual data point and includes the most recent available data.

To create this County Profile, other documents were used from Lac qui Parle County.  Comprehensive Plan  Water Plan  Zoning Map  Zoning Ordinance  Land Use Map  FEMA Regulations

The coordinated use and implementation of these combined documents create a sound foundation for all hazard mitigation projects, plans and activities and ensures they are tied to the county’s land use and environmental regulations.

General County Information

Lac qui Parle County is 764.87 square miles located in southwestern Minnesota approximately 160 miles Big Stone west of Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area and 124 miles southwest Swift of the city of St. Cloud. Lac qui Parle County is bordered by the state of South Dakota on the Lac Qui Parle west, Big Stone County Chippewa to the north, Swift County to the northeast, Chippewa County to the east, and Yellow South Dakota Yellow Medicine Medicine County to the south. Lac qui Parle County has seven cities and 22 townships.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 1 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Historical Setting

Lac qui Parle County was named after Lac qui Parle Lake, which borders Swift County to the northeast. Lac qui Parle County became a county in 1871 and in 1889 Madison won the county seat that was once held by Lac qui Parle Village.

In the early 20th Century, four separate fires destroyed Main Street in Madison. Due to the fires, the majority of all structures are constructed with modern day brick instead of wooded frames. Another fire destroyed the school in Madison in 1987. Dawson was impacted by the 1906 tragic “Easter Sunday Fire”. The new buildings that replaced the structures destroyed by the fire were also constructed with modern day brick instead of wooden frames.

In anticipation of the railroad, the cities of Boyd, Dawson, Madison and Marietta were platted in 1884 and became incorporated before 1900. Nassau and Bellingham were platted and incorporated after the railroad was built.

Physical Characteristics

Climate and Precipitation Lac qui Parle County has a continental climate, with cold winters, warm summers, and a maximum precipitation occurring during the summer months. The average annual precipitation is between 24 to 26 inches with two thirds normally falling in the five months from May through September. The average annual runoff is estimated at 1-2 inches. Average monthly temperatures recorded at Madison range from 12° F in January, to 69° F in July. As shown in Table 3 (following page), a wide range of seasonal temperatures characterizes Lac qui Parle (LqP) County.

Lac qui Parle County has also experienced extreme temperatures. The hottest day that Lac qui Parle recorded was 110° F on July 31, 1988 and the coldest was -36° F on February 9, 1994. Total annual precipitation is approximately 24 inches; 75 percent of which usually falls in the growing season between May and September, as shown in Table 4 (following page)

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 2 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 3. LqP Co Average Monthly Temperatures and Record Highs and Lows from 1962 - 1999 Average Average Month Mean Record High Record Low High Low January 21° F 0° F 10° F 67° F (1981) -35° F (1970) February 28° F 8° F 18° F 66° F (1991) -36° F (1994) March 39° F 19° F 29° F 80° F (1967) -20° F (1984) April 56° F 33° F 45° F 96° F (1962) 0° F (1975) May 70° F 46° F 58° F 98° F (1969) 20° F (1967) June 79° F 56° F 68° F 105° F (1988) 32° F (1964) July 84° F 61° F 72° F 110° F (1988) 40° F (1967) August 81° F 57° F 69° F 110° F (1988) 34° F (1974) September 72° F 47° F 60° F 100° F (1983) 17° F (1974) October 60° F 34° F 47° F 96° F (1963) 8° F (1967) November 40° F 20° F 30° F 80° F (1999) -18° F (1964) December 25° F 6° F 16° F 63° F (1998) -35° F (1973) Source: State Climatologist (www.climate.umn.edu) & Midwestern Regional Climate Center (WWW.MCC.SWS.UIUC.EDU). Data pertains to the station at Madison Sewage Plant 214994.

Table 4. LqP Co Average Precipitation &Snowfall Precipitation Snowfall Month (Inches) (Inches) January 0.75 8.9 February 0.65 6.8 March 1.49 8.5 April 2.19 2.2 May 2.94 0 June 3.77 0 July 3.52 0 August 2.90 0 September 2.15 0 October 2.29 .5 November 1.3 6.1 December 0.46 5.4 Annual 24.41 38.4 Source: State Climatologist (www.climate.umn.edu) & Midwestern Regional Climate Center (www.mcc.sws.uiuc.edu). Data pertains to Madison Sewage Plant 214994

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 3 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Geology and Topography Lac qui Parle County contains 494,720 acres of land and water, all influenced by glaciations. According to the Lac qui Parle County Comprehensive Plan and Water Plan 1991, the surficial geology of Lac qui Parle County consists of glacial till and water-worked glacial material ranging in thickness from 100 to 400 feet thick. These deposits resulted from the melting of the Des Moines Lobe of the late Wisconsin Glaciation event, approximately 9,500 years ago. The glacial deposits were thickest in the northeastern part of the county and the thinnest in the southwest. The glacial deposits are underlain by cretaceous sands and shale, which are in turn underlain by precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks.

Precambrian rocks are well exposed in the Minnesota River Valley, along the north and east border of the county. Outcrops of Montevideo Granite in the Minnesota River Valley represent some of the oldest rocks exposed on the North American Continent, with radiocarbon age dates in excess of 3.75 billion years before present day.

Most of Lac qui Parle County is covered by nearly level to rolling ground moraine with deposits of clay, sand, and rocks deposited by the melted ice sheet. These deposits contained numerous closed depressions that trapped and contained surface water in marshes and wetlands. The Minnesota River flows in a deep valley that formed the northern border of the county. The valley was cut by Glacial River Warren, a major melt river that drained Glacial Lake Agassiz. The valley was eroded by almost catastrophic floodwaters resulting from the lake periodically exceeding its banks, with flow that crossed the continental divide at Browns Valley, Minnesota. Abandoned channels of tributaries to the Minnesota River are located on the north side of the river.

Soils According to the Lac qui Parle County Soil Survey (1993), Lac qui Parle County soils are produced by natural processes acting through time on material deposited or accumulated by geologic processes. Soils have a significant interaction with, and effect on, water resources in the county. For example, highly erodible soils can contribute sedimentation to rivers and streams, conversely; sandy soils with high infiltration and surface permeability characteristics significantly contribute to aquifer recharge. Soil characteristics are determined by the physical and mineralogical composition of the parent material, the climate under which the soil material accumulated, plant and animal activities and material on and in the soil formation. Soil parent material in Lac qui Parle County ranges from clay in the uplands to sandy loam in the major river valleys.

Soil erosion affects cropland, urban areas, roadsides, lakeshores, stream banks and drainage systems. Water erosion impacts the county’s water quality and develops detrimental conditions in uplands and steeper slopes and generally occurs between the months of April and June when a crop canopy has not developed to protect the surface yet. The potential for wind erosion occurs when wind velocities increase above 12 miles per hour. Wind speeds above this mark overcome the force of gravity and dislodge soil particles. Soil is most vulnerable when unprotected by vegetative cover. Soils with fine granulated structure are most susceptible to erosion, including sandy loam, and sand. November through June is the worst time for wind erosion, when field surfaces are normally dry and strong northwest winds are prevalent.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 4 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Land Use and Cover Land use in Lac qui Parle County can be divided into four general categories: agriculture, woodland, water and wetland, and other, which include urban uses. Agriculture is the most important and prevalent use composing 79 percent of the county land. The remaining categories include woodland (2.7 percent), water and wetland (3 percent) and other at 17 percent. Table 5 below lists all land covers and land uses within Lac qui Parle County.

Table 5. LqP Co Land Use and Land Covers Description Acreage Percent of Total Urban and rural development 8,232 1.7 Cultivated land 411,038 82.5 Hay/pasture/grassland 49,356 9.9 Brush land 1,040 0.2 Forested 13,328 2.7 Water 8,387 1.7 Bog/marsh/fen 6,690 1.3 Mining 253 0.1 Total 498,324 100 Source: 1989 Minnesota Land Use/Land Cover data

Agriculture. Agriculture has historically been the dominant industry in Lac qui Parle County. Farming a century ago was a self-sufficient enterprise, where farmers produced their own animals and livestock - which in turn produced fertilizer. With the help of blacksmiths, they repaired and manufactured their own implements. They raised most of their own food and had processes for preserving it, in addition to knowledge of spinning and weaving fabric. A high percentage of farm families lived on a near-subsistence level and whatever was raised over and above what they needed was sold in nearby communities.

In 1997, cropland sales accounted for 62 percent of the market value of Lac qui Parle County agricultural products sold, while livestock sales accounted for 38 percent. In comparison, 51 percent of agricultural products sold in Minnesota were from cropland, while 49 percent was from livestock. Lac qui Parle County has a higher percentage of cropland sales in comparison to Minnesota, indicating an important part of the agricultural activities in the county. Table 6 (following page) depicts agricultural changes in the past 100 years in Lac qui Parle County.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 5 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 6. LqP Co Agricultural Changes During Last 100 Years Corn - Corn - Wheat - Wheat - Oats - Oats -

1919 1997 1919 1997 1919 1997 Acres 53,127 127,903 108,046 24,666 53,511 603 Bushels/Acre 29.50 118 6.9 33 26.2 50 Source: Agriculture Census for Lac qui Parle County and Lac qui Parle County Historical Society Book 1993

Ninety-one percent of the land in Lac qui Parle County is considered to be prime farmland and nearly all prime farmland is utilized for crops, namely corn, soybeans and sugar beets. Organic farming includes smaller crops such as vegetables, beef, dairy and other niche markets, and has grown significantly in the past 15 years. According to figures from the US Department of Agriculture, the total market value of Lac qui Parle County agricultural products sold in 1997 exceeded $113 million dollars - a 65 percent increase from 1992.

Farms in Lac qui Parle County have steadily increased in size from an average size in 1987 of 423 acres to 503 acres in 1997 (US Department of Agriculture) as shown in Table 7 below. Farm sites in the county have been decreasing from 972 farms in 1987 to 790 farms in 1997 (US Department of Agriculture).

Table 7. LqP Co Farm Comparisons from 1987-1997 Farm Information 1987 1992 1997

Farm (number) 972 866 790

Land in Farms (acres) 411,194 405,029 397,519

Land in Farms, Average Size (acres) 423 468 503 Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service 2004

A recent trend in land use in some parts of the county has resulted in the loss of some prime farmland to industrial and urban uses. The loss of prime farmland to other uses puts pressure on marginal lands, which generally are less productive because they are more erodible, subject to drought or difficult to cultivate. Government programs such as Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Conservation Reserve Easement Program (CREP) have been established to keep marginal land out of production and have helped to prevent erosion and have improved water quality in the region.

CRP, CREP and other Government Programs. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is the federal government’s single largest environmental improvement program and one of its most productive and cost-efficient. As of February 2009, Lac qui Parle County has 17,995.2 acres enrolled in the CRP program (Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources 2009).

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 6 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Established in 1985, the CRP program encourages farmers to voluntarily plant permanent areas of grass and trees on land that needs protection from erosion. The purpose of planting is meant to act as windbreaks or in places where vegetation can improve water quality or provide food and habitat for wildlife. Farmers must enter into contracts with the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) lasting between ten and fifteen years. In return, they receive annual rental payments, incentive payments for certain activities, and cost-share assistance to establish the protective vegetation. Land eligible for enrollment includes cropland that is physically and legally capable of being cropped in a normal manner and that has been planted or considered planted to an agricultural commodity in any two years from 1992 to 1996. The acreage must also be determined eligible and suitable for any of the following practices: filter strips, riparian buffers, shelter belts, field windbreaks, living snow fences, grass waterways, shallow water areas for wildlife, salt-tolerant vegetation and wellhead protection areas.

The Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Program protects water quality, reduces soil erosion, and enhances fish and wildlife habitat through retiring marginal lands from agricultural production and restoring previously drained wetlands. The program pays landowners a percentage of the value of their land to enroll it in a conservation easement. Types of land eligible for the program include drained wetlands (for restoration), highly erodible cropland, riparian agricultural land, pastured hillsides and sensitive ground water areas. The state legislature created the RIM Program in 1986 as a response to the concern of a coalition of environmental, conservation, and agricultural groups. As of February 2009, Lac qui Parle County has 800.8 acres enrolled in the RIM program (Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources 2009).

One way the county has been able to address pollution issues are with the Minnesota River Conservation Reserve Easement Program (CREP). CREP gives landowners an opportunity to voluntarily enroll marginal cropland in a conservation easement program with 15 annual payments and a one-time bonus payment. As of February 2009, Lac qui Parle County has 7,823 acres enrolled in the CREP program (Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources 2009). With this program, landowners in the Minnesota River Basin can get paid to take cropland out of production as a way to improve water quality and wildlife habitat.

CREP combines the federal Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) with the State RIM Program. The program’s goal is to protect and enhance up to 100,000 acres of environmentally sensitive land in the 37-county Minnesota River Basin; presently as of February 2009 Minnesota has 106,435.3 acres involved in the program. The Minnesota River CREP ended in September 2002.

The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is the federal government’s wetlands restoration program. It is a voluntary program that offers landowners the means and the opportunity to protect, restore and enhance wetlands on their property. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) manages the program as well as provides technical and financial support to help landowners who participate in WRP. In all cases, the landowner retains ownership and responsibility for the land, including any property taxes based on its reassessed value as wetland or nonagricultural land. The landowner controls access to the land; has the right to hunt, fish, trap, and pursue other appropriate recreational uses; and may sell or lease land enrolled in WRP. Lac qui Parle County has 64.9 acres in permanent easement through the Wetland Reserve Program.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 7 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Waterfowl Production and Wildlife Management Areas. Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA) preserve wetlands and grasslands that are critical to waterfowl and other wildlife. These public lands, managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, were included in the National Wildlife Refuge System in 1966 through the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act. Wildlife Management Areas are regulated by the Department of Natural Resources.

Hydrology Lac qui Parle County’s lakes, streams and ground water are some of its most significant resources. They are vulnerable to pollution from a wide variety of human activities and/or disasters. Water quality has become one of the most important environmental issues facing the county and state as it’s used for domestic and residential purposes, industry, agricultural and recreation. The health, safety and welfare of the public are directly linked to the county’s water supply.

Groundwater. Groundwater in the Lac qui Parle Watershed's glacial-drift aquifers generally is of acceptable quality for most uses, including household supply, industrial use and irrigation. The aquifers contain calcium/magnesium/bicarbonate type waters.

Wellhead Protection. Wellhead protection is a means of protecting public water supply wells by preventing contaminants from entering the area that contributes water to the well or well field over a period of time. The wellhead protection area is determined by using geologic and hydrologic criteria, such as physical characteristics of aquifers and the effects that pumping has on the rate and direction of groundwater movement. A management plan is developed for the wellhead protection area that includes inventorying potential sources of ground water contamination, monitoring for the presence of specific contaminants, and managing existing and future land and water uses that pose a threat to ground water quality. The goals of a wellhead protection plan are to reduce the use of costly treatment facilities, avoid the drilling of new wells, and the need to clean up contaminated groundwater.

The city of Louisburg does not have a municipal water system and all residential homes are served by private wells. Bellingham is the only city within the county that is currently in the wellhead protection plan. Boyd, Dawson and Madison are other public water suppliers that plan to be brought into the program within the next five years. The other cities in the county have municipal water systems and have considered developing a wellhead protection plan.

Surface Water. The four rivers draining the Coteau Des Prairie region and emptying into the Minnesota River include the Lac qui Parle, Yellow Medicine, Redwood, and Cottonwood Rivers. These rivers share many basic characteristics. The river beds collect discharges and sediments from the extensively ditched plains and have soft, silty-clay bottomed channels that are turbid with suspended sediments. In the lower gorge, although stream bottoms are generally of large rocks and boulders, the waters retain much of the silt from upstream reaches, which then settle out on

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 8 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan the rocks and in receiving waters as velocities subside. In the low water of autumn and winter, however, the four rivers may become clear throughout their courses.

Watersheds and Topography. Lac qui Parle County is located in three major watersheds: the Lac qui Parle River Watershed, Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine River Major Watershed (MN River Granite Falls Watershed), and the Minnesota River-Headwaters Watershed (Upper Minnesota River Watershed). The Lac qui Parle River Watershed contains 325,480 acres of land and is located in the central region of the county. The Hawk Creek- Yellow Medicine River Watershed is the smallest watershed with only 27,151 acres located in the southeastern region of the county. The Upper Minnesota River Watershed is located in the north and contains 145,090 acres. Lac qui Parle County receives an average of 27.92 inches of precipitation each year mostly falling during the growing season between May and September. The surface water bodies receive runoff and act as temporary reservoirs.

Wetlands. The term "wetlands" refers to low depressions in the landscape covered with shallow and sometimes intermittent water. Wetlands are also commonly referred to as marshes, swamps, potholes, sloughs, shallow lakes, and ponds. Wetlands differ in size, shape, and types of wet environment and derive their unique characteristics from climate, vegetation, soils and hydrologic conditions. Some have surface water only in the springtime during thaws or after rainstorms, while others may form shallow lakes that rarely dry up. They are classified according to their depth of water, total area, and seasonal life span. They are regulated by federal, state and local agencies. Minnesota has a no net loss of wetlands policy. The county is the responsible agency for the administration of the Wetlands Conservation Act.

Originally, wetlands were located throughout the entire county. With the advent of intensive agriculture practices and the application of land drainage techniques, many of the wetlands located on lands that were flat and suited to agricultural use have been drained. Because of this, there are now relatively few wetlands in the flat till plain areas of the county (see Appendix 8). Most of the remaining wetlands are found in the moraine areas of the northern half of the county where the wetlands have either been preserved or where drainage is not economically feasible.

Wetlands provide many benefits including the reduction of flooding by means of storage, filtration of pollutants and sediment, groundwater and aquifer recharge, wildlife habitat and aesthetic appeal.

Rivers. The river systems in Lac qui Parle County are relatively young, forming after the major ice sheets melted to the north. In higher relief areas such as the Coteau Des Prairie, streams flow straight down the escarpment forming straight parallel rills. This pattern creates flash flood threats and sedimentation problems on the flatter areas at the base of the slopes. Most tributaries have poorly developed drainage networks because of their young age and streams are characterized by oxbow cut-offs and channels cut and fill areas.

Lac qui Parle County consists of the Lac qui Parle and Yellow Medicine Rivers. All of Lac qui Parle County drains into the Minnesota River, which later drains to the Mississippi River. Stream flows in the watershed generally attain peak flows in March and/or April following snowmelt runoff. Increased runoff also occurs after heavy summer and fall storms.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 9 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Lakes. Lac qui Parle County has less than a dozen named lakes. The Protected Waters Inventory for the county lists a total surface area of protected waters of 13,248 acres, nearly all of which is Lac qui Parle Lake, the most prominent lake in the county. The lake was created by the Lac qui Parle Flood Control Project and completed in 1951. The reservoir behind the Lac qui Parle dam has a capacity of 122,800 acre-feet and was designed for flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife conservation.

Recreational Use of Water Resources. Lac qui Parle Lake is regularly monitored by the Minnesota Environmental Pollution Agency and has a Trophic Index exceeding the limits of supporting swimmable use. Lac qui Parle Lake beaches still receive significant use in spite of water quality perceptions and there are also many recreational uses of surface water in the county outside of swimming. The river above Lac qui Parle Lake is a state canoe and boating route, and the Minnesota River below the dam is a named scenic river.

Pollution and Runoff. Pollution of surface waters in the Minnesota River's major watersheds is a moderate to severe problem. The need to establish lake water quality criteria or standards have been recognized at the state, provincial and federal levels of government. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is the primary agency charged with pollution monitoring, control, and abatement. The MPCA develops water quality standards for all water bodies in the state and sets effluent limits for each discharger that will maintain the appropriate standards. Over 16 miles of Lac qui Parle Lake is considered to have significant non-point water quality violations because of pH and ammonia.

The Surface Water Toxic Control Program has identified for Section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act, Minnesota waters affected by pollutants. Both the north and south portion of Lac qui Parle Lake are impacted by point or non-point source discharges of toxic, conventional and non- conventional pollutants because of nutrient pollution. Non-permitted waste disposal is a problem in some unincorporated areas. Sewage that is dumped directly into ditches contributes to the pollution problems of surface waters, in addition to feedlot issues.

Surface runoff is precipitation that appears as natural flow in surface streams after evapotranspiration, infiltration, and surface and channel storage requirements are satisfied. Runoff is a function of basin size and shape and characteristics such as topography, geology, soils, and vegetation. Flood control reservoirs, channel modification and ditching, and changes in land use, soil cover, and water use can all alter and increase runoff rates.

Surface runoff also causes river and stream bank erosion. Bank erosion along the Lac qui Parle River is currently threatening a bridge, and rivers leaving shallow channels and following roads or drainage ditches cause surface runoff problems. Florida Creek has moved out of its channel and flows along a nearby road ditch, keeping the roadbed wet and soft all year which in turn causes maintenance problems.

Public Drainage Systems. Large amounts of public and private capital have been invested in draining water from the natural landscape. This infrastructure radically improves the drainage efficiency of the landscape which directly benefits agricultural production. However positive this may be, the change in drainage has also negatively changed hydrology in recent

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 10 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan years. As water storage on the landscape is reduced, peak stream flows come faster and higher in response to rain events and run off, increasing the opportunity for flash flooding and overall damage of a 100 or 500-year flood event.

Another issue is the explosion of pattern tiling that has accelerated these conditions. Older drainage infrastructure and receiving waters are often not adequate to meet the new peak flows that are generated with pattern tiling. As water flows into these tiles and ditches; streams and rivers exceed the capacity of receiving waters, causing water to back up and flood other lands within the drainage system causing economic damage. As the landscape hydrology has been altered, higher peak flows carve out larger channels, which unfortunately results in riverbanks becoming destabilized.

Lac qui Parle County has many miles of public drainage systems, including county, judicial and state ditches. Most of the ditches are found in the eastern half of the county. Drainage systems are used where the topography of the landscape is nearly level and where soils are poorly drained and ditches remove surface water and provide outlets for farmland drain tiles. Maintaining the ditch system includes beaver controls, installing inlet pipes, stabilizing banks, erosion control, weed control and occasionally “cleaning out” the ditches.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 11 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Socioeconomic Please refer to Lac qui Parle County Comprehensive Plan for extensive discussions on socioeconomic trends.

Population Trends Lac qui Parle County. Lac qui Parle County has lost residents almost every decade since 1940, with a current 2009 estimated population of 7,213 (Minnesota State Demographer Center) as compared to 8,067 in 2000. Since 1970, the county’s population has been increasingly “aging” and it is expected that the percent increase in elderly population will continue to grow at a faster rate than that of the total population. This is a strong indicator of the need for many senior-related services, including senior housing and transit. Table 8 below provides an overview of current population and household counts and projections throughout the county.

Table 8. LqP Co Population, Households, and Projections 2000 2020 Change 2000 2020 Change Population Projected Households Projected Population Households* * Lac qui Parle County 8,067 5,500 -2,567 3316 3022 -294 Bellingham 205 145 -60 93 85 -8 Boyd 210 110 -100 100 72 -28 Dawson 1,539 1,427 -112 677 645 -32 Louisburg 26 0 -26 13 5 -8 Madison 1,768 1,468 -300 789 801 12 Marietta 174 102 -72 86 51 -35 Nassau 83 35 -48 41 33 -8 Source: US Census Bureau 2000 and Lac qui Parle County Comprehensive Plan * Based on Historic Projections from the Lac qui Parle County Comprehensive Plan. These projections are based on the population in the last 40 years. Population projections are not an exact science. Many unpredictable factors can influence the direction population trends take. The best that can be done is to make an educated guess based on the direction population trends have taken in the past.

Bellingham. The city of Bellingham is located approximately ten miles northwest of Madison along U.S. Highway 75. In addition to U.S. Highway 75, Burlington Northern Railroad runs northeast and southwest through the city of Bellingham. Bellingham is the county’s fourth largest city with 170 residents and 83 households (Minnesota State Demographic Center and Metropolitan Center 2007). Bellingham’s population has been slowly decreasing since 1960, losing an average of 15 residents per decade over the past 40 years. The city’s population projections estimate that Bellingham will continue to decrease at a modest rate over the next 20 years.

Boyd. The city of Boyd is located approximately ten miles southeast of Dawson in southern Lac qui Parle County. The city is situated along State County Highway 2 and is approximately four

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 12 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan miles north of U.S. Highway 67 and within 20 miles of Granite Falls to the east. The city’s 176 people and 90 households make it the county’s third largest city (Minnesota State Demographic Center and Metropolitan Center 2007). Boyd shares borders with Baxter, Camp Release and Maxwell Townships. The city’s population has decreased since 1960, losing 244 residents. The city has decreased 38 households over the same time-span. Due to its unstable population level for the last 40 years, the population projections do not anticipate much change over the next 20 years.

Dawson. The city of Dawson is located ten miles southeast of Madison along U.S. Highway 212, while County Road 23 from the south and County Road 25 from the north dissect the city. In addition, the Minnesota Central Railroad runs diagonal through the city. Dawson is the county’s second largest city with 1,419 people and 780 households (Minnesota State Demographic Center and Metropolitan Center 2007). Dawson shares borders with Baxter, Cerro Gordo, Hamlin and Maxwell Townships. Dawson has decreased in population over the last 40 years, going from 1,766 people in 1960 to 1,419 people in 2007. Dawson’s population and households have potential to grow in the future.

Louisburg. The city of Louisburg is located approximately 11 miles northwest of Madison. County Road 19 runs south from the city, while County Road 38 divides the city into northern and southern halves. Louisburg Township shares borders with Agassiz, Lake Shore and Perry Townships, and is within five miles of the Lac qui Parle Wildlife Management Area. Louisburg is Lac qui Parle County’s smallest city with approximately 42 people and 18 households (Minnesota State Demographic Center and Metropolitan Center 2007). Louisburg’s population has declined since 1960. However, even though it has lost a significant number of people since 1960, Louisburg has managed to maintain a number of households over the same time period. This obviously reflects that fewer people on average live in each household as compared to 40 years ago – a common trend throughout rural Minnesota.

Madison. The city of Madison is located near the center of Lac qui Parle County. Madison is located ten miles east of the South Dakota border, and ten miles west of Watson. Highway 40 runs east and west through Madison, and State Highway 75 runs south to northwest though the city. The city of Madison is named after its township and Lac qui Parle County Park is located about ten miles east of the city, offering pristine lakes and trails. The city’s 2007 population of 1,681 and 780 households makes Madison the most populated city in Lac qui Parle County (Minnesota State Demographic Center and Metropolitan Center 2007). There has been a slow decrease in population of Madison since 1960.

Marietta. The city of Marietta is located approximately 11 miles west of Madison along U.S. Highway 40. The city is located in Augusta Township with County Road 7 passing through in a north/south direction. The topography of the area is mostly “farmland” and is located near the South Dakota border. Marietta’s population has been steadily decreasing since 1960. The city’s population over the last 40 years has gone from 327 in 1960 to 174 residents in 2007 (Minnesota State

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 13 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Demographic Center and Metropolitan Center 2007). Similarly, the city’s housing stock decreased during the same time-span, going from 120 dwellings in 1960 to 82 in the year 2007, therefore losing 33 percent of the households in only 47 years.

Nassau. The city of Nassau is located in the northwest portion of Lac qui Parle County, approximately 15 miles northwest of Madison. County Road 7 runs one mile east of the city, and County Road 24 runs from the city heading east. The community is located in the southern portion of Walter Township; with bordering townships including Arena, Augusta, Perry and Yellow Bank. Nassau’s population reached a peak in 1960 with 182 residents but has leveled out in 1990 and 2000 to its current population of approximately 78 residents (Minnesota State Demographic Center and Metropolitan Center 2007). The city’s housing stock had decreased through 1980 but has also started to level out in 1990 and 2000, ending at 39 households in 2007.

Townships and Cities Population Distribution. As shown in Table 9 below, the distribution of population within Lac qui Parle County has not significantly changed from 1970 to 2007, from 59 percent to 50 percent in townships and 41 percent to 50 percent in cities. Notably, the main trend shows an increase of people living in cities versus rural townships. The greatest change from 1960 to 2007 is the overall decrease in population from 13,395 to 7,414 a loss of 5,981 residents (45 percent change).

Table 9. LqP Co Distribution of Population Year 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007 (est)

Townships 7,903 59% 6,184 55% 5,359 51% 4,513 51% 4,062 50% 3,687 50%

Cities 5,492 41% 4,980 45% 5,178 49% 4,411 49% 4,005 50% 3,727 50%

Total 13,395 100% 11,164 100% 10,537 100% 8,924 100% 8,067 100% 7,414 100% Source: US Census Bureau 2000 and Minnesota State Demographic Center and Metropolitan Center 2007

In Lac qui Parle County, as it has throughout Minnesota, the average household size has decreased since 1980. Even though the population has decreased since 2000, the number of housing units and number of households has increased, as the average household size decreased to 2.4 persons, according to the 2000 Census. The number of people in group quarters increased, reflecting the rise in elderly population and number of people in nursing homes shown in Table 10 below in the Lac qui Parle County Population Profile.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 14 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 10. LqP Co Population Profile 1990-2007 Change 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007 Est. Actual Percent Population 11,164 10,537 8,924 8,067 7,414 -1,510 -16.9 Housing Units 3,984 4,272 3,955 3,774 X -181 -4.58* Households -- 3,885 3,505 3,316 3,186 -319 -9.10 Persons Per Household -- 2.73 2.55 2.37 2.4 -0.15 -5.88 Persons in -- 250 241 213 X -28 -11.62* Group Quarters

2000-2001 2007 2000 Change Estimate Actual Percent

Population 8,067 8,019 -48 -0.6

Households 3,316 3,315 -1 -0.03

Persons Per Household 2.37 2.4 -0.01 -0.42 Persons in 213 211** -2*** -0.94*** Group Quarters *1990 – 2000 Change **2001 Estimate ***2000 – Estimate 2001 Change Source: US Census Bureau 2000, Minnesota State Demographic Center and Metropolitan Council 2007

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 15 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Household characteristics have a direct impact on land use, housing needs, social services, and educational expenses. Changes in household size have a direct and proportional effect on demand exerted and types of housing necessary for communities. General county-wide housing characteristics are shown in Table 11. As household size decreases, the demand for housing units will increase. Table 12 identifies the status of vacant houses as of 2000. The conditions, type and variety of housing offered by communities directly influence the sustainability and vitality of the entire county.

Table 11. LqP Co Housing Characteristics in 2000 Total Total Housing Owner Renter Total Structures Vacant Units Occupied Occupied Occupied Built 1999 to March 2000 16 16 0 16 0 1995 to 1998 86 52 25 77 9 1990 to 1994 78 67 9 76 2 1980 to 1989 196 120 57 177 19 1970 to 1979 561 397 122 519 42 1960 to 1969 270 180 67 247 23 1940 to 1959 716 545 120 665 51 1939 or earlier 1851 1298 241 1539 312 Total 3,774 2,675 641 3,316 458 Source: US Census Bureau 2000

Table 12. LqP Co Vacant Housing Status For Rent 68 For Sale Only 101 Rented or Sold, Not Occupied 30 For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use 116 For Migrant Workers 2 Other Vacant 141 Total 458 Source: US Census Bureau 2000

Age and Sex Characteristics Since 1970, the Lac qui Parle County’s population has been increasingly “aging”. It is expected that the percent increase for the elderly population will continue to grow at a faster rate than that of the total population over the next 30 years, during the time frame that “baby boomers” will reach their retirement age. This is a strong indicator of the need for many senior-related services, including senior housing and transit services.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 16 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Tables 13 and 14 show age and sex characteristics of Lac qui Parle County. When evaluating data, each of the cities within Lac qui Parle County had very similar percentages to the county as a whole. In general terms, the 2000 census revealed that Louisburg has the largest percentage of an older population, while Dawson has the largest percentage of younger population. The entire county has a much larger percentage of elderly people compared to the state.

Table 13. LqP Co Age Characteristics Under 18 18 and Older Under 40 40 and Older Under 65 65 and Over

Minnesota 26% 74% 58% 42% 88% 12% Lac qui Parle 25% 75% 44% 56% 77% 23% County Bellingham 21% 79% 41% 59% 70% 30% Boyd 19% 81% 44% 56% 85% 15% Dawson 22% 78% 42% 58% 70% 30% Louisburg 16% 84% 24% 76% 60% 40% Madison 19% 81% 36% 64% 64% 36% Marietta 21% 79% 41% 59% 71% 29% Nassau 19% 81% 39% 61% 81% 19% Source: US Census Bureau 2000

Table 14. LqP Co Sex Characteristics in 2007 Male Female

Minnesota 49.8% 50.2%

Lac qui Parle County 49.8% 50.2%

Source: Minnesota State Demographic Center and Metropolitan Center 2007

Economic Synopsis Lac qui Parle County’s economic atmosphere supports an agricultural base, recreation, tourism, services, retail, trade and government services. With strong and mature manufacturing and service-related industries, Lac qui Parle County provides an ideal location for expansion of established businesses, as well as additional ventures. With excellent access to transportation systems and close proximity to major urban centers; Lac qui Parle County is positioned to have a vibrant economy for many years to come.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 17 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 15 highlights Lac qui Parle County’s labor statistics as of 2000. Sixty-three percent of Lac qui Parle County residents 16 years old and older are in the labor force and two percent are unemployed, according to the 2000 Census. Approximately 72 percent of people drive alone to work with an average travel time of 17.5 minutes.

Table 15. LqP Co Labor Statistics in 2000 EMPLOYMENT STATUS Number Percent Population 16 Years and Older 6,354 100 In Labor Force 3,975 63% Civilian Labor Force 3,970 62% Employed 3,839 60% Unemployed 131 2% Percent of Civilian Labor Force 3% (X) Armed Forces 5 0% Not in Labor Force 2,379 37% Commuting to work 3,800 100

Car, truck, or van – drove alone 2,723 72% Car, Truck, or Van – Carpooled 343 9% Public Transportation (including taxicab) 18 0% Motorcycle 0 0% Bicycle 12 0% Walked 250 7% Other Means 29 1% Worked at Home 425 11% Mean Travel Time to Work (minutes) 17.5 (X) Source: US Census Bureau 2000

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 18 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 16 provides a division of industries found within Lac qui Parle County, along with the number of employees. The dominant industries include Educational, Health, and Social Services with 886 workers, Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting and Mining with 554 workers, and Manufacturing with 502 workers (US Census Bureau 2000).

Table 16. LqP Co Industries for the Employed Civilian Population in 2000 Industries Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, and Mining 554 Construction 203 Manufacturing: 502 Wholesale Trade 186 Retail Trade 424 Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities 214 Information 45 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 184 Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, and Waste Management Services 100 Educational, Health and Social Services: 886 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation and Food Services 172 Other Services (except public administration) 211 Public Administration 158 Total 3,839 Source: US Census Bureau 2000

Lac qui Parle County has numerous large employers throughout the county, as shown in Table 17 below. Associated Milk Producers Inc. is the largest employer in Lac qui Parle County with 220 employees, followed by Johnson Memorial Hospital / Nursing Home and Viessman Trucking Inc. with 200 employees each. The other major employers are Lac qui Parle County Health Services and Lac qui Parle Valley School District 2853.

Table 17. LqP Co Major Employers Number of Employer Employees Associated Milk Producers Inc. 220 Johnson Memorial Hospital/Nursing Home 200 Viessman Trucking Inc. 200 LQP Health Services 175 LQP Valley School District 2853 165 Total 1,055 Source: Department of Trade and Economic Development

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 19 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 18 depicts income in 1999 for Lac qui Parle County and the income levels are quite equal at approximately 20 percent intervals from $15,000 dollars to $74,000 dollars. Only 5 percent of the Lac qui Parle County household population makes above $100,000 dollars annually, as compared to 6% of families. The median household income is $32,626, lower than the estimated Regional Income Estimate found in Table 19 below, with an estimated income of $30,050 dollars in 2006.

Table 18. LqP Co Income Statistics in 1999 Households Families Number Percentage Number Percentage Less than $10,000 348 10% 71 3% $10,000 to $14,999 301 9% 104 5% $15,000 to $24,999 583 18% 286 13% $25,000 to $34,999 567 17% 414 19% $35,000 to $49,999 593 18% 500 23% $50,000 to $74,999 595 18% 540 24% $75,000 to $99,999 183 6% 175 8% $100,000 to $149,999 95 3% 93 4% $150,000 to $199,999 19 1% 15 1% $200,000 or more 31 1% 24 1% Total 3,315 100% 2,222 100% Median Household or $32,626 - $41,556 - Family Income Source: US Census Bureau 2000 Note: Household count contains both families and persons living alone

Table 19. LqP Co Regional Income Estimates from 1996 – 2006 % Change: Region 1996 2001 2005 2006 1996 – 2006

Minnesota 25,716 32,619 34,757 36,714 18.6% Yellow Medicine 20,752 22,712 29,383 30,059 13.2% Big Stone 18,962 23,298 28,614 30,091 24.0% Swift 18,971 20,677 25,677 24,017 -1.1% Chippewa 21,883 26,156 29,223 30,168 7.7% Lac qui Parle 21,427 23,573 29,479 30,050 9.6% Data provided in dollars. Source: Minnesota Department of Administration 2006

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 20 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Tables 20 and 21 (below) compare monthly housing expenses for renter-occupied units and owner-occupied units. In 2000, 70 percent of renters had rent lower than $499 dollars a month, while the majority of mortgage holding owner-occupied units (43 percent) spent between $300 and $999 dollars on a monthly basis.

Table 20. LqP Co Renter-Occupied Monthly Housing Expenses in 2000 Monthly Rent Number Percent Less than $200 63 5% $200 to $299 97 8% $300 to $499 190 16% $500 to $749 74 6% $750 to $999 2 0% $1,000 to $1,499 2 0% $1,500 or more 2 0% No Cash Rent 124 10% Total 1,184 100% Median of rented units $401 Source: US Census Bureau 2000

Table 21. LqP Co Owner-Occupied Monthly Housing Expenses in 2000 Monthly Payments Number Percent With a Mortgage 759 45% Less than $300 50 3% $300 to $499 243 14% $500 to $699 334 20% $700 to $999 148 9% $1,000 to $1,499 58 3% $1,500 to $1,999 22 1% $2,000 or more 4 0% Median of Mortgaged Units 572 X Not Mortgaged 935 55% Median of Not Mortgaged Units 200 X Total 1,694 100 Source: US Census Bureau 2000

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 21 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Community Infrastructure

Schools Lac qui Parle County consists of four school districts but only have schools in the county for three of the four school districts. The biggest school district in the county is Lac qui Parle Valley, which has one high school for Madison, Marietta/Nassau, Bellingham and Louisburg (Table 22). Lac qui Parle Valley also serves Milan in Chippewa County and Appleton in Swift County. Dawson and Boyd schools make the Dawson-Boyd school district. Elementary schools are located in Madison, and Dawson.

Table 22. LqP Co Schools and Locations Lac qui Parle County Schools Addresses Dawson-Boyd High School 848 Chestnut Street, Dawson, MN 56232 Dawson-Boyd Elementary School 563 9th, Dawson, MN 56232 Madison-Marietta-Nassau Elementary School 316 4th Street, Madison, MN 56256 Lac qui Parle Valley High School RR 2 Box 68a, Madison, MN 56256

Public Facilities Important public facilities include city and town halls, the county courthouse, libraries, parks, churches and historic resources. These places provide both public services and create an important sense of community character. Most public facilities are located in the cities, as shown in Appendix 8 – Land Use Maps.

Transportation Roads. For additional information on roads refer to Annual Surveillance Monitoring Reports for Transportation (2003).

Trunk Highway System. Lac qui Parle County has three U.S. Trunk Highways: 212, 75 and 59. There are 70.7 miles of U.S. Highways. The county also has three MN Trunk Highways: 40, 119 and 275. There are 40.4 miles of Minnesota highways in the county. These roads are constructed and maintained by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT).

County Roads. These roads are established, constructed, and improved by the County Board. They are under the sole authority of the County Board and stretch to 136.50 miles. There are also 361.7 miles of County State-Aid Highway (CSAH).

Township Roads. A road established by and under the authority of the township board, or reverted to township jurisdiction by the County Board. These roads are constructed and maintained by township boundaries and Lac qui Parle County contains 821 township road miles.

City Streets. These roads serve as direct access from residential properties and/or commercial establishments and are classified as any street under the jurisdiction of a

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 22 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan municipality not otherwise designated as a Trunk Highway, County State-Aid Highway, or County Highway. Municipal streets total 42.4 miles.

Transit. Mass transit is considered to be an essential public service. Mass transit provides for increased capacity on heavily traveled roads, provides transportation access to the handicapped or those otherwise unable to drive, supports dense land use development, decreases dependence on car use, and helps to prevent the creation of additional air pollution from diminished individual car use.

Lac qui Parle County has two mass transit providers. The providers are Prairie Five Rides and Dawson Heartland Express. Prairie Five Rides started serving the public in May 1995 and Dawson Heartland Express in 1989. Prairie Five Community Action Council, Inc. serves the entire five county region. It began serving the public with buses in July of 1995, and merged with Ortonville Area Transit July 1, 1999. Prairie Five started with five buses in 1995. The buses run from approximately 7 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and Prairie Five RIDES now operates 10 vehicles (small buses). In 2007, Prairie Five Rides gave 76,851 rides driving 407,018 miles, compared to 2008 where they provided 83,405 rides and drove 399,071 miles. In 2000, the total operating cost of Prairie Five Rides was $307,686, and the total operating cost for Dawson Heartland Express was $66,633. Dawson Heartland Express had 17,846 passenger trips that covered 14,297 miles.

Airport. The Lac qui Parle County airport is located in Madison, MN. The LqP County Airport has a 3,300 foot paved runway that is 75 feet wide, and a turf runway that is 2,600 feet in length and 150 feet wide.

Railroads. Two active rail lines in Lac qui Parle County, the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BNSF) line from the Twin Cities and Minnesota Central (MC) line. BNSF operates a class-one rail line on the northern edge of the county, running on the southern side of State Highway 7 through the communities of Bellingham and Louisburg. The BNSF rail line owns approximately 1,626 miles of line, approximately 40 percent of the total rail mileage in the state. MC Line is a class three- rail line that goes northwest through the communities of Boyd, Dawson and Madison. MnDOT’s Office of Freight, Rail, and Waterways has identified BNSF rail lines in Lac qui Parle County as primary rail line. Primary rail lines make national and international connections between producers and markets and ensure protection of the current and future broad economic interests of the state.

Trails. Lac qui Parle County has a variety of trails available for use for county and visiting residents. Table 23 (following page) identifies trails and uses totaling a 120 miles (not including river canoe routes).

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 23 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 23. LqP Co Trails Location/ Length Trail Name County Surface Use Descriptions (miles) Snowdrifters Chippewa, Routes Snowmobile Lac qui Parle, throughout 103 Snow Snowmobile Trail Yellow Medicine counties Lac qui Parle Walk-5 State Park Lac qui Parle In State Park 15 Natural Ski-5 Trails Horse-5 Veteran’s Walk, Bike, Memorial Lac qui Parle Dawson 2 Paved Inline Skate Park Minnesota Minnesota River Canoe All Counties Unknown Water Canoeing River Route Minnesota Minnesota River Canoe All Counties Unknown Water Canoeing River Route Source: UMVRDC Trail Planning Guide (2002)

Telecommunication and Power Facilities Internet, Electric, Gas and Phone. Table 24 shows telecommunication, internet, cellular, and cable options, as well as electric, gas and telephone providers available to each community in Lac qui Parle County.

Table 24. LqP Co Telecommunication and Power Facilities Telecommunication City/Location Electric Gas Phone Internet, Cellular, Cable MVTV, Frontier, and MMSN Great Plains Boyd Otter Tail Power Frontier Boyd Municipal Cable Natural Gas Bellingham Farmers Mutual, All-Tel Otter Tail Power LP Tanks Farmers Mutual Frontier, Midwest Wireless, and Great Plains Frontier, Dawson Otter Tail Power Mediacom Natural Gas Mediacom Farmers Mutual Louisburg Farmers Mutual Otter Tail Power LP Tanks Tel. Co Farmers Mutual and Frontier Missouri River Farmers Mutual Madison Mid-West Wireless Energy Services, Aquila and Frontier Mediacom WAPA LP Electric, Marietta Farmers Mutual, Verizon, All-Tel Otter Tail Power Farmers Mutual Individual tanks Nassau Farmers Mutual Telephone Otter Tail Power LP Tanks Farmers Mutual

Radio. Lac qui Parle County has one FM radio station. The Madison radio station is KLQP (FM) which runs up-to-date weather that is transmitted to them by the National Weather Service.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 24 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan During the night hours KLQP runs automated, but if there is severe weather they have the ability to go live.

Sewer and Water Systems. Residents not served by municipal systems are served by individual wells and septic systems.

Table 25. LqP Co Sewer and Water Systems City/Location Water Sewer Sanitary Bellingham X X X Boyd X X X Dawson X X X Louisburg * * * Madison X X X Marietta X X X Nassau * X X * Not served by municipality.

Emergency Response

A county’s ability to respond to an emergency situation or event is based on service areas, facilities and equipment. An understanding of response times and abilities is critical in protecting the citizens of Lac qui Parle County. The existing facilities and equipment in the county are intended to address local needs and support regional needs. Lac qui Parle County is considered a mutual aid county and provides and receives support from adjacent counties. The following summary and description serves as an inventory of the response facilities for Lac qui Parle County.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 25 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Medical Facilities Lac qui Parle County is served with two hospitals and three clinics (Table 26 below). The county has a total of five ambulances: two in Madison, two in Dawson, and one in Marietta.

Table 26. LqP Co Hospitals & Clinics Hospital/Clinic Name Address Location Dawson Clinic/Johnson Memorial Health Services – 1282 Walnut Street Dawson Hospital, Clinic and Nursing Home. Madison Hospital 900 N 2nd Avenue Madison Lac qui Parle Clinic of Madison & Nursing Home 830 3rd Avenue Madison Madison Hospital Hospice 830 3rd Avenue Madison Boyd Community Health Center 124 3 Street N Boyd

Fire Services There are no full-time fire departments in Lac qui Parle County. All fire departments are volunteer-based with responsibilities divided into four response zones. The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for fire protection on state forest and parkland. The DNR works closely with local fire units for protection of these lands through contracting agreements. Both the U.S. Forest Service and the DNR work closely with local fire fighters whenever danger of woodland and urban fires is elevated. Additionally, all fire departments have mutual aid agreements. Fire Departments and most recently acquisitioned (as of 2003) equipment are listed in Table 27.

Table 27. LqP Co Fire Capabilities City Pumpers Tankers Grass Rig/Truck Firemen Bellingham 1 20 Boyd 1 21 Dawson 1 25 Louisburg 10 Madison 1 25 Marietta 1 1 25 Nassau 1 1 18 *Above list is not exhaustive and does not include equipment purchased prior to 2003.

Public Safety Emergency Operations Center. The EOC is located at the Lac qui Parle County Sheriff’s Department in Madison.

Emergency Warning Systems. Lac qui Parle County Board of Commissioners are responsible for providing direction and control of county government resources involved in the response to a disaster.

The Marshall NAWAS Warning Point is responsible for disseminating all watches and warnings to the Lac qui Parle County warning point, except warnings for conditions generated within the county itself. All cities in Lac qui Parle County have emergency sirens that are in working

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 26 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan condition. Back up power is needed for most of the sirens and most communities would prefer an additional warning siren for better coverage.

Police Departments. Police departments are located in Dawson, Boyd and Madison. The Madison Police share a facility with the Lac qui Parle County Sheriff’s Department.

Countryside Public Health. Countryside Public Health Services is the County Department of Health for Chippewa, Swift, Lac qui Parle, Big Stone and Yellow Medicine Counties. Part of their mission is designed to protect the health of the general population by emphasizing the prevention of disease, injury, disability and death though effective coordination, use of community resources, and provide education, training, WIC program, disease prevention and control and environmental programs. Countryside Public Health has the ability to respond to health emergencies and is now administering a Medical Reserve Corp (MRC) for volunteers. They continue to develop their plans for emergency response to outbreaks, other health emergencies, and mass dispensing sites.

Property

Land Uses Land uses are regulated in Lac qui Parle County through County Ordinances. Cities in Lac qui Parle County have zoning ordinances that regulate the building construction and location of manufactured home parks.

Current Codes Table 28 below identifies relevant ordinances that pertain to hazard mitigation in Lac qui Parle County and its respective municipalities. Marietta intends to adopt a Zoning Ordinance within the year and all municipalities that do not have an existing Floodplain Management Ordinance that contain floodplains, intend to adopt the ordinance within a year’s time.

Table 28. LqP Co & Municipality Relevant Ordinances Jurisdictions Relevant Ordinances Zoning Ordinance Floodplain Nuisance Ordinance Ordinance Lac qui Parle County X X X Bellingham X * X Boyd X ** X Dawson X X X Louisburg X * * Madison X * X Marietta ** ** X Nassau X * * * Floodplains are not located within municipal limits. ** Municipality intends to adopt ordinance.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 2 Pg. 27 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan LAC QUI PARLE COUNTY CHAPTER THREE: HAZARD INVENTORY

The first Local Task Force meeting was held on November 16, 2010 to identify past and potential future hazards and educate members on the basics of hazard mitigation. Local Task Force members were invited to the meeting through mailings and in the Madison Western Guard Newspaper, in all 12 people attended. The hazard inventory chapter is divided into two parts: Natural Hazards and Technological Hazards, defined by the Minnesota State Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Definition – Natural Hazard Natural hazards are those presented by the physical world, rather than those presented by humans. In natural hazards there is an interaction between the physical world, the constructed environment, and the people that occupy them. They are primarily atmospheric or geologic.

Definition – Manmade / Technological Hazards Technological hazards are those presented by humans, rather than those presented by nature. They are comprised of substances and processes that are flammable, combustible, explosive, toxic, noxious, corrosive, oxidizers, irritants, or radioactive.

NATURAL HAZARDS – PRESENTED BY THE PHYSICAL WORLD

Introduction Source: Minnesota State Hazard Mitigation Plan: Guarding against the unpredictable forces of nature has always been a goal of society. Ways to accomplish this gold include informing society of known hazards and constructing building environments to prevent serious damage from occurring. As the forces of nature can strike with unpredictable fury, there is always an element of risk associated with natural hazards. To inventory hazards that have occurred in Lac qui Parle County the Local Task Force committee identified hazards, established relationships between hazards, recognized current plans and programs in place to mitigate hazards, and highlighted gaps and overall deficiencies in current plans and programs.

For the purposes of this plan, natural hazards identified are organized into these groups:

1. Violent Storms 2. Extreme Temperatures a. Winter Storms Summer Heat, Winter Cold Blizzards, Ice Storms, Sleet Storms, 3. Floods Heavy Snow or Snowstorm 4. Drought b. Summer Storms 5. Wildfire Thunderstorms, Lightning, 6. Dam Failure Tornados, Hailstorms, Windstorms

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 1 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Hazard: Violent Storms

Violent storms can occur throughout the year in Lac qui Parle County. For practical purposes violent storms are categorized as summer or winter storms although there is no sharp end or beginning to when they might occur.

Winter Storms Lac qui Parle County experiences three basic types of winter storms: blizzards, heavy snow events and ice storms. Ice storms include freezing rain, freezing drizzle and sleet.

Blizzards. Blizzards, the most violent of winter storms, are characterized by low temperatures usually below 20o Fahrenheit, strong winds in excess of 35 miles per hour, and blowing snow that creates visibility issues at one-quarter mile or less for at least three hours. Blowing snow leads to whiteouts and drifting on the roadways, causing stranded motorists and the difficulty or inability of emergency vehicles to respond to incidents. While blizzards can occur in Lac qui Parle County from October through April, they most commonly occur from November through the end of March.

Ice Storms. Freezing rain, the most serious of ice storms, occurs during a precipitation event when warm air aloft exceeds 32o while the surface remains below the freezing point. When precipitation originating as rain or drizzle contacts physical structures on the surface, ice forms on all surfaces creating problems for traffic, utility lines and tree limbs.

Sleet Storms. Sleet forms when precipitation originating as rain falls through a rather large layer of the atmosphere with below freezing temperatures, allowing raindrops to freeze before reaching the ground. Sleet is also commonly referred to as ice pellets. Sleet storms are usually of shorter duration than freezing rain and generally create fewer problems.

Heavy Snow or Snowstorm. In Minnesota six or more inches of snow define a heavy snow event in a 12-hour period and eight or more inches of snow in a 24-hour period. Snow is considered heavy when visibility drops below one-quarter mile regardless of wind speed.

History of Winter Storms in Lac qui Parle County Lac qui Parle County usually experiences at least one occurrence of each of the above types of winter storms annually, often the same type on more than one occasion as shown in Tables 29 and 30 below.

Table 29. LqP Co Winter Storms 1993 – 2003 Winter 1993- 1994- 1995- 1996- 1997- 1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- of: 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Events: 6 4 11 10 1 4 1 7 4 2 Events include: blizzards, winter storm, heavy snow, blowing snow, ice storm, glaze, low and extreme wind chills Source: National Climatic Data Center – Event Query 2010

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 2 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 30. LqP Co Winter Storms 2003 – 2010 Winter 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- of: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Events: 5 2 4 1 2 7 7 Events include: blizzards, winter storm, heavy snow, blowing snow, ice storm, glaze, low and extreme wind chills Source: National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) – Event Query 2010

Blizzards are relatively common in Lac qui Parle County and from November 1993 to January 1, 2010, the NCDC reported fifteen blizzards and a total of 78 instances of winter weather. The winters of 1995–1996 and 1996–1997 were exceptionally extreme, likely due to the 21 winter storm events were reported from 1995-1997, including three blizzards. In addition, heavy snow, high wind and winter storms made these two winters difficult for Lac qui Parle County. There were many school cancellations and high costs to remove the snow. The winter of 1996-1997 was declared a Presidential Disaster because of the snow emergency.

During Thanksgiving week of November 2001, severe ice storms took place throughout the county, mainly in the southwest section. Damage incurred included numerous vehicle accidents, roofs, blocked roads, fallen trees, and multiple electrical outages. Residential dwelling received the worst impacts as a whole.

Two weather stations in Lac qui Parle County are located in Dawson and Madison. Table 31 illustrates snowfall extremes from 1951 to 2001. Many record snowfall events have occurred since 1995. Table 31. LqP Co Snowfall Extremes by Month Dawson Madison Monthly high High (in) Year High (in) Year January 25 1975 23.3 1997 February 27 2001 26.8 2001 March 28.7 1951 33.1 1951 April 12 1957 14.5 1957 May 0 - 1.5 1954 June - September 0 - 0 - October 5 1995 8 1951 November 21.1 1985 17.2 2001 December 22 1969 26.5 1968 1-Day Max (in) Date 1-Day Max (in) Date January 8.5 1/22/1952 11.3 1/30/2001 February 13 2/19/1952 15.3 2/25/2001 March 17 3/4/1984 12 3/3/1985 April 10 4/13/1996 11.8 4/12/1995 May - - 1.5 5/2/1954 June - September - - - - October 4 10/23/1995 5 10/22/1951 November 19 11/19/1948 16 11/27/2001 December 11 12/3/1953 10 12/3/1953 Source: Midwest Regional Climate Center 2000

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 3 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Relationship to Other Hazards – Cascading Effects As most of Lac qui Parle County is relatively flat, dangerous winter conditions are created when the wind blows including drifting, white outs and wind chills. Drifting and blizzard conditions can occur even if there are no new snow accumulations. During the winter of 1996-1997, drifts were higher than most street vehicles.

Flooding. The winter of 1996-1997 contributed to record spring flooding. This event is discussed in the flooding section.

Summer Storms Summer storms affecting Lac qui Parle County include thunderstorms, tornadoes, hailstorms and windstorms.

Thunderstorms. Thunderstorms are the most common summer storm in Lac qui Parle County, occurring primarily during the months of May through August with the most severe storms most likely to occur from mid-May through mid-July. Thunderstorms are usually localized, produced by cumulonimbus clouds, always accompanied by lightening, and often have strong wind gusts, heavy rain and sometimes hail or tornadoes.

Lightning. While windstorms and tornadoes are significant hazards associated with severe thunderstorms, lightning is probably the most frequent hazard associated with thunderstorms and the hazard that causes the largest loss of life. Lightning occurs to balance the difference between positive and negative discharges within a cloud, between two clouds and between the cloud and the ground. For example, a negative charge at the base of the cloud is attracted to a positive charge on the ground. When the difference between the two charges becomes great enough a lightning bolt strikes. The charge is usually strongest on tall buildings, trees and other objects protruding from the surface and consequently such objects are more likely to be struck than lower objects.

While cloud-to-ground lightning poses the greatest threat to people and objects on the ground it actually accounts for only 20 percent of all lightning strikes. The remaining lightning occurs within the cloud, from cloud to cloud or from the ground to the cloud, with in-cloud lightning being the most common.

Tornadoes. Tornadoes are the most violent of all storms. A tornado is essentially a rapidly rotating column of air, spawned by a cumulonimbus cloud. When it drops to the ground it can create significant damage and loss of life. Tornadoes always occur in association with thunderstorms. While somewhat more common in southern Minnesota, they have occurred in all counties in the state.

Tornadoes are most likely to occur during warm humid spells during the months of May, June, July and August; but have occurred as early as March and as late as November in Minnesota. On occasion tornadoes called cold air funnels occur after the passage of a cold front when air is much less humid, but the air aloft is very cold creating enough instability to make funnel clouds. Most tornadoes occur during the warm part of the day – late afternoon or early evening; over 80 percent of tornadoes occur between noon and midnight.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 4 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

The tornado’s path typically ranges from 250 feet to a quarter of a mile in width. The speed of a tornado varies but commonly is between 20 and 30 mph; however, larger and faster tornadoes have occurred in Minnesota. Most tornadoes stay on the ground for less than five minutes. Tornadoes frequently move from the southwest to the northeast but this, too, is variable and consequently cannot be counted on in all instances.

Hailstorms. Hail is considered ice and is a by-product of severe thunderstorms. Hail is formed when strong updrafts within cumulonimbus cloud carry water droplets above the freezing level or when ice pellets in the cloud collide with water droplets. The water droplets freeze or attach themselves to ice pellets and begin to freeze as strong updraft winds toss the pellets and droplets back up into colder regions of the cloud. Both gravity and downdrafts in the cloud pull the pellets down, where they encounter more droplets that attach and freeze as the pellets are tossed once again to higher levels in the cloud. This process continues until the hailstones become too heavy to be supported by the updrafts and fall to the ground as hail.

Most hail in Minnesota ranges in size from pea-size to golf-ball sized hail. Larger hailstones have been reported, but occur much less frequently. Strong updrafts are necessary within the cloud to form hail and are usually associated with severe thunderstorms. Area coverage of individual hailstorms is highly variable and spotty due to the changing nature of cumulonimbus clouds. While almost all areas of southern Minnesota can expect some hail during the summer months, most hail is not large enough to cause significant crop or property damage.

Windstorms. Windstorms can and do occur in all months of the year; however, the most severe windstorms usually occur during severe thunderstorms in warmer months. These storms include tornadoes and downburst or straight line winds. Winds of greater than 60 mph are associated with intense winter, spring and fall low-pressure systems that can inflict damage to buildings and in some cases overturn high profile vehicles.

A downburst is a severe localized downdraft from a thunderstorm or a rain shower and this outflow of cool or colder air can create damaging winds at or near the surface. Winds up to 130 mph have been reported in the strongest thunderstorms. Downburst winds can cause as much damage as a small tornado and are frequently confused with tornadoes because of the extensive damage they cause. As these downburst winds spread out they are often referred to as straight- line winds that can cause major structural and tree damage over a relatively large area.

Strong winds combined with saturated soils can lead to a widespread loss of trees. This becomes a problem in communities when downed trees injure people, damage property, knock out power lines or impede traffic. Downed power lines are a concern because of power outages, as well presenting a risk of electrocution or fire. Risks associated with storms toppling trees can be managed through proper tree selection and proper maintenance programs. Some communities desire the look and feel of tree-shaded roads and this desire may lead the community to encourage the planting of trees that are too large for the narrow green strip between the street and sidewalk.

History of Summer Storms in Lac qui Parle County At one time or another Lac qui Parle County has experienced all of the summer storms described above. Thunderstorms, lightning, hail, and windstorms are relatively common and can topple

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 5 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

trees, cause destruction to homes as well as destroy agriculture crops. Table 32 depicts the total number of summer storm events and presumed average number of events on a yearly basis in Lac qui Parle County.

Table 32. LqP Co Summer Storms from 1955 – 2009 Thunderstorms Lightning Tornados Hail Events Windstorms

1955-2009 (in 1997) 1955-2010 1955 - 2009 1955-2009 Events 16* 2 9** 104 3* Years 54 54 55 54 54 Average per year .30 0.04 .16 1.93 .05

* Wind and thunderstorms over 60 kts. **Includes funnel clouds. Source: National Climatic Data Center – Event Query 2009

According to the National Climatic Data Center Storm Database, the county has experienced eight tornados since 1950, with the first in 1967. Three tornados took place in 2005 (two) and 2006, receiving magnitude values of F0 and a single funnel cloud formation in 2007. None have been very strong and none have affected urban areas, but in general the county has been spared from significant tornado damage. Three tornado F1 occurrences in 1970, 1981, and 2002 accumulated a total of $38,000 dollars in property damages; $3,000, $25,000, and $10,000 respectively. The most recent tornado occurred on August 12, 2010 and touched down in Madison and Louisburg. Local law enforcement and weather spotters observed a tornado touch down in the southwestern portion of Madison, downing several trees and created a path through corn fields. A second tornado touchdown was seen on the southern portion of Louisburg, where trees were downed and a grain bin from the Louisburg Elevator was transported 100 yards.

Relationship to Other Hazards – Cascading Effects Flooding. Heavy snows, snow melt, and thunder storms can cause flooding, which disrupt emergency response, transportation and communication.

Transportation, Emergency Services, and Utility Disruption. Violent storms of all types can cause property damage, loss of life, personal injury, disrupt transportation and communication and emergency services, and threaten public health and safety. Further, storms present significant threats to essential public infrastructure and services such as power, water supply systems and sanitary systems. Utility disruptions in particular are most likely to occur if a violent storm were to destroy an “electrical center” located in cities and may take up to a day to restore communication power, pending the service provider.

Fire. The storms listed above could down power lines, which may lead to fires.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 6 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Plans and Programs for Severe Storms The Severe Storm Spotters Network. This program, sponsored by the National Weather Service (NWS), enlists the help of trained volunteers to spot severe storm conditions and report this information to the NWS. No tornado warning is given unless the storm has been spotted by someone or is confirmed by NWS radar reports. Weather spotters report to the Lac qui Parle County Sheriff’s Office which reports to the NWS when severe weather is observed.

KLQP-FM. This local radio station provides up-to-date weather information, especially during storm events.

Comprehensive Website. Dawson has a section of weather on its website: www.dawsonmn.com which includes forecasts, watches, warnings, data, river and lake levels and road conditions. The links on this website are continually updated and provides good data during storms.

Severe Weather Shelters. Shelters are located in all cities, most commonly utilizing large public buildings such as city halls or churches.

Windbreaks. Mn/DOT and the Lac qui Parle County Soil and Water Conservation District have been promoting a living snow fence program. Strategically planted strips of trees, shrubs and/or native grasses can use natural snow fences to protect highways and dramatically reduce blowing and drifting snow. Mn/DOT has worked with the USDA to access CRP resources to help implement this program.

Live Weather Conditions. The Madison Elementary school has purchased a real-time weather monitoring station that provides current temperature, dew point, wind speed, wind direction and barometric pressure.

Severe Weather Warning System. The county’s cities have emergency sirens to warn residents in the event of severe summer weather and are tested on a monthly basis.

Weather Radios. All of Lac qui Parle County is within the broadcast range of the weather radio and some rural residents are within the range of the severe weather warning system sirens. The weather tower is located in Appleton.

Publication “The Right Tree”. Minnesota Power has published The Right Tree. This handbook can be useful in selecting proper trees - especially around power lines. Proper maintenance of trees can also prevent problems. DNR forestry staff, as well as private consultants, are available to work with communities to develop community forestry programs.

Program Gaps and Deficiencies for Severe Storms  About 10-20 percent of the homes in the county lack basements that would provide shelter in the event of a tornado or damaging winds from a severe thunderstorm.  Many rural residents are outside the range of the severe weather warning system sirens.  Local radio stations do provide warnings but are effective only if tuned to.  Most power lines in the county are above ground and subject to damage from ice storms, wind and falling tree limbs. There are few community requirements that discourage the

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 7 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

planting of large trees near power lines. Some of the main transmission lines are underground.  Hourly weather data is available from the automated AWOS station at the airport, but its telephone number is not generally known or is not utilized.  The siren in Dawson does not work 50 percent of the time.

Hazard: Extreme Temperatures

Located in the center of the continent, Minnesota and Lac qui Parle County experience the extremes of summer heat and winter cold. Summer temperatures in Lac qui Parle County have exceeded 110 o F on several occasions while winter temperatures have been as cold as 42o F below zero. Both heat and cold pose risks for people, animals, equipment and infrastructure.

Summer Heat History The average July maximum temperature in most of Lac qui Parle County is about 80-84o F. July is the warmest month. According to the Midwest Climate Center, the county experiences an average of 25 days of 90 degrees or higher during a summer. The all time recorded high is 110 o F in 1988 recorded in Madison, as shown in Table 33 below.

Table 33. LqP Co Extreme Temperatures Highest Temp Date Lowest Temp Date Madison 110 7/31/1988 -36 2/9/1994 Source: Midwest Regional Climate Center 2000

While summers are typically warm but pleasant in Lac qui Parle County, it is not uncommon to get extended warm spells with high dew points and temperatures in the 90s for several days in a row. Extended periods of warm, humid weather can create significant risks for people, particularly the elderly who may lack air conditioning or proper insulation or ventilation in their homes. Animals are also at risk during extended periods of heat and humidity.

In recent years a heat index has been developed that combines humidity and temperature to better reflect the risk of warm weather to animals and people. The index measures the apparent temperature in the shade. People exposed to the sun would experience an even higher apparent temperature. A heat index of 105o F is considered dangerous. With prolonged exposure it could result in heat stroke, heat exhaustion and heat cramps. People are reminded to use extreme caution when the heat index is between 95 o and 105o F. A heat index of 95 o F occurs when the temperature is 90o F and the relative humidity is 50 percent. This is more of a problem when these conditions are present for several days in a row, as buildings can become hotter and hotter as the conditions persist.

According to the State Climatologist, there is some evidence that current dew points are not only higher, but are occurring with greater frequency than was true in the past. If that is the case, Lac qui Parle County residents can expect an increasing number of hours with heat indexes in the danger category.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 8 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Winter Cold History On average, January is the coldest month, with daytime highs averaging 21o F and nighttime lows of 0o F. However, these averages don’t tell the entire story. Maximum temperatures in January have been as high as 67o F and minimums as low as 35o F below 0o. The winter months on average produce about 37 days of 0o F or lower.

Cold weather is often accompanied by winds creating a dangerous wind chill effect, putting both people and livestock at risk. Most of the county is at risk from this kind of weather because of its relatively flat open character. More wooded, hilly areas of the county are less severely affected. Wind chills of minus 35o F and lower can present significant risk, particularly if people are not properly clothed or protected. A 15o F below air temperature with wind speeds of 10 mile per hour creates a wind chill of 35o F below zero. In the open under these conditions, frostbite can occur in minutes on exposed skin.

Relationship to Other Hazards – Cascading Effects Violent Storms. Temperature extremes can be associated with weather extremes, such as snowstorms and blizzards.

Drought. Extended high temperature extremes can phase into drought.

Wildfire. Dry, hot conditions can increase the risk of wildfires.

Utility Failure. Failure happens due to overuse of electricity.

Plans and Programs for Extreme Temperatures The following programs and projects are in addition to the ones already mentioned for violent storms:

Heat Advisories. The local radio and TV media in concert with the National Weather Service issues a heat advisory when the combination of temperature and humidity create risks for people and animals. A heat index of 105o to 114o F warrants a heat advisory. This occurs when air temperature reaches 95o F and the relative humidity is 50 percent. An excessive heat warning is issued when the heat index reaches 115o F. This occurs with an air temperature of 95o F and relative humidity of 60 percent. An index of 115o F or higher creates severe risk for both humans and animals.

Wind Chill Warnings. The local radio and TV media in concert with the National Weather Service issues a wind chill warning when temperatures are 30o F or lower. Severe wind chill warnings are provided when conditions warrant and when severe risk and safety is a factor. Wind chills of 40o F below or lower frequently prompt the closing of schools to protect children, particularly in rural areas.

Automated Weather Stations. Madison Elementary has an automated weather station provided by AWS. This enables school personnel to monitor current weather conditions like wind, temperature and humidity on a real-time basis to provide up-to-the-minute information in case conditions change rapidly and action is required.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 9 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Hourly Data. Hourly weather data is available from the Automatic Weather Observation Station at the Lac qui Parle airport near Madison. Information from this station is given to local radio stations to distribute to the public.

School Closings. The county’s school districts each have their own school closing policy. The superintendent decides when to send students home based on current weather forecasts. Local radio stations partner with the districts to make sure the announcements are out by 6:00 a.m. or earlier.

Program Gaps and Deficiencies for Extreme Temperatures  Only one school has an automated weather station providing current weather conditions. Additional stations at schools throughout the county would provide more current information and quicker response to dangerous and changing weather conditions.  Hourly weather data is available from the automated AWOS station at the airport, but its telephone number is not generally known.

Hazard: Flood

A flood is defined as an overflowing of water onto an area of land that is normally dry. For floodplain management purposes, the Federal Emergency Management Agency uses the following definition of “100-year flood.” Other water hazards considered in this section include flash floods and washouts.

The term "100-year flood" is misleading - it is not a flood that will occur once every 100 years; rather, it is the flood elevation that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. Thus, a 100-year flood could occur more than once in a relatively short period of time. The 100-year flood, which is the standard used by most federal and state agencies, is used by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as the standard for floodplain management and to determine the need for flood insurance. A structure located within a special flood hazard area shown on a map has a 26 percent chance of suffering flood damage during the term of a 30-year mortgage. One-hundred year floodplains have been identified, mapped and used for further analysis using the county’s Geographic Information System (GIS) and the map data provided by FEMA is dated March 16, 2006. Floods generally occur from natural causes, usually weather- related, such as a sudden snowmelt, often in conjunction with a wet or rainy spring or with sudden and very heavy rainfalls. In the spring of 2009, a great amount of water overflowed roads, causing a major washout and road closures throughout the county. Floods can, however, result from human causes such as a dam impoundment burst.

History of Flooding in Lac qui Parle County

During major flood events, floodwaters presented problems in South Dakota that necessitated cleaning out culverts and ditches with backhoes to move the water through. This water runs into Lac qui Parle County at a very fast rate and causing flooding issues in the county.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 10 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Dawson Flood History Source: ACOE website: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/fl_damage_reduct/default.asp?pageid=1 3 The city of Dawson is located in west-central Minnesota, in Lac qui Parle County, approximately 150 miles west of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Dawson is in the Lac qui Parle Watershed, a tributary of the Minnesota River and is located on the west branch of the Lac qui Parle River, approximately one mile upstream of its confluence with the main stem. The total drainage area of the West Branch of the Lac qui Parle River is 485 square miles, including the drainage area of Judicial Ditch 4, which flows through Dawson. Most of Dawson lies to the north of the west branch of the Lac qui Parle River, with several populated areas lying south of the river. Low-lying areas are subject to flooding from the west branch of the Lac qui Parle River and from Judicial Ditch 4. A large segment of Dawson is now protected against flooding on the west branch of the Lac qui Parle River by a levee constructed across the southeastern portion of the community. This levee prevents flows from the west branch of the Lac qui Parle River from backing up into Judicial Ditch 4. Interior runoff is diverted to a point in the west branch of the Lac qui Parle River downstream of Dawson. Status On August 5, 1997, the city of Dawson requested that the US Army Corps of Engineers conduct studies to determine the feasibility of developing a small flood control project at Dawson. An initial assessment, completed in November 1998, indicated that further studies were warranted. The Feasibility Study began on May 18, 1999, with the signing of the Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the city of Dawson and the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Feasibility Report was then later approved in August 2002. Plans and specifications for the levee project began in October 2002 and completed in September 2003. A construction contract was awarded in late 2003.

Feasibility study costs were shared 50 percent federal and 50 percent non-federal. Project design and construction costs were 65 percent federal and 35 percent non-federal. Operation and maintenance costs were 100 percent non-federal. The following summarizes the estimated cost to design and construct the flood control features at Dawson. Estimated federal cost $868,000 Estimated non-federal cost $467,000 Total estimated cost $1,335,000 Annual O&M costs $17,000

The State of Minnesota, through the Department of Natural Resources, indicated support of the project, and proposed to provide funding aid to the city of Dawson. Dawson completed the final levee project in November 2009. The levee is built at a 200-year flood level and is approximately fifteen feet high and a quarter mile in length. The final total project cost (including a pump station) amounted to $3.9 million dollars. Funding from this project was provided by the State of Minnesota, through the Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and the City of Dawson. It is expected that the current digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps as of March 16, 2006 will be changed due to the levee placement. Dawson fully intends to collaborate with FEMA to ensure the proper floodplain boundaries are in place.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 11 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Issues that arose from the Historic 1997 and 2001 flood events:

Entire County.  Roads damaged from hauling of sand, etc.  Flooded county and township roads, bridges and culverts.  Flooded county ditches – especially Ten Mile Creek/ Judicial Ditch 8 overflow.  High ground water all over.  Overland flooding – ditches carrying too much water, the USGS quad maps don’t address this issue.  Flooding all over county – streams, creeks and wetlands as well as the major rivers and lakes.  Many roads closed.  Lives at risk, especially in 1997.  In 1997 only, septic tanks backed up into homes (many rural septic systems have been updated since).  Rural flooding is also an issue of some concern. Rural flooding can impact structures as well as agricultural lands. Flooding of township road cause enormous amounts of damage, but generally goes unnoticed by the public.

Townships.  Baxter – bridges in all townships.  Nassau basements in 1997 and 2001.

All Townships Bordering South Dakota.  Flood the western part of Lac qui Parle County.  South Dakota opens all culverts every year.  Lac qui Parle County receives a great amount of South Dakota’s water.  South Dakota cleans out ditches with backhoes.

Marietta. Boyd.  Few homes affected (1997 worse). One house by creek in 1997.

Dawson.  More than 60 homes in the northern area affected.  Storm sewer backs up into basements.  Flood levy.  In the 1997 and 2001 flood events, Dawson experienced floods, residential property damage and the forced evacuation of people from their homes.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 12 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Figure 1 – LqP Co Flood Reports

Flooding Reports from the DNR Waters summary on the climatic National Climatic Data Center conditions that lead to the 1997 and 2001 (NCDC) Storm Event flooding. Database See the appendix for complete report http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi- win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms Factors that contributed to the 1997 flooding Flash flood, July 3, 1995  Heavy autumn precipitation Extreme rainfall between five  Extraordinary winter snowfall and 15 inches resulted in severe  Less than ideal snowmelt scenario property and crop damage.  Heavy early spring precipitation Numerous fields and roads were washed out. Hay bales were Factors that contributed to the 2001 floating in fields. Crop damage flooding in Swift County affected  Significant autumn precipitation 180,000 acres. 55,000 acres  Heavy winter snowfall were a total loss. Rain affected  Less than ideal snowmelt scenario Swift, Lac qui Parle and  Record-breaking April precipitation Chippewa Counties.

Flash Flood, August 20, 2002 Six to eight inches were measured across much of southern and eastern Lac Qui Parle County. Several streets were flooded in Dawson, stalling a few vehicles. A few basements were also flooded in Dawson.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 13 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 2 – LqP Co Flood Reports - Continued

Flooding Reports from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Storm Event Database http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms

100-year Flood (1997) Above normal temperatures during the last week of March began melting a deep snow cover across much of west central into central Minnesota. Snow depth rank was in the 80 to 90th percentile over much of the area measured on 3/20/97. The snow cover had high moisture content. In addition, a spring storm deposited a mixture of rain and fresh snow over the area on 3/24/97, immediately preceding the warm temperatures. The flooding resulted in severe losses to both public and private property. Damage was extensive to roads, bridges, culverts, agricultural drainage areas, homes and businesses. Scattered road closures were a result of the spring thaw as well. Many smaller rivers also overflowed their banks resulting in road closures and structural flooding. Widespread flooding was reported in Lac qui Parle County due to the spring thaw as well as the Lac Qui Parle River overflowing its banks. Many roads were closed and a large number of homes in Dawson were surrounded by water.

All county and township roads in Lac qui Parle County were closed to unnecessary travel for a time. Fifteen to 20 percent of tillable land in Lac qui Parle County was under water by 4/10/97. At one point, only one bridge (Highway 4 in Fairfax) spanning the Minnesota River was still open between Mankato and the South Dakota border.

100-year Flood (2001) Heavy snowfall during winter remained on the ground through the end of March and then rapidly melted, resulting in river stages close to record levels. Water began to gush through drainage ditches, streams and into the mainstream rivers during mid-day April 1. Many rivers remained well above flood stage into mid-May.

Numerous roads and bridges were closed, millions of sandbags used, and approximately 200 homes and businesses were partially submerged with floodwaters. About 100 homes and businesses were damaged beyond repair. Part of the Marsh Lake Dam southwest of Appleton (Swift County) eroded on April 7, but officials shored it up with 9000 tons of rock and gravel. The last of the river levels finally went below warning criteria on May 8.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 14 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Routine Spring Flooding. Spring flooding is a constant concern throughout Lac qui Parle County, caused by above normal (or rapid) snow melt and has taken place since early 2000. Especially notable in the springs of 2009 and 2010, numerous issues are seen on a county-wide level. The most common damage incurred by spring flooding is road damage including washouts and blocked and closed roads, which in turn causes accessibility issues for farmers. The areas most frequently inundated include south and southwestern Lac qui Parle County, notably Providence, Hamlin, and Lakeshore Townships. The severity of the flooding is due to heavy rainfall and snow density. In the past, the Lac qui Parle Yellow Bank Watershed District has put in great effort to find ways to eradicate flood concerns. Numerous ideas including ring dike and the placement of large structures to retain water have been researched in the past five years; however are now considered cost-prohibitive. Strategies have been created and are noted in the Water Development District Plan and Lac qui Parle County’s 10-Year Water Plan. Overlapping strategies for these concerns are found in Chapter 5.

Relationship with Other Hazards – Cascading Effects Hazardous Materials. Structures that house hazardous materials may be flooded causing leaks or transportation routes may be washed out, causing overturned vehicles.

Infectious Disease. Water issues often translate into issues around infectious diseases. Water contamination and wastewater removal many times go along with flooding issues. Diseases such as hepatitis A, giardia, cryptosporidium, and West Nile virus are potential hazards that have direct links to water.

Transportation, Emergency Services, and Utility Disruption. Violent storms of all types can cause property damage, loss of life, personal injury, disrupt transportation and communication and emergency services. Further, public health and safety, and essential public infrastructure and services such as power, water supply systems and sanitary systems, could be threatened. Utility disruptions in particular, are most likely to occur if a flood were to destroy an “electrical center” located in cities and may take up to a day to restore communication power, pending the service provider.

Landslide and Debris Flow.. Destabilized stream banks are related to flooding. As rivers evolve they carve out a channel adequate to handle typical peak flows (1-2 year flood events). As landscape hydrology alters, higher peak flows carve out larger channels. Unfortunately, this often results in riverbanks being destabilized. Across the region these unstable banks have threatened farmlands, roads and homes. Bank stabilization projects are expensive and often only shift the problem to a different place along the stream. Long term mitigation for riverbank stabilization is 1) holding water on the landscape and 2) proper setback of infrastructure and building from rivers.

Debris flow includes downed trees being carried by floodwaters. These trees caused problems at various bridges over the Minnesota River in the last round of major flooding. The trees ran into bridges and got caught forming logjams. Contractors lifted the trees over bridges and returned them to the river downstream of the bridge, with the end result of trees floating to succeeding bridges to be lifted over again. Large flood events can and do kill trees within the flood plain, including large cottonwood and maples. In subsequent flood events these standing dead trees

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 15 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

can be knocked down and washed away, causing havoc to communities and counties. The Lac qui Parle/Yellow Bank River Watershed is working with South Dakota in water retention promotion. Debris flow occurs along the Lac qui Parle River and in ditches throughout the county. Every year, the Burlington trestle bridge in Dawson has to be cleared of debris. In Lac qui Parle Village there has been a collapse of a township road in a landslide area.

Plans and Programs for Flooding County Flood Area Map and Controls. The current county official land use map identifies 100- year flood areas. The county zoning ordinance controls permitted land uses in these areas which describes what can be built and how.

City of Dawson Flood Map and Controls. The City of Dawson has a floodplain ordinance. Dawson has identified 100-year flood areas on its official land use map and adopted in its zoning ordinance appropriate zoning and land use controls governing these areas.

Mobile Emergency Operations Center. The Emergency Operations Center located in the Lac qui Parle Sheriff’s Office could be moved to the Madison Fire Hall in the event of an emergency.

Response Plan. A response plan to a flood emergency has been developed and local resources and personnel have been committed to it.

Wetland Restorations. Wetland restorations are being done in Lac qui Parle County. Surveys and construction are done to insure that the water is not a hazard to roads and adjoining landowners.

Coordination with South Dakota. The Lac qui Parle/Yellow Bank Watershed project is working with South Dakota on water retention project to mitigate the amount and speed of floodwaters when released.

Assistance from Other Agencies. During a flood emergency, state, federal and local agencies worked together effectively. Local resources are not adequate for a severe and prolonged flood.

Program Gaps or Deficiencies for Flooding  Although many of the homes in the floodway were removed, approximately 100 structures in Dawson remain in the 100-year floodplain. The city of Dawson and the US Army Corps of Engineers is currently looking at a levee project to protect these homes.  DNR forestry staff suggest that the costs and hazard associated with downed trees as debris flow might be mitigated through improved “sanitation cutting” in the floodplain. There are provisions within the Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) set aside program that allows limited timber cutting on lands enrolled in the program. However, the cutting must be allowed in a timber management plan prepared by a DNR forester. SWCDs and landowners have not been utilizing this aspect of the RIM program.  Need to clear the railroad bridge in Dawson. It currently fills will debris very easily.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 16 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Hazard: Drought

Drought is defined as a prolonged period of dry weather, a lack of rainfall.

History of Drought in Lac qui Parle County Lac qui Parle County has experienced prolonged periods without rainfall. The most severe in climatic records occurred during the 1930’s; none so prolonged have occurred since. Record annual low precipitation took place in Madison in 1976 with 9.34 inches, and record lows for the summer in Madison was 4.52 inches in 1976 and in Dawson, 6.34 inches in 1950. The record low for the month of July was in 1975 for both Madison and Dawson was 0.42 and 0.31, respectively.

Drought of 1920-30. Perhaps the most devastating weather-driven events in American history were the droughts of the 1920's and 1930's, which significantly impacted Minnesota's economic, social, and natural landscapes. Abnormally dry and hot growing season weather throughout the better part of two decades turned Minnesota farm fields to dust and small lakes into muddy ponds. The parched soil was easily taken up by strong winds, often turning day into night. The drought peaked with the heat of the summer of 1936, setting many high temperature records that still stand today.

Drought of 1974-77. Drought-like conditions began in the winter of 1974 and extended through the summer of 1977. The dry conditions of these years lowered water levels in wells and caused record low stream flows throughout the state. Late summer forest fires broke out, and conflicts arose between domestic well owners and neighboring high capacity well owners. The DNR Division of Waters formulated new policies to resolve these resource management problems and user conflicts. Many of these new policies formed the basis of subsequent amendments to agency rules and state statutes.

Drought of 1987-89. The warm, dry winter of 1986-87 was the beginning of this period of little rainfall and extreme dryness. Drought conditions became very serious in mid-June 1988 when Mississippi River flow levels threatened to drop below the Minneapolis Water Works intake pipes at the city of Fridley. Below normal precipitation coupled with declining lake levels, ground water levels, and stream flow created statewide concern. To facilitate coordination of drought response actions a State Drought Task Force was convened by the director of the Division of Waters. The State Drought Task Force brought together local, state, and federal officials to share information and coordinate drought response strategies. Several actions were taken following the summer of 1988 to better prepare the state for the next drought. The Governor appointed a "Twin Cities Water Supply Task Force" specifically to make recommendations on how to meet future water demands in the event of low flow conditions on the Mississippi River. The Corps of Engineers initiated review of its operating plans for the Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs, and the 1989 legislature charged the Metropolitan Council with preparing water use and supply plans for the metropolitan area. In the summer of 1988, rains finally came in August, but not soon enough to save agriculture crops.

Drought of 2003. For a three-month period from mid-July through mid-October, a stubbornly persistent weather pattern resulted in extremely dry weather across the state of Minnesota. Few widespread rain events moved through the state during the interval, and precipitation totals were

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 17 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

less than six inches across much of Minnesota. Total rainfall for the mid-July through mid- October period fell short of historical averages by four or more inches in many areas. Rainfall deficits exceeded seven inches in portions southeastern Minnesota. When compared with other July 15 through October 20 time periods in the historical database, mid-July through mid- October 2003 rainfall totals rank among the lowest on record for many areas of south central and southeastern Minnesota, and a small portion of west central Minnesota.

Relationship with Other Hazards – Cascading Effects Wildfires. Drought-stressed woods, brush land and non-cultivated fields significantly increases the risks of wildfire.

Plans and Programs for Drought Water Plan. The current Lac qui Parle County Comprehensive Water Plan identifies major and minor watersheds serving the county.

Shoreline Zoning. Lac qui Parle County has adopted via ordinance the state’s statutory shoreline and riparian zoning classifications and minimum standards. Shoreline in Lac qui Parle County is primarily DNR-owned.

Water Consumption Use. Semiannual or annual water consumption by various major consumers, urban residential, industrial/commercial or agricultural, is documented through water meters and through Lincoln Pipestone Rural Water.

Water Conservation. Water conservation provisions and use restrictions in times of drought are included in city ordinances and are possible in the Lincoln Pipestone Rural Water system.

Program Gaps and Deficiencies for Drought  County has no estimates of annual recharge rates or the capacities of the various aquifers.  The current county water plan recommends wellhead protection standards for adoption via ordinance by Lac qui Parle County, but has yet to be implemented.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 18 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Hazard: Wildfire

A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire spread through vegetative fuels, posing danger and destruction to properties. Wildfires can occur in undeveloped areas and spread to urban areas where structures and other human development are more concentrated.

While some wildfires start by natural causes such as lightning, humans cause four out of every five wildfires. Debris burns, arson or carelessness are the leading causes of wildfires. As a natural hazard, a wildfire is often the direct result of a lightning strike that may destroy personal property and public land areas, especially on state and national forest lands. The dominate danger from wildfires is the destruction of timber, property and wildlife, and injury or loss of life to people living in the affected area or using the area for recreational facilities.

Wildfire risks are not limited to public lands. There are extensive tracts of privately owned grasslands as well. These include both conservation program lands (CRP, RIM, CREP, etc.) and “rough ground” that has been hayed, pastured or left wild. These private lands particularly in combination with public lands (such as WMA, SNA, State Parks, WPA, etc.) can combine to create substantial blocks of grasslands. Fire danger grows when cedar trees encroach into grasslands as evergreens can add a considerable amount of fuel load.

To date, there has been very little injury or loss of property resulting from wildfire in the Upper Minnesota Valley Region. However, there are some risks that should be managed to mitigate potential disasters.

History of Wildfire in Lac qui Parle County Wildfires occur throughout the state of Minnesota. According to the Minnesota State Fire Marshal, there are more than 2,000 annual wildfires with an estimated loss of more than $13 million dollars. From 2000 to 2007, Lac qui Parle County has experienced four wildfires, totaling a loss of 232.75 acres (MnDNR 2009). The first in April 2000 burned 2.5 acres; followed by the second in April 2005 impacting 80 acres. The last two most recent wildfires took place in May and June 2007, burning a total of 150.25 acres.

Milan Area Wildfire, April 2003. On April 12, 2003, a wildfire started on a vacant farm near Chippewa County Road 30. Fifteen fire departments responded to the call over the weekend. Many of these fire departments did not have equipment meant to fight prairie fires, but they kept at it anyway. Many of these small town volunteer fire departments ended up with damaged and lost equipment and clutches on the fire trucks went out from driving on the bumpy prairie. There was at least one firefighter reported injured.

The demands of this and other weekend fires stretched the resources of local, volunteer fire departments and the DNR crews that joined to battle the blazes. They obtained critical assistance from a DNR forestry tanker plane based in Brainerd and later National Guard helicopters with 500-gallon buckets.

Wildfires that raced through grasslands south of Appleton over that weekend scorched an estimated 3,300 acres; about 1,700 of these acres were part of the Lac qui Parle Wildlife Management Area. The fire could have spread further if it was not for back burn efforts that

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 19 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

kept the blaze south of Highway 119. Back burn efforts by the DNR also helped protect the area around Milan Beach and were not the source for a revived fire. By Sunday, the wind speed increased and rekindled the fire. Conditions of powerful winds and bone-dry tinder set the stage for the Sunday fire.

Wildfires. Yearly occurrences are wildfires started along the railroads and farmland. Two other potential wildfire hazards are along power lines and utility structures and timber bridges. Farm equipment’s hot exhaust can also start fields on fire.

Wildfire behavior is based on three primary factors: fuel, topography and weather. When dry weather mixes with windy conditions, areas with fuel have the potential for a wildfire to spread out of control as it did in the 2003 fire near Milan. Lac qui Parle County currently has about 34,335 acres enrolled in CREP, RIM, CRP and the Wetland Reserve Program. These areas are left for wildlife habitat and are not burned on a regular basis. As a result, years of dead grasses accumulate on these lands and are a good fuel for any fire that may start. The Minnesota River Valley and the Wildlife Management Areas also provides an abundance of fuel for wildfires. Wildlife Management Areas occupy about 5,557 acres in Lac qui Parle County.

Topography is also important in determining wildfire potential, because it affects the movement of air and fire over the ground surface. The slope and shape of terrain can change the rate of speed at which the fire travels. Most of Lac qui Parle County is relatively flat.

Weather affects the probability of wildfire and has a significant effect on its behavior. Temperature, humidity and wind affect the severity and duration of wildfires. These conditions are similar throughout the county. Although higher wind speeds are possible in the northern portion of the county due to the lack of vegetation and slope, the area is dominated by agricultural uses and lacks major stands of forests.

Relationship with Other Hazards – Cascading Effects Flooding and Erosion. Major wildfires can completely destroy ground cover which can cause heavy erosion and loss of all vegetation. If heavy rains follow a major fire, flash floods, landslides and mudflows can occur since vegetation is essential in deterring flooding during heavy rainfalls or spring runoff.

Hazardous Materials. Risk of fires spreading to anhydrous ammonia tanks or fuel tanks on rural farm sites is an issue. Some chemical companies store tanks in rural areas. While most tanks can be moved quickly, fire departments and response teams may not be aware of their presence.

Plans and Programs for Wildfire Fire Districts, Departments. Fire departments (FD) respond to any structure fires that are in their own fire district and help when needed in other districts (West Central Firefighters Association) and often work together on large fires. All the FDs in the county are on the city level and are a part of the West Central Firefighters Association (also includes fire departments in surrounding counties).

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 20 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

West Central Firefighters Association Objective. These fire departments agree to make available to each other their firefighting equipment and personnel in the case of emergencies, and each has the legal authority to send its fire-fighting equipment and personnel into other communities.

Zoning. The Lac qui Parle County Zoning Department, which includes the county building inspector, regulates the development of new housing. The department also is in charge of enforcing safety restrictions including setbacks, lot coverage, and depth and structure height.

DNR Training. County firefighters participate in annual wildfire training classes offered by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources-Forestry Department. The DNR also works with local firefighters in promoting their fire smart program, which is a fire prevention program involving local public schools.

State Land Management. The DNR operates and regulates all state lands within the county, including management of Lac qui Parle State Park. The park currently is managed predominantly for recreational activities. Wildfires are minimized by thinning brush and vegetation around the park, particularly around the campground areas.

FireWise. The DNR participates in a national wildfire education program called FireWise. This program provides tools for risk assessment and risk reduction and is available to communities who would like to do a detailed risk assessment. Small grants are available for 50 percent of projects.

Education and Outreach. Available through existing resources and channels such as the Extension Service, and SWCDs.

Evacuation Plan. The county's cities have evacuation plans delineating routes residents should take in the event of large fires.

Program Gaps or Deficiencies for Wildfires  Currently, the county zoning lacks regulations regarding vegetation on property. One of the problems with past fires is the undergrowth and overhanging trees near residential structures. Although aesthetically appealing, vegetation around homes has destroyed numerous dwellings in past fires.  The county has not undertaken a systematic assessment of wildfire risks and associated prevention measures.  Land use regulations can provide some protection for rural housing. The DNR informally recommends considering reasonable structure setbacks (perhaps 200 feet) from permanent conservation lands (i.e., publicly owned, private lands with a permanent conservation easement, or lands owned by private non-profit conservation organizations such as the Nature Conservancy). An additional benefit of such setbacks would be a reduction in the potential conflict between hunting and residential land uses. In addition, standards for access roads and driveways in fire hazard areas could be considered in order to ensure safe passage of fire equipment.  There is currently no program to ensure that fire is considered when planning conservation plantings that include woody cover. Firebreaks should be included to protect homes and woody cover as well as allowing the use of fire as a management tool. (If a tree and shrub

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 21 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

planting is placed in the middle of a prairie planting, it may be difficult to accomplish a prescribed management burn of that property without damaging or destroying the woody component. It may also be impossible to protect that planting in the event of a wildfire.)  Frequently, rural residents burn trash and other debris on-site. Burn barrels and burn piles are the source of a large portion of wildfires, as well as structural fires. Local units of government have the ability to restrict the use of such waste management tools. Local units of government can also promote rural garbage collection, establishment of township garbage dumpster sites, promote recycling and composting to reduce the need for burning and educate rural home owners about better designs for burn barrels. Improved rural waste management practices will not only reduce fire hazard, but also reduce other environmental hazards associated with waste disposal.  There are many CRP, CREP and other natural areas that are not managed with prescribed burns. These areas should be encouraged to work with professional agencies to manage the land with prescribed burns to help reduce trash and debris that can create a large wildfire hazard.  All firefighters in Lac qui Parle County are volunteer firefighters. The training offered to local fire departments should be more local and one-on-one to be more effective and efficient.  Communications between DNR and local fire departments needs to be more organized.  Much of the land in wildfire risk is state land and in rural areas. It needs to be defined as to who is responsible for fighting these fires and to establish a mutual aid agreement between DNR and local fire departments.  A plan should be in place regarding proper radio channels among DNR, state patrol, local fire departments and local police. The smoke associated with wildfires can present a major hazard on roadways. Without direct contact with law enforcement, traffic control can be compromised.  Updated gear and a plan to use it in cooperation with other departments is necessary. The DNR should have an up-to-date list of equipment available to local fire departments in the event of wildfires.  Currently the DNR calls the county before lighting a prescribed burn. This information should come to the local dispatch in order to be better prepared for fires that get away or relight at a later time.  Because of the rough terrain and location of wildfires, many of the fire departments do not have adequate equipment to fight wildfires. Fire vehicles are not able to access these areas. More grass rigs and off road vehicles are needed to address the problem of wild land and grass fires.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 22 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Hazard: Dam Failure

Dam failure is defined as the collapse or failure of an impoundment resulting in downstream flooding. Dam failures can result in loss of life and extensive property damages; and may result from an array of situations, including flood events, poor operation, lack of maintenance and repair and terrorism.

One of the main benefits of dams is to hold water, which is important during high water or floods, especially during spring runoff and immediately after heavy rains. Although dams act to prevent harm from flooding, they do pose potential threats in the event of failure. Dam failure can push a wall of water down the valley below the dam causing destruction in its path.

Dams that would affect Lac qui Parle County include the dams along the Minnesota River and Lac qui Parle Lake. Lac qui Parle Flood Control and Water Conservation Project were authorized by Congress in 1936 and were partially constructed as a W.P.A. project. The US Corps of Engineers completed construction of their portion of the project from 1941-1951. Operation of the project was transferred from the state of Minnesota to the US Army Corps of Engineers in 1950.

The project is located on the Upper Minnesota River in western Minnesota near the South Dakota border. It consists of the Highway 75 Dam, Marsh Lake Dam, Lac qui Parle Dam, and the Watson Sag Weir and diversion channel on the Chippewa River.

There are four dams currently located in Lac qui Parle County, including the Lac qui Parle Dam, Lac qui Parle Refuge No. 2 Dam, Marsh Lake Dam, and Webber Pond Dam. The Lac qui Parle Dam is the highest dam and regulates water flow from the Lac qui Parle Lake and is considered a High Hazard Potential dam, where failure could cause loss of life and serious damage to structures. The Lac qui Parle Refuge No. 2 and Webber Pond Dams are considered Low Hazard Potential dams, where failure may cause minimal property damage. The Marsh Lake Dam is a Significant Hazard Potential Dam and may cause damage to structures or loss of life.

History of Dam Failure in Lac qui Parle County The worst recorded dam failure in U.S. history occurred in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, in 1889. More than 2,200 people were killed when a dam failed, sending a huge wall of water downstream completely destroying the town. Although risks are minimal, dam failure can occur in Minnesota. Several dam failures have occurred in Minnesota in the past, although none have been reported in Lac qui Parle County.

Relationship with Other Hazards – Cascading Effects Flood. Dam failure, although the risk is minimal, would not have any effect on cities or populations in Lac qui Parle County.

Plans and Programs for Dam Failure Infrastructure Plan. The county infrastructure plan prohibits further development on the properties adjacent to the dam, including property directly below the dam. Lac qui Parle County has dedicated land adjacent and below the dam as public open space.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 23 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Dam Inspection. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources regulates nearly 900 of the numerous dams in the state. The DNR and US Army Corps of Engineers regularly inspect the dam and reservoir capabilities for flooding and dam failure. Their report indicates that the size of the dam is adequate for any major floods or spring runoff.

Program Gaps or Deficiencies for Dam Failure  None identified.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 24 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

MANMADE / TECHNOLOGICAL HAZARDS – PRESENTED BY MAN

Definition Technological hazards are those presented by humans, rather than those presented by nature. They are comprised of substances and processes that are flammable, combustible, explosive, toxic, noxious, corrosive, oxidizers, irritants, or radioactive. Source: Minnesota State Hazard Mitigation Plan 2008

Introduction Technological hazards exist as a part of everyday life, as a result of building the modern world in which we live. The challenge is to benefit from the use of technology while limiting potential harm to the community. In order to fully realize the benefits of technology, it is necessary to plan an effective response to unwanted technological emergencies before they occur.

From a hazard mitigation perspective, the existence of technological hazards in the community poses a risk to life, health, or property. The use of hazardous materials in manufacturing and transportation can be extremely harmful if an unwanted release occurs, and the use of nuclear materials in the presence of a community creates risks that must be managed. Dams can have a catastrophic impact on those downstream, when a failure does occur. Further, the furnishings in our homes make a pleasant living environment, but are often flammable and produce toxic gases when ignited. Source: Minnesota State Hazard Mitigation Plan 2008

For the purposes of this plan, Manmade / Technological Hazards identified are organized into these six groups:

1. Infectious Diseases 4. Water Supply Contamination 2. Fire 5. Wastewater Treatment System Failure 3. Hazardous Materials 6. Civil Disturbance / Terrorism

Hazard: Infectious Diseases

An infectious disease is defined as an organism or matter that has the potential to spread or affect a population in adverse ways. Infectious diseases have the potential to affect any form of life at any time based on local conditions, living standards, basic hygiene, pasteurization and water treatment. Despite medical breakthroughs and technology, infectious diseases continue to pose an important public health problem. Today, the issue of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases is at the forefront of public health concern. The very young, older adults and hospitalized and institutionalized patients are at an increased risk for many infectious diseases. Changes in demographics, lifestyle, technology, land use practices, food production and distribution methods, and child care practices, as well as increasing poverty, have roles in emerging infections.

Many infectious diseases are preventable and controllable. Prevention and control of infectious diseases involve collection of accurate assessment data (such as surveillance data for specific conditions), outbreak detection and investigation, and development of appropriate control

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 25 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

strategies (both short and long term) are based on specific epidemiological data. These activities require close collaboration between clinical providers (especially infection-control practitioners within hospitals), clinical laboratories, state and local health departments, and federal agencies. Furthermore, a need exists for continued education of industry (particularly food producers and food-service industries), health-care students and providers, along with research to improve immunizations, diagnostic methods, and therapeutic modalities. Thus, the prevention of infectious diseases requires multidisciplinary interventions involving public health professionals, medical practitioners, researchers, community-based organizations, volunteer and private groups, industrial representatives, and educational systems.

History of Infectious Disease in Lac qui Parle County Minnesota has not had an infectious disease outbreak that has reached epidemic proportions in decades. Lac qui Parle County has experienced individual cases of infectious diseases over the last 50 years that have been considered isolated occurrences or minor exposures.

In contrast to typical natural disasters in which critical components of the physical infrastructure may be threatened or destroyed, an infectious disease outbreak may also pose significant threats to the human infrastructure responsible for critical community services due to wide spread absenteeism in the workforce. Examples of such services and personnel in the non-health sector might include highly specialized workers in the public safety, utility, transportation and food service industries, and will likely vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. State and local officials should carefully consider which services and key personnel within relevant firms or organizations are essential. It is important to identify where absenteeism would pose a serious threat to public safety or would significantly interfere with the ongoing response to the outbreak. To offset this issue, in the past two years Countryside Public Health has collaborated with Lac qui Parle County to create a Continuity of Operations Plan that determines priority activities that will help to ensure an office will be able to remain open during times of high absenteeism.

By and large infectious diseases would have no effect on physical property. A negative impact on the economy would occur, however, if a widespread outbreak happened and businesses were forced to shut down for an extended period of time. Lac qui Parle County’s entire population is susceptible to exposure from an infectious disease because of the random nature of diseases. Infection rates and exposure risk will vary based on the disease, sanitation habits of individuals and personal choices. Large population concentrations and sites with large numbers of people are especially at risk in the event of an outbreak.

The following infectious diseases could be considered a health risk and disaster if a large outbreak occurred.

Human Health Pandemic. A pandemic occurs when a disease is prevalent throughout an entire country, continent, or world greatly affecting the human population. Many pandemics have occurred throughout history including small pox, cholera, measles, tuberculosis, and more recently HIV/AIDS and influenza. In November 2005, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a comprehensive plan for responding to a possible pandemic (Minnesota Department of Health 2009). Numerous state, local, and private entities have defined responsibilities to fulfill in the event of pandemic. For instance, the Department of

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 26 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Public Safety is responsible for organizing and coordinating a statewide response to a pandemic and the Minnesota Department of Health along with the Countryside Public Health and other local healthcare providers will work to minimize the impact of a pandemic on human health. To date, pandemics have not occurred in Lac qui Parle County or in the State of Minnesota.

H1N1Influenza. H1N1 Influenza, otherwise commonly known as Swine Flu, was first detected in April 2009. From April 15, 2009 to July 24, 2009, states reported a total of 43,771 cases of H1N1 flu throughout the country (Minnesota Department of Health 2009). Of the reported cases, 5,011 people were hospitalized and 302 people died. H1N1 is likely to be transmitted through human-to-human spread of disease by coughing or sneezing of infected persons. H1N1 will always be a threat with the ability of the virus to mutate. Symptoms of H1N1 flu are similar to standard influenza including fever, cough, sore throat, body aches, chills, headaches, and fatigue. Some hospitalized patients claimed nausea, vomiting, and/or diarrhea as additional symptoms. One major concern with an H1N1 flu outbreak in Lac qui Parle County is the lack of interest to receive vaccines in the county population. The government created a tiered allocation for vaccines by first protecting those who are essential to handle the outbreak response and care providers, second those who maintain essential community services, third children and workers at greatest risk of infection due to job nature and lastly those who maintain homeland and national security (flu.gov). In 2009, there were 79 cases if influenza in Minnesota (Disease Report Summary 2010). There were a significant number of cases in the five-county region; however, physicians are not required to tract and submit this information. Vaccines are readily available to the general public through hospitals, clinics, and some big-box stores. Visit countrysidepublichealth.org, CDC.gov, flu.gov for more information.

Tuberculosis. Tuberculosis (TB) is a disease spread from person to person through air. TB usually affects the lungs, but can also affect other parts of the body, such as the brain, kidneys or spine. TB germs enter air when a person with TB of the lungs or throat coughs or sneezes. When a person inhales air that contains TB germs, he or she may become infected. People with TB infection do not feel sick and do not have any symptoms; however, they may develop TB at some time in the future. The general symptoms of TB include feeling sick or weak, weight loss, fever and night sweats. The symptoms of TB of the lungs include coughing, chest pain and coughing up blood. Other symptoms depend on the part of the body that is affected. TB had not occurred in Lac qui Parle County from 2003 – 2008, however one case took place in 2009 (Minnesota Department of Health 2009).

Hepatitis A . Hepatitis A is an enterically transmitted viral disease that causes fever, malaise, anorexia, nausea and abdominal discomfort followed within a few days by jaundice. The disease ranges in clinical severity from no symptoms to a mild illness lasting one and two weeks to a severely disabling disease lasting several months. In developing countries, Hepatitis A virus is usually acquired during childhood, most frequently as an asymptomatic or mild infection. Transmission can occur by direct person-to-person contact; through exposure to contaminated water, ice or shellfish harvested from sewage-contaminated water; or from fruits, vegetables, or other foods that are eaten uncooked and which can become contaminated during harvesting or subsequent handling. Hepatitis A was reported five times in 1995, but has not occurred in Lac qui Parle County since 1995 (Minnesota Department of Health 2009). There were however, significant outbreaks in Murray, Cottonwood, and Jackson Counties.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 27 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Influenza (Flu). Influenza is a contagious disease caused by the influenza virus. It attacks the respiratory tract in humans (nose, throat and lungs). The flu usually comes on suddenly and may include these symptoms: fever, headache, tiredness (can be extreme), dry cough, sore throat, nasal congestion and body aches.

Influenza types A or B viruses cause epidemics of disease almost every winter, however not all cases are reported. In the United States, these winter influenza epidemics can cause illness in 10 to 20 percent of people and are associated with an average of 20,000 deaths and 114,000 hospitalizations per year. Getting a flu shot can prevent illness from types A and B influenza. Influenza type C infections cause a mild respiratory illness and are not thought to cause epidemics. The flu shot does not protect against type C influenza. There was a flu outbreak in a long-term care facility in 2002 – 2003; otherwise there was no recording of flu outbreaks within group quarters. No influenza cases were reported to the Minnesota Department of Health from 2003 – 2008 for Lac qui Parle County, however, it is important to note that physicians are not mandated to report this information and not all persons receive treatment for influenza (Minnesota Department of Health 2010).

West Nile Virus (WNV). The virus made its first appearance in Minnesota in July 2002. In the fall of 2003, the first West Nile death in Minnesota was reported. As of July 2009, Minnesota has reported 259 human cases of West Nile and a total of seven deaths. Lac qui Parle County has experienced six cases of West Nile Virus from 2003 to December 2009 (Minnesota Department of Health 2009).

Most people with the West Nile virus will experience only mild symptoms – or no symptoms at all. Less than one out of every 150 people who become infected will become severely ill. However, in some cases, West Nile can cause encephalitis, an inflammation of the brain. Approximately 10 percent of these encephalitis cases are fatal. Symptoms of the illness usually show up two to 15 days after being bitten. They can include headache, high fever, muscle weakness, stiff neck, disorientation, tremors, convulsions, paralysis and coma. People who suspect that they may have West Nile are recommended to see a physician. Minnesota Department of Health encourages citizens to protect themselves from West Nile virus by:  Use a good mosquito repellent, containing no more than 30 percent of the active ingredient DEET.  Wear long-sleeve shirts and long pants if you have to spend time in an area where mosquitoes are biting.  Avoid outdoor activities at dusk or dawn, when mosquitoes are feeding.  Eliminate possible mosquito-breeding sites on and around your property – including items like old tires, buckets, clogged rain gutters, cans and other containers, and anything else that can hold a small amount of water. Change the water in birdbaths and horse troughs at least weekly.

A vaccine has been developed for horses and veterinarians encourage horse-owners to vaccine their animals. A human vaccine against the virus is currently in development. Source: Minnesota Department of Health

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 28 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

La Crosse Encephalitis. La Crosse encephalitis is a viral illness transmitted to people through the bite of an infected mosquito. Most people infected with this virus will have either no symptoms, or a mild flu-like illness. A small percentage of people (especially children) may develop encephalitis (inflammation of the brain). Approximately one to three percent of these encephalitis cases are fatal, and another 15 percent of patients have long-term nervous system problems.

Most of the severe cases start with headache, fever, nausea, and lethargy. The illness may rapidly progress into disorientation, seizures, and coma. There is no treatment for the illness other than supportive care until the illness is over. Severe cases occur primarily in children; the average case age is six years old, and no cases have been reported in Lac qui Parle County (Minnesota Department of Health).

E. coli. E. coli O157:H7 is one of hundreds of strains of the bacterium Escherichia coli and one case was reported in 2004 in Lac qui Parle County (Minnesota Department of Health 2009). Although most strains are harmless and live in the intestines of healthy humans and animals, this train produces a powerful toxin and can cause severe illness. E. coli spreads during slaughter and organisms can be thoroughly mixed into beef when it is ground. Bacteria present on the cow's udders or on equipment may get into raw milk. Among other known sources of infection are consumption of sprouts, lettuce, salami, unpasteurized milk and juice, and swimming in or drinking sewage-contaminated water. Bacteria in diarrhea stools of infected persons can be passed from one person to another if hygiene or hands washing habits are inadequate.

E. coli O157:H7 infection often causes severe bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps; sometimes the infection causes non-bloody diarrhea or no symptoms. Usually little or no fever is present, and the illness resolves in five to 10 days. In two to seven percent of people, particularly children under five years of age and seniors, the infection can lead to kidney failure. Of the two to seven percent, a small percentage is life threatening or can lead to lifelong consequences.

Prevention includes cooking all beef and taking care to keep from ingesting bacteria from raw meet which includes washing hands and surface areas that are touched by raw meat. For additional information on preventative measures, visit the Minnesota Department of Health website.

Pertussis. Pertussis, or whooping cough, is a contagious respiratory disease caused by the B. Pertussis bacterium, spread by coughing or sneezing. Thick mucus builds up in the lungs and clogs air passages, triggering violent coughing spells. It can be quite serious, especially for young infants with tiny air passages. The fatality rate is highest in infants under six months of age. The effects of toxins in the B. Pertussis bacteria can produce high fever, convulsions, brain damage and death. Permanent damage can include continuing seizure conditions, mental retardation, learning disabilities, and chronic illness.

Severe cases of whooping cough may require hospitalization, respiratory support, and nutritional and rehydration therapy. There is no medicine to cure whooping cough but antibiotics are often used to reduce the spread of the disease to others as well as treat secondary infections such as pneumonia, bronchitis, and otitis media (inner ear infections). In the past, these secondary

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 29 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

infections often caused many of the deaths, which occurred after a child had whooping cough. Pertussis causes about nine deaths per year in the United States. Pertussis vaccine is now available for children up to adults age 65, this vaccine does lose its effectiveness over time and booster doses are necessary to continue prevention. While most adults handle whopping cough as another cold, this can be a difficult disease for those who are at high risk such as those with asthma. Lac qui Parle County reported 19 cases in 2005, 1 case in 2008, and 4 cases in 2009 (Minnesota Department of Health 2009). In 2008, 2009, and 2010 over 1,000 cases of Pertussis were noted throughout Minnesota annually, an unsightly record.

Animal Health Wildlife diseases are a major area of concern in colonial water birds or major concentrations of waterfowl. Diseases, such as Newcastles Disease or West Nile, exist in the wild and outbreaks will occur. However, the extent to which animals die or disease is spread can be minimized through early identification.

Mad Cow Disease (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, BSE). Mad Cow Disease is the layperson's name for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), a transmissible, slowly progressive, degenerative, fatal disease affecting the central nervous system of adult cattle. According to the FDA the only way to transmit BSE is if the animal has contact with meat processed food; they cannot transmit it cow to cow.

BSE is a disease that affects cattle. However, there is a disease similar to BSE called variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), or vCJD, which is found in humans. There have been a small number of cases of vCJD reported, primarily in the United Kingdom, occurring in people who consumed beef that may have been contaminated. (As of June 2008, there have been a total of approximately 208 cases of vCJD worldwide.) There is strong scientific evidence (epidemiological and laboratory) that the agent that causes BSE in cattle is the agent that causes vCJD in people.

BSE has been of great concern since 1986, when it was first reported among cattle in the United Kingdom. At its peak, in January 1993, almost 1,000 new cases per week were identified. The outbreak in the United Kingdom may have started from the feeding of scrapie-contaminated sheep meat-and-bone meal to cattle. Scrapie is a disease of sheep that is related to BSE in cattle. There is strong evidence that the outbreak in cattle was amplified to common treatments, such as heat, to reduce or eliminate its infectivity or presence. According to the FDA, milk and milk products from cows are not believed to pose any in the United Kingdom by feeding rendered bovine meat-and-bone meal to young calves.

The federal government in 2002 aggressively surveyed 20,000 animals for BSE. The first case of BSE was reported in December of 2003, in a sick animal that came from a farm in Mabton, Washington, about 40 miles southeast of Yakima. It was a so-called "downer" animal, meaning it was unable to walk when it reached the slaughterhouse, which under USDA rules triggers automatic testing. The FDA is taking several steps to eradicate this disease from cattle and prevent vCJD in people.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease. Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) is a severe, highly contagious viral disease of wild and domestic animals. It primarily affects cattle and pigs, but infections can also

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 30 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

occur in sheep, deer and other cloven-hooved animals. A rule of thumb is sheep are carriers, pigs are amplifiers and cows are indicators. Infections in humans are extremely rare. The disease has not been reported in the United States since 1929. However, an outbreak of foot- and-mouth disease is occurring in the United Kingdom and has received considerable attention in the media recently.

FMD is considered the most costly of all animal diseases. It is often necessary to conduct wholesale slaughter of animals wherever there is an outbreak. Second, no animals from an area not declared free of the disease may be moved to other locations or used in trade except as processed food subjected to high temperatures. It is also one of the most contagious animal diseases. The virus is spread not only animal to animal through the air, it can attach to truck tires and clothing and equipment in mechanical transmittal.

In cattle, the first symptoms include dullness, refusal to feed and a fall in milk production. From there the symptoms expand to blisters on tongue, gums, muzzle, nostrils, teats and the spaces between the hoof segments, sometimes crippling the animals. In other animals there may be fewer signs of the disease and, in some cases, animals die without showing any symptoms. For additional information on Foot (Hove) and Mouth Disease, look on the web at www.fas.org/ahead/disease/fmd/.

Chronic Wasting Disease. Chronic wasting disease, CWD, is another wildlife disease that has received much attention in Minnesota and Wisconsin in the past few years. This is a degenerative brain disease similar to “mad cow disease” that affects elk and deer. It can be spread to wild herds from captive herds or vice versa. At this point there is no recorded occurrence of CWD in wild deer in Minnesota. However, one of the most important means of ensuring that the disease is not spread is to ensure all captive cervidae (elk and deer) farms are registered with and licensed by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

Rabies. Rabies is a disease that has been identified particularly in the southwest and western Minnesota and can be found in numerous animals. Occasionally human exposure occurs due to interaction with infected animals.

Brucellosis. Brucellosis is a bacterial disease found in animals and predominately affects farm workers, veterinarians, and others that work often with animals.

Relationship to Other Hazards – Cascading Effects Associated with Other Disasters. Infectious disease outbreaks can occur as primary events themselves, or they may be secondary events to another disaster or emergency such as a terrorist attack, biological accidents, water contamination, or natural hazard events (ex. Molds associated with flooded residences).

Riots/Civil Disturbances. If an epidemic event were to occur, deaths, fear and misinformation could trigger large-scale riots, panic and lawlessness. Infectious diseases have the potential to be local, regional, statewide or national in scope and magnitude.

Plans and Programs for Infectious Diseases Emergency Operations Plan. Lac qui Parle County currently has an emergency operations plan known as the Lac qui Parle Emergency Operations Plan. This plan outlines procedures for

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 31 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

county and local governments for contacting appropriate state and federal agencies, guidelines and strategies for dealing with infectious diseases, and command structures with the County Health Department and the Emergency Manager for Lac qui Parle County. Public education lies with public health as well. Much of the information is coordinated with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Minnesota Department of Health.

Cooperation with State Health Department. Countryside Public Health (CPH) works with the Minnesota Department of Health to address infectious diseases that are listed in Chapter 4605.7040 Disease and Reports (such as Encephalitis, Hepatitis, Influenza, Lyme disease, Tuberculosis and Syphilis). If any of these or other listed diseases should appear in Lac qui Parle County, the county works in cooperation with both the state health department and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Emergency Response Plan. Response plans are incorporated into the Emergency Operations Plan and are added as needed. CPH maintains emergency response plans and the state provides a framework as new plans are necessary.

Health Alert Network. The Health Alert Network is being developed as part of Minnesota’s Public Health Emergency Preparedness & Response Program. The Health Alert Network also coordinates and maintains CDC’s Public Health Emergency Preparedness & Response Website (http://www.bt.cdc.gov/). The Health Alert Network (HAN) is a nationwide, integrated information and communications system serving as a platform for distribution of health alerts, dissemination of prevention guidelines and other information, distance learning, national disease surveillance and electronic laboratory reporting, as well as for CDC’s bioterrorism and related initiatives to strengthen preparedness at the local and state levels. When complete, the Health Alert Network ensures:  Initial response via fax to partners.  High-speed, secure Internet connections for local health officials, providing access to CDC’s prevention recommendations, practice guidelines, and disease data; capacity for rapid and secure communications with first responder agencies and other health officials; and capacity to securely transmit surveillance, laboratory, and other sensitive data.  On-line, Internet- and satellite-based distance learning systems.  Early warning broadcast alert systems.  Public health agencies achieve high levels of organizational capacity.

Media Outreach. CPH works directly with the radio and the TV to broadcast important public information. MDH works with the Media. CPH works with County Public Information Officers to provide public information and education as related to issues at hand.

Vaccination Program. Minnesota Vaccine for Children (MVFC) is a program that is set up for children in lower income families without insurance. This covers children so they can be vaccinated for infectious diseases. MNVFC is also available at local clinics. The program is designed to assist families of need in protecting their children from infectious diseases. CPH has the ability to also provide adults with vaccinations that are under or uninsured.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 32 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Quarantine/Isolation Plan. The state is ultimately responsible to handle quarantine/isolation issues. CPH has developed a Quarantine/Isolation Plan that would provide follow-up to those in isolation/quarantine and ensure their basic needs are met.

Notification. Communication between CPH, the Minnesota Department of Health and the Center for Disease Control operates 24 hours, seven days a week depending on where an outbreak first occurs. CPH and the County Emergency Manager receive health alerts via email and fax with instruction with how to proceed. Hospitals, clinics, city administrators, emergency managers and county commissioners are notified by both CPH and the Minnesota Department of Health.

Program Gaps or Deficiencies for Infectious Diseases  The Lac qui Parle County Emergency Operations Plan does not reflect most recent changes made to the Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan related to infectious diseases.  Emergency Operations Plan needs to coordinate more effectively with local cities and adjoining counties.

Hazard: Fire

Urban fires are blazes that spread through structures, posing danger and destruction to property. These fires include any instance of uncontrolled burning which results in structural damage to residential, commercial, industrial, institutional or other properties in developed areas. Fires can occur in any community, and pose threats year round.

History of Fires in Lac qui Parle County According to the State Fire Marshal Division through the Fire Reporting System updated in 2009, Lac qui Parle County city fire departments in the last 26 years have lost only eight civilian lives in fires.

Fires have occurred throughout the entire county (See Table 34 following page) and from 2000 – 2010; Lac qui Parle County has had a total of 449 fire runs and lost a total of $3,107,492 dollars. However, fires are more probable in the cities due to the density and number of both residential and commercial structures, thus cooking, electrical failure and chimney fires cause most residential fires in Lac qui Parle County.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 33 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 34. LqP Co Breakdown of Fire-related Information 2000-2010 Lac qui Parle Total Dollar County Fire Runs Loss 2000 76 $145,549 2001 47 $618,700 2002 32 $135,615 2003 62 $250,830 2004 52 $308,565 2005 27 $251,020 2006 31 $42,700 2007 38 $203,447 2008 29 $665,066 2009 55 $486,000 Source: Fire in Minnesota “Fire Reporting System” 2000-2010

Some of the major fires in the county include the 2002 Draw Bar fire on Main Street in Dawson, the 1991 Madison School fire started by arson, and the Madison Feed Mill approximately 20 years ago. Boyd lost a building in 2002 and Marietta had a major arson fire in the school in 2002.

Fires have occurred throughout the entire county. However, fires are more probable in the cities due to the density and number of both residential and commercial structures. Cooking, electrical failure and chimney fires cause most residential fires in Lac qui Parle County.

Relationship with Other Hazards – Cascading Effects Service Disruptions. Major fires can completely destroy structures, including essential public facilities, and utilities like electric and gas lines can be damaged and even destroyed.

Health Risks. Destruction or damage to essential infrastructure such as water and wastewater facilities can cause public health risk. Firefighting is a high risk job and puts a person in danger of harm at any time.

Hazardous Materials. Many times hazardous materials are highly flammable causing fires to spread rapidly and increasing danger to human lives in the event of explosion.

Plans and Programs for Fire Fire Districts and Departments. Structure fires are served by local fire districts and fire departments and each district is responsible for fires within their boundaries; however, they often work together on larger fires. All fire departments in the county are on the city level, but they are also a part of the West Central Firefighters Association (which includes fire departments in the surrounding counties).

West Central Firefighters Association. A group of fire departments agreed to make available to each other fire-fighting equipment and personnel in the case of emergencies. Each fire

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 34 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

department has the legal authority to send its fire-fighting equipment and personnel to other communities.

Zoning. Both the county and the cities in Lac qui Parle County control development of new construction, including the enforcement of safety restrictions like setbacks, coverage and depth. In addition, the Unified Building Code sets standards for roofing. Each city is responsible for all new construction.

State Training. County firefighters participate in mandatory fire fighting training classes offered by the state.

Evacuation Plans. Evacuation plans exist in the cities.

Program Gaps or Deficiencies for Fire  Homes with chimneys pose a larger threat for fires. Specialized training classes, like chimney cleaning, safe cooking in the kitchen, and holiday hazards, could be offered to residents.

Hazard: Hazardous Materials

Hazardous materials are chemical substances, which if released or misused can pose a threat to the environment or health of a community. These chemicals are used in industry, agriculture, medicine, research and consumer goods throughout Lac qui Parle County. Hazardous materials are found in the county in the form of explosives, flammable and combustible substances, corrosives, poisons and radioactive materials.

A hazardous material spill or release can pose a risk to life, health and property. An incident can force the evacuation of a few people, a section of a facility or an entire neighborhood or community, resulting in significant economic impact and possible property damage. Spilled material is costly to clean up and may render the area of the spill unusable for an extended period of time. Hazardous materials incidences are generally associated with transportation accidents or accidents at fixed facilities.

Transportation Road, rail, aircraft and pipeline all convey hazardous materials presenting differing levels of risk of unwanted release of hazardous materials. Transported products include hazardous materials moving from producers to users, between storage and use facilities, and hazardous waste from generators to treatment and disposal facilities.

The road system in Lac qui Parle County provides a network to transport both hazardous and non-hazardous material throughout the region and between local communities. Risks of a hazardous materials event vary based on the classification of the road and its proximity to people and property. The risk of a major event is most severe in the more populated western portions of the county and along state highways. According to the most recent findings at the Minnesota Department of Transportation, more than half of all accidents involving hazardous materials

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 35 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

have occurred on the state roadways. Roads are a major concern in Lac qui Parle County due to the lack of information available regarding what is traveling on the road system on a daily basis.

Rail transportation of hazardous material will affect the county along the western border and southeast portion of the state. Approximately 11 percent of all statewide transportation incidents involving hazardous material in 2002 were from rail transport, according to MnDOT statistics. Valve leakage and safety valve releases are sources of material spills on pressurized and general service tank cars or other hazardous materials containers such as covered hoppers, inter-modal trailers/containers or portable tanks. Leaks manifest themselves as odors or vaporous clouds from tanker top valves; spraying or splashing from tanker top valves; wetness on the side of the car; or drainage from the bottom outlet valve. Depending on the type of rail car involved, a leak or spill could result in hundreds to thousands of gallons/pounds of a substance being released along the Zoom Rail Corridor.

Fixed Facilities A variety of hazardous materials exist in fixed facilities throughout Lac qui Parle County, ranging from stored flammable liquids to radioactive materials and chemical/biological agents. Some materials are particularly lethal even in small amounts, while others require strong concentrations with prolonged exposure periods to cause harm. Fixed hazardous materials are listed in the County Emergency Operations Plan.

Facilities storing or using hazardous materials above minimum amounts have developed and filed a Risk Management Plan with the Local Emergency Planning Committee, State Emergency Response Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency. Each plan identifies the significant hazards for the facility, the likely release scenario for the hazards, the estimated population impacted by the release, and the specific steps to take in the event of a release to protect that population from harm.

Pipelines Currently, over 78,000 miles of pipelines are located within the state of Minnesota. One pipeline runs throughout Lac qui Parle County carrying natural gas owned and operated by the Northern Natural Gas Company is approximately 37 miles in length.

History of Pipeline Breaks in Lac qui Parle County From 2000 to 2009, five pipeline breaks/leaks have occurred in Lac qui Parle County. The first break took place in 2001 and a 2-inch natural gas pipeline was hit. Three incidences occurred in Dawson in 2002, one a 2-inch natural gas pipeline hit; a second was a 2-inch natural gas pipeline was impacted by an excavator when hospital and nursing home was being removed; finally the last was a 1.5-inch natural gas pipeline hit by an excavator. The final incident was in 2003 and another 2-inch natural gas pipeline was impacted by an excavator.

Methamphetamine and Clandestine Drug Labs A clandestine drug lab (or clan lab) is a collection of materials and ingredients used to manufacture illegal drugs. Methamphetamine (meth) is the drug most commonly made in Minnesota labs. The Minnesota Department of Health surveyed all 87 counties twice in 2005 from January to June and July to December to tract the number of meth lab discoveries and received information from 75 counties. A total of 128 labs were found throughout all counties,

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 36 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

95 from January to June and 33 from July to December. The number of meth lab discoveries decline continued in 2006 with 73 found throughout Minnesota (Minnesota Department of Health 2006, 2007). The majority of these labs were located away from the largest population centers, in rural or semi-rural areas. In the past five years, Lac qui Parle County has found three meth labs in the area.

Each drug lab is a potential hazardous waste site requiring evaluation and cleanup by hazardous waste professionals, West Central Chemical - Morris. Health effects occur in people exposed to lab chemicals before, during and after the drug-making process. While many of the ingredients used to make illicit drugs are common household products, both the production process and the mixtures produced can be extremely dangerous. In Minnesota, numerous law enforcement officers and staff from health, social service and other agencies have collapsed or become ill at clan lab sites. Jail and hospital staff members have become ill from exposure to meth lab chemicals on the clothing of people living or working at lab sites. MDH has received reports of people who have moved into former lab sites and have suffered chest and respiratory symptoms months after lab chemicals were removed.

The impact of illegal drug-making labs is also felt by neighbors and occupants when labs catch fire, explode, and cause the release of chemicals and chemical waste into the surrounding environment. Finally, clan labs have been associated with increased crime in the surrounding community, including domestic abuse, theft and child endangerment.

Roughly 50 percent of Minnesota residences where drug labs have been discovered have also housed children. Recognizing the special risks to children living in lab environments, the Minnesota legislature has recently expanded child neglect and endangerment law to include endangerment through exposure to illegal drug manufacture and sales. In 2005, the Minnesota Legislature passed a law intended to reduce the number of meth labs and increase penalties for illegal meth usage.

In many Minnesota communities, there are no laws requiring cleanup of a hazardous waste site (particularly one contaminated by non-standard use of common household products) in a private residence. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is usually involved in the case and the cleanup to make sure it is thoroughly investigated and cleaned.

History of Hazardous Materials in Lac qui Parle County Hazardous materials exist as part of everyday life in Lac qui Parle County. These materials make life easier and more comfortable for residents throughout the county. The challenge is to use, store and transport hazardous materials in a safe way that does not harm the community and prepare an effective response to unwanted releases of hazardous materials when they occur. A hazardous materials accident can occur anywhere at anytime.

The major concern for hazardous materials events for fixed facility is primarily in the cities of Dawson and Madison. Dawson and Madison contain the majority of the county’s population and employers. The transportation of hazardous materials in Lac qui Parle County is highly unpredictable. People and property on or immediately adjacent to transportation corridors throughout the county are at higher risk than those located one mile or more from a major county corridor. Lac qui Parle County assumes that the highest risk of an incident would be to areas in

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 37 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

proximity to both rail lines and major roads and from large quantities of hazardous materials moving into and out Lac qui Parle County. The airport facility also provides further concern based on the possibility of an aircraft or site incident involving some sort of hazardous material. Ag Processing, Inc. (AGP) in Dawson uses hexane gas, a volatile solvent, to separate the oil from the soybean particles. This gas is easy to recover and is reused numerous times. In order to use Hexane, AGP must use the maximum available technology to meet emission standards and to document loss of the hexane which is extremely small parts per million.

Vulnerability from hazardous materials during unwanted release is great. The specific hazards created by a release are dependent on the hazardous characteristics of the material, the amount released, the location where the release occurs, and the weather and topographic conditions in the area. Identifying specific materials and those involved in transportation can provide a more specific assessment of the vulnerability.

Minor incidents have occurred but these have had little or no impact on the community at large. The likelihood of a major event is considered to be marginal, but an isolated minor accident is of constant concern. According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 27 spills have occurred in Lac qui Parle County from July 2002 to September 2009. Six of the 27 hazardous material events had spills totaling over 100 gallons (or pounds) of material. Of the 27 spills, 10 took place in Dawson and 9 in Madison. Bellingham had two spills of 9,000 gallons of manure and 25 gallons of hydraulic fluid, along with Louisburg with 12,000 pounds of fertilizer and a small mercury spill in Marietta. For a complete list of all hazardous spill events and amount of product released, see Appendix 5.

Table 35. LqP Co Hazardous Spills from 2002 - 2009 City Number of Spills Product Type Bellingham 2 Hydraulic Fluid, Manure Fertilizer, Light Fuel Oil & Diesel, Boyd 4 Mineral Oil, Other Heavy Fuel Oil, Light Fuel Oil & Dawson 10 Diesel, Manure, Sewage/Wastewater, Hydraulic Fluid Louisburg 1 Fertilizer Hydraulic Fluid, Gasoline, Petroleum, Madison 9 Light Fuel Oil & Diesel, Other Marietta 1 Mercury Total 27 (see above) *Nassau did not have any spills from 2002 – 2009. Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2009

Relationship to Other Hazards – Cascading Effects Water Supply Contamination. If a spill occurred and polluted potable groundwater.

Wastewater Treatment System Failure. System failure would have direct impact on humans and endanger human health and life.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 38 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Plans and Programs for Hazardous Materials State Agency Cooperation. Lac qui Parle County works directly with the appropriate state agencies to address needs for responding to and mitigating the impacts of a hazardous event.

Emergency Operations Plan . Lac qui Parle County currently has an emergency operations plan, known as the Lac qui Parle County Emergency Operations Plan that outlines procedures for dealing with hazardous material accidents, spills or releases.

Hazardous Chemicals Collection. Hazardous materials for Lac qui Parle County are delivered to Willmar.

Water Plan. Lac qui Parle County’s Local Comprehensive Water Plan recognizes that both agricultural and residential fertilizer and pesticide applications impact the county’s ground water. It further recognizes the number of hazardous waste generators by minor civil division from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Environmental Health Regulations. Lac qui Parle County has worked to develop environmental health regulations and a County Safety Procedures and Policy Guide. These documents are cross-departmental plans that deal with hazardous material, infectious diseases and food-borne illnesses. They serve to provide guidelines to protect the citizens of the county.

GIS System. Lac qui Parle County developed a county geographic information system with support from Minnesota Planning and the Departments of Natural Resources and Transportation. The county has implemented GIS technology through regional GIS support.

Training of Emergency Personnel. All emergency personnel are trained to at least the minimum Hazardous Materials Awareness level and all first responder groups conduct the required Occupational Health and Safety Administration training on a yearly basis.

AGP Contingency Plan for Hexane. AGP has a contingency plan for the uses of hexane gas and must adhere to strict regulations in the use and storage of the gas. AGP uses hexane gas, a volatile solvent, to separate the oil from the soybean particles. This gas is easy to recover and is reused numerous times. In order to use Hexane, AGP must use the maximum available technology to meet emission standards and to document loss of the hexane which is extremely small parts per million.

Emergency Warning System. Local radio and television stations provide a dependable service for tests of the Emergency Warning System in Lac qui Parle County. There is an all hazard warning system that would give residents warning in the event of a major catastrophe.

Southwest Emergency Preparedness Team (SWEPT). SWEPT maintains chempak cash in the southwest region for EMS and hospital staff to use for treatment of chemical spills or terrorism event.

Program Gaps or Deficiencies for Hazardous Materials  The Lac qui Parle County Water Plan only addresses ground water contamination based on fertilizer or pesticide use from residential and agricultural uses. Additional detail for other

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 39 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

hazardous substances impacting the county’s ground water would provide more detailed findings regarding the overall quality and potential risks if a hazardous materials event happens.  Plans, policies and/or procedures are not in place to deal with a meth lab incident in the county. Although there has been some training for emergency personnel, lack of information and awareness in the general public has left the county susceptible to a major accident.  Lac qui Parle County needs to develop further refinements to the current Emergency Operations Plan to coordinate more effectively with local cities and adjoining counties in dealing with hazardous material events.

Hazard: Water Supply Contamination

Water supply contamination is the introduction of point and non-point source pollutants into public ground water and/or surface water supplies. Although minimal, water supply contamination does pose a threat in the county.

Microbiological and chemical contaminants can enter water supplies. Chemicals can leach through soils from leaking underground storage tanks, feedlots and waste disposal sites. Human wastes and pesticides can also be carried to lakes and streams during heavy rains or snow melt.

History of Water Supply Contamination in Lac qui Parle County Drinking water in Lac qui Parle County comes from ground water and from the Rural Water. Currently four municipal water supply systems provide drinking water to Madison, Dawson, Bellingham and Boyd. All four water plants are in good working condition and undergo annual inspections by their municipal employees. Nassau and Marietta have a municipal water system supplied through Rural Water. Individual wells provide drinking water for the remaining cities and rural residences within Lac qui Parle County.

Relationship with Other Hazards – Cascading Effects Infectious Diseases. Polluted human water sources can cause illness and epidemics in both humans and animals.

Plans and Programs of Water Supply Contamination Drinking Water Standards, Requirements. T he US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, sets uniform nationwide minimum standards for drinking water. State public health and environmental agencies have the primary responsibility for ensuring that each public water supplier meets these federal drinking water standards, or more stringent ones established by the state. Further, individual wells are routinely enrolled in the County’s Wellhead Protection Program.

Public Water Supply Monitoring. The EPA requires an ongoing water quality-monitoring program to ensure public water systems are working properly. Local officials work together with the Minnesota Department of Health and the EPA to ensure that all public water supplies are safe. The EPA also requires all local suppliers to promptly inform the public if their supply becomes contaminated. CPH inspects inspections of drinking water in restaurants, bars and other private businesses at least annually.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 40 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Wellhead Protection Program. Lac qui Parle County is in their first stage of setting up a wellhead protection plan that is required by the state of Minnesota. Bellingham recently completed a Wellhead Protection Plan. The remaining cities in the county will complete wellhead protection plans, which will comply with the state and federal guidelines that are set up for wellheads.

Well Construction and Testing. Since 1974, all water wells constructed in Minnesota must meet the location and construction requirements of the Minnesota Well Code. These requirements pertain to private wells also. Countryside Public Health has a certified lab to test for well contamination.

Feedlot Pollution Prevention. Several steps are being taken to protect ground water sources from feedlot runoff. The county is in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) feedlot program that is a cooperative arrangement between MPCA and county government to administer Minnesota's feedlot programs. County extension services promote best management practices to minimize runoff from feedlots into rivers and county zoning ordinances limit the locations of feedlots. Expansion of existing feedlots is allowed with specific limitations.

Sealing Unused Wells. Soil and Water Conservation District received grant money to help home owners seal their unused wells.

Program Gaps or Deficiencies of Water Supply Contamination  The emergency response plan does not identify alternate sources of drinking water, including locations for acquiring adequate amounts of bottled water, in the event of contamination.

Hazard: Wastewater Treatment System Failure

Wastewater treatment and disposal is an important part of our need to protect and preserve Minnesota's water resources. Although minimal, failure of wastewater treatment systems poses a potential risk in Lac qui Parle County. Numerous hazards can knock out water treatment plants, including severe flooding.

History of Wastewater Treatment System Failure in Lac qui Parle County Wastewater systems typically pose higher risks of failure during the spring when melting snow and runoff can cause flooding. To date, no wastewater treatment systems have failed in Lac qui Parle County.

Relationship with Other Hazards – Cascading Effects Infectious Diseases. The failure of septic treatment facilities and systems can have immediate adverse impacts on human health through communicable diseases and epidemics.

Water Supply Contamination. The failure of septic treatment facilities and systems can have immediate adverse impacts on potable water supplies.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 41 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Plans and Programs of Wastewater Treatment System Failure Certified Operators and Inspections. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requires routine inspection of all public wastewater systems. These operators are required to take state training to maintain their certified operator status.

State Permit Enforcement. The MPCA regulates wastewater systems. State staff in the water- quality point-source program issue permits, monitors compliance through data review and inspections, and enforce permit conditions.

Emergency Plan. The emergency plans address necessary steps to take in the event of a facility failure.

Program Gaps or Deficiencies of Wastewater Treatment System Failure  Human-induced events, like terrorism, are not addressed in the emergency plans but are currently being added.  Lac qui Parle County does not have an ordinance requiring periodic inspection of individual septic tank systems

Hazard: Civil Disturbance / Terrorism

Human-caused hazards are intentional, criminal, malicious uses of force and violence to perpetrate disasters against people or property. They can be the result of terrorism – actions intended to intimidate or coerce a government or the civilian population to further political or social objectives – which can be either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base and objectives of the terrorist organization. Or they can be acts of individuals perpetrated for personal reasons.

Hazards can result from the use of weapons of mass destruction, including biological, chemical, nuclear and radiological weapons; arson, incendiary, explosive and armed attacks; industrial sabotage and intentional hazardous materials releases; and cyber terrorism.

History of Terrorism in Lac qui Parle County Lac qui Parle County has no history of terrorist or individual acts designed to cause disasters against people or property. Vandalism, assaults and other criminal acts do occur, but these isolated incidents fall within the purview of local law enforcement.

Relationship to Other Hazards – Cascading Effects Cascading effects of an intentional human-caused disaster are highly dependent on the specific mode used and asset targeted. Many of these have been detailed in the technological hazards portion of the plan covering dam failure and hazardous materials incidents. Fires and secondary explosions are possible with explosive attacks, and fires from arson attacks can extend beyond the intended target.

Plans and Programs of Terrorism Cooperation with State, Federal Officials. Lac qui Parle County officials are working with state and federal officials, including the Department of Health, on domestic preparedness efforts to ensure that health care facilities are prepared for bio-terrorism events.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 42 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Emergency Plans. The hospital plan, EMS Plan, Countryside Public Health Plan, and Lac qui Parle County’s Emergency Operations Plan identify the chempak cash that can be requested for treatment if chemical exposure is identified.

Program Gaps or Deficiencies of Civil Disturbances / Terrorism  Design and operations of facilities in the county were not developed with terrorism prevention in mind.  Recreation facilities developed around the Lac qui Parle Dam provide easy, unmonitored access to the structure.  Dawson and Madison government buildings, including the county courthouse and city hall, have unrestricted pedestrian access and loading dock/delivery facilities.  Government buildings in Lac qui Parle County do not have up-to-date water supply and fire suppression systems and are not blast resistant.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 3 Pg. 43 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan LAC QUI PARLE COUNTY CHAPTER FOUR: RISK ASSESSMENT

Overview

The risk assessment is divided into three parts. The first part consists of Hazard Prioritizations for each hazard which is based on the information provided in Chapter Three. The second part discusses county vulnerability to natural hazards (Vulnerable Areas within Lac qui Parle County), while the third part consists of a vulnerability assessment for each community (City Risk Assessment). Maps are available for the vulnerability assessments in parts two and three within this chapter.

Prioritized Risk Assessment

The following pages give a summary of each hazard by gathering information about each hazard. The risk assessment looks at these questions and then attempts to quantify the risk level by giving number values to levels of risk. This information allows the hazards to be compared in order to assess which hazards pose the greatest risk. The values for the prioritized risk assessment were determined by a variety of resources including meetings and discussions with the Local Task Force, Technical Task Force team, city representatives, and the County Emergency Manager to determine a ranking for each hazard based on the risk assessment criteria. Also taken into consideration was information from the community profile, analysis of historic disasters, and information provided by the task force and public to identify past, present and future disasters.

This risk assessment is determined by the following: 1) The frequency of occurrence: This asks how often it may happen and how likely is it that the hazard will occur. The number values are determined by: a. Unlikely: 1 b. Occasional: 2 c. Likely: 3 d. Highly Likely: 4

2) Warning Time. This asks how long much warning time is available prior to the event. a. More than 12 hours: 1 b. 6 – 12 Hours: 2 c. 3 – 6 Hours: 3 d. None – Minimal: 4

3) Potential Severity. This asks how severe the impact will be in a general sense. a. Limited: 1 b. Minor: 2 c. Major: 3 d. Substantial: 4

4) Risk Level. The risk level looks at how severe the impact will be for each category of “Citizens/People”, “Animals/Livestock”, “Housing”, “Critical Structures” and “Infrastructure”. The average of all those categories determines the number for the risk.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 1 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan The Overall Hazard Priority Level was then determined by adding up all the numbers and dividing by 4 to get the average risk level for each hazard. The hazard was determined “Very Low” if it was 1, “Low” if 2, “Moderate” if 3 and “High” if 4. The hazards were then listed in numerical order for the Lac qui Parle County Local Task Force to review and comment upon at the third Local Task Force Meeting in Madison, MN on February 23, 2011. At the third Local Task Force Meeting, the team was presented with the Overall Hazard Priority Level determined by their risk assessments and the initial Overall Hazard Priority Level from the previous All- Hazard Mitigation Plan. The staff facilitator discussed differences between the two lists and questioned the Local Task Force if any changes were to be made. It was at this point that the Local Task Force held a discussion about the ranked list of hazards and staff provided information provided by the Technical Task Force team on questioned hazards. Much of the Local Task Force was concerned with the provided hazard ranking results; that stated, a lengthy discussion took place that shifted natural hazards to the top of the ranking and hazards such as Civil Disturbance and Drought to the lowest risk. Further, upon a second evaluation of the initial ranking, the Local Task Force saw they were “recreating” the same list and made a decision to reuse the initial list; with a slight modification by shifting Structure Fire to the highest ranked hazard and Wildfire to the seventh highest ranked hazard. On March 18, 2011 staff facilitators met with the Lac qui Parle County Engineer and Environmental Director to review the hazard priority levels set by the Local Task Force and made further changes. Tornado was shifted below flash flood events and a 100-year flood event as these have been occurring on a more frequent basis than a tornado event; in addition to winter and summer weather events increasing in priority above Civil Disturbance/Terrorism. The Overall Hazard Priority Level for Lac qui Parle County’s All-Hazard Mitigation Plan update is found on page 14 of this chapter.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 2 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 36. Hazard: Violent Storms and Extreme Temperatures Winter Weather Summer Weather Hazard: Blizzard, Ice Storms, Heavy Snow, Extreme Thunderstorm, Lightning, Hail, Wind Tornado Cold (excluding tornado) Extreme Heat Location County County County 3-6 storms per year 0-3 blizzards per year 0-2 storms per year 9 tornado occurrences in past Often below freezing Historic events 1-3 days of extreme heat per year 55 years Extreme cold 1-2 days per year November 2001 (ice storm) Likely to happen now? Yes Yes No 3-6 storms per year 0-2 storms per year 0-2 blizzards per year .30 thunderstorms per year .16 annually How often? Often below freezing 1.93 hail events per year (averaged) Extreme cold 1-2 days per year 1-5 days of extreme heat per year Where would it strike? County County County 2-3 days / storm, multiple storms in one Lightning, strong wind and hail How bad could hazard season, limited visibility, record snow is F4 reported in neighboring Record heat is 110 o 19 in./day and 28 in./month, record county get? Humidity is factor cold is –41o, wind chill is a factor When would hazard November – March Spring – Fall Spring - Fall likely occur? What other hazards Wind, transportation accidents, extreme Flooding, lightning, hail, wind, Hazardous materials, utility could occur temp, collapsed structure/gas leaks, trans. accidents, drought, violent failure, fire, collapsed simultaneously? spring flooding, disruption of utilities storms, wildfire, collapsed structure structure, gas leaks Cost of snow removal, loss of livestock, Loss of livestock, fire potential, Structure loss and community Economic impacts school closing, store closing agriculture and property damage shut down Dangerous to transport emergencies, heat Lightning strike, heat stroke Extremely dangerous Loss of life impacts turn-off, transportation accidents Risk Level Citizens/People: High Citizens/People: Limited Citizens/People: High Very High Animals/Livestock: High Animals/Livestock: Limited Animals/Livestock: High High Housing: Limited Housing: Limited Housing: High Limited Critical Structures: Limited Critical Structures: Limited Critical Structures: High Minimal Infrastructure: Limited Infrastructure: Limited Infrastructure: Limited Total: Limited Total: Limited Total: High Risk Assessment Unlikely 1 Frequency of Occurrence Frequency of Occurrence Frequency of Occurrence Occasional 2 Likely 3 Highly Likely 4 3 3 1 More than 12 hours 1 Warning Time Warning Time Warning Time 6 – 12 Hours 2 3 – 6 Hours 3 None – Minimal 4 1 2 3 Limited 1 Potential Severity* Potential Severity* Potential Severity* Minor 2 Major 3 Substantial 4 3 2 4 Minimal 1 Risk Level** Risk Level** Risk Level** Limited 2 High 3 Very High 4 2 2 3 (total divide by 4) Overall Priority Overall Priority Overall Priority Very Low 1 Low 2 2.41 2.36 2.77 Moderate 3 Low/Moderate Low/Moderate Moderate/High High 4 * Potential Severity asks the question, “How bad can it get?” ** See above Risk Level. Risk Level addresses risk to Citizens, Animals, Housing, Critical Structures and Infrastructure.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 3 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 37. Hazard: Flood Hazard: 100-year Floods Other Flooding/Flash Floods, Along the Minnesota and Lac qui Parle County Location Rivers Dawson was most affected Historic events 1969, 1992, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2008-10 1993, 1995 Likely to happen now? Yes Yes 1% likelihood annually; 2 times per 10 years How often? 2 times per 10 years Along rivers Dawson has homes in the 100- Along rivers, drainage ditches, wetlands, Where would it strike? year floodplain, floodway is biggest issue in south-southwest portion of County Dawson (townships) How bad could hazard get? 1997 was record year Large amount of water, moving fast When would hazard likely occur? Spring Spring/Summer Utility failure, landslide, debris flow, Utility failure, landslide, debris flow, What other hazards could occur interrupt transportation routes interrupt transportation routes simultaneously? (emergencies), infectious diseases, (emergencies), infectious diseases, hazardous material spills hazardous material spills Economic impacts Sandbagging and repair roads Repair roads, agriculture loss Loss of life impacts Danger if sandbagging Danger if sandbagging Risk Level Citizens/People: Limited Citizens/People: Limited VH: Very High Animals/Livestock: Limited Animals/Livestock: Limited H: High L: Limited Housing: High Housing: Limited M: Minimal Critical Structures: Limited Critical Structures: High Infrastructure: High Infrastructure: High Total: Limited Total: High Risk Assessment Frequency of Occurrence Unlikely 1 Occasional 2 2 2 Likely 3 Highly Likely 4 Warning Time More than 12 hours 1 6 – 12 Hours 2 1 2 3 – 6 Hours 3 None – Minimal 4 Potential Severity* Limited 1 Minor 2 3 2 Major 3 Substantial 4 Risk Level** Minimal 1 Limited 2 2 2 High 3 Very High 4 Overall Priority (total divide by 4) Very Low 1 2.25 2.20 Low 2 Low/Moderate Low/Moderate Moderate 3 High 4 * Potential Severity asks the question, “How bad can it get?” ** See above Risk Level. Risk Level addresses risk to Citizens, Animals, Housing, Critical Structures and Infrastructure.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 4 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 38. Hazard: Drought Hazard: Drought Location County Historic events 1976, 1988, 2003 Likely to happen now? Occasionally How often? One time per 15-20 years Where would it strike? County How bad could hazard get? 1930’s dust bowl When would hazard likely occur? Summer What other hazards could occur Utility failure (water, wastewater), Wildfires simultaneously? Economic impacts Crops/Agriculture Loss of life impacts Unlikely Risk Level Citizens/People: Limited VH: Very High Animals/Livestock: Limited H: High Housing: Minimal L: Limited M: Minimal Critical Structures: Minimal Infrastructure: Minimal Total: Minimal Risk Assessment Frequency of Occurrence Unlikely 1 Occasional 2 2 Likely 3 Highly Likely 4 Warning Time More than 12 hours 1 6 – 12 Hours 2 1 3 – 6 Hours 3 None – Minimal 4 Potential Severity* Limited 1 Minor 2 2 Major 3 Substantial 4 Risk Level** Minimal 1 Limited 2 1 High 3 Very High 4 Overall Priority (total divide by 4) Very Low 1 1.68 Low 2 Very Low/Low Moderate 3 High 4 * Potential Severity asks the question, “How bad can it get?” ** See above Risk Level. Risk Level addresses risk to Citizens, Animals, Housing, Critical Structures and Infrastructure.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 5 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 39. Hazard: Wildfire Hazard: Wildfire County – especially along the MN River Valley and Location CRP/CREP land Historic events 2003 Likely to happen now? Yes Each year the potential increases as natural areas increase and managed burns do not take fuel away. Acres lost to Wildfires: How often? 150 acres burned: 05/13/2007 .25 acres burned: 06/11/2007 80 acres burned: 04/07/2005 2.50 acres burned: 04/14/2000 Where would it strike? County – especially along the MN River Valley, CRP/CREP How bad could hazard get? Potential for hundreds of acres to burn When would hazard likely occur? Summer What other hazards could occur Erosion/landslide, severe wind, scrap tire fires, structure fires, simultaneously? hazardous materials, utility failure Economic impacts Extremely expensive for local fire departments Extremely dangerous for firefighters Loss of life impacts 8 civilian lives lost in 26 years (all fires/not solely wildfires) Risk Level Citizens/People: Limited VH: Very High Animals/Livestock: Limited H: High Housing: Limited L: Limited M: Minimal Critical Structures: Limited Infrastructure: Limited Total: Limited Risk Assessment Frequency of Occurrence Unlikely 1 Occasional 2 1 Likely 3 Highly Likely 4 Warning Time More than 12 hours 1 6 – 12 Hours 2 4 3 – 6 Hours 3 None – Minimal 4 Potential Severity* Limited 1 Minor 2 3 Major 3 Substantial 4 Risk Level** Minimal 1 Limited 2 2 High 3 Very High 4 Overall Priority (total divide by 4) Very Low 1 2.36 Low 2 Low/Moderate Moderate 3 High 4 * Potential Severity asks the question, “How bad can it get?” ** See above Risk Level. Risk Level addresses risk to Citizens, Animals, Housing, Critical Structures and Infrastructure.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 6 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Table 40. Hazard: Dam Failure Hazard: Dam Failure Location Along Minnesota River Historic events None Likely to happen now? No How often? Unlikely Where would it strike? Lac qui Parle Lake Dam (or 3 other dam locations) How bad could hazard get? Would not have much effect in Lac qui Parle County When would hazard likely occur? Spring/Summer/Fall – due to thaw or rain event What other hazards could occur Flooding simultaneously? Economic impacts Could damage crops and roads Loss of life impacts If sudden event, people could die Risk Level Citizens/People: Limited VH: Very High Animals/Livestock: Limited H: High Housing: Limited L: Limited M: Minimal Critical Structures: Limited Infrastructure: Limited Total: Limited Risk Assessment Frequency of Occurrence Unlikely 1 Occasional 2 1 Likely 3 Highly Likely 4 Warning Time More than 12 hours 1 6 – 12 Hours 2 4 3 – 6 Hours 3 None – Minimal 4 Potential Severity* Limited 1 Minor 2 2 Major 3 Substantial 4 Risk Level** Minimal 1 Limited 2 2 High 3 Very High 4 Overall Priority (total divide by 4) Very Low 1 2.17 Low 2 Low Moderate 3 High 4 * Potential Severity asks the question, “How bad can it get?” ** See above Risk Level. Risk Level addresses risk to Citizens, Animals, Housing, Critical Structures and Infrastructure.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 7 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 41. Hazard: Infectious Diseases Hazard: All Infectious Disease Location County Historic events No major events Unlikely with most Likely to happen now? Influenza and Pertussis are likely From 2003-2009: Tuberculosis: 1 case (likelihood .14 cases annually) West Nile: 6 cases (likelihood .86 cases annually) How often? E. Coli: 1 case (likelihood .14 cases annually) Pertussis: 24 cases (likelihood 3.43 cases annually) *all other diseases have not occurred or were not reported during the time span Where would it strike? Hospitals/Schools – large vulnerable populations How bad could hazard get? Major outbreak of life-threatening disease Anytime for most diseases When would hazard likely occur? Summer for West Nile What other hazards could occur Riots, terrorist attack, natural hazard event simultaneously? Tourism industry Economic impacts All industries with workers not at jobs Loss of life impacts Major if life-threatening outbreak Risk Level Citizens/People: High VH: Very High Animals/Livestock: Limited H: High Housing: Minimal L: Limited M: Minimal Critical Structures: Minimal Infrastructure: Minimal Total: Limited Risk Assessment Frequency of Occurrence Unlikely 1 Occasional 2 1 Likely 3 Highly Likely 4 Warning Time More than 12 hours 1 6 – 12 Hours 2 2 3 – 6 Hours 3 None – Minimal 4 Potential Severity* Limited 1 Minor 2 3 Major 3 Substantial 4 Risk Level** Minimal 1 Limited 2 2 High 3 Very High 4 Overall Priority (total divide by 4) Very Low 1 1.93 Low 2 Low Moderate 3 High 4 * Potential Severity asks the question, “How bad can it get?” ** See above Risk Level. Risk Level addresses risk to Citizens, Animals, Housing, Critical Structures and Infrastructure.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 8 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 42. Hazard: Fire Hazard: Structure Fire Location Buildings/Cities/County Historic events Draw Bar: 2002; Madison School: 1991 Likely to happen now? Yes Potential is always there How often? Average 44.9 fire-related fire runs annually (total 449 from 2000-2009) Where would it strike? Structures throughout county How bad could hazard get? Entire structure could burn When would hazard likely occur? All year-round Wildfire, hazardous materials, service disruptions, What other hazards could occur simultaneously? health risks Economic impacts Could harm business if fire is bad enough Potential if hazardous materials present Loss of life impacts Elderly and very young at risk 8 civilian lives lost in 26 years (all fires) Risk Level Citizens/People: High VH: Very High Animals/Livestock: Limited H: High Housing: High L: Limited M: Minimal Critical Structures: High Infrastructure: Limited Total: High Risk Assessment Frequency of Occurrence Unlikely 1 Occasional 2 2 Likely 3 Highly Likely 4 Warning Time More than 12 hours 1 6 – 12 Hours 2 4 3 – 6 Hours 3 None – Minimal 4 Potential Severity* Limited 1 Minor 2 3 Major 3 Substantial 4 Risk Level** Minimal 1 Limited 2 3 High 3 Very High 4 Overall Priority (total divide by 4) Very Low 1 2.98 Low 2 Moderate Moderate 3 High 4 * Potential Severity asks the question, “How bad can it get?” ** See above Risk Level. Risk Level addresses risk to Citizens, Animals, Housing, Critical Structures and Infrastructure.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 9 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 43. Hazard: Hazardous Materials Hazard: Hazardous Materials Major transportation routes (railroads, highways) Location Pipeline locations All cities at least one major highway Historic events None Occasionally Likely to happen now? Potential increases as hazardous materials increase 27 hazardous material spills in 8 years, (3.4 annual likelihood) Specific locations throughout county, along transportation How often? routes in county and local businesses that have hazardous materials delivered, Meth Labs can occur anywhere. Major spill could be devastating to human and animal life Where would it strike? Meth Labs make people extremely sick. How bad could hazard get? Year-round Wildfire, storm, water supply contamination, wastewater When would hazard likely occur? contamination What other hazards could occur Could shut down area of spill simultaneously? Economic impacts Potential depending on material Specific locations throughout county, along transportation Loss of life impacts routes in county and local businesses that have hazardous materials delivered, Meth Labs can occur anywhere. Risk Level Citizens/People: High VH: Very High Animals/Livestock: High H: High Housing: Limited L: Limited M: Minimal Critical Structures: Limited Infrastructure: Limited Total: Limited Risk Assessment Frequency of Occurrence Unlikely 1 Occasional 2 1 Likely 3 Highly Likely 4 Warning Time More than 12 hours 1 6 – 12 Hours 2 4 3 – 6 Hours 3 None – Minimal 4 Potential Severity* Limited 1 Minor 2 3 Major 3 Substantial 4 Risk Level** Minimal 1 Limited 2 2 High 3 Very High 4 Overall Priority (total divide by 4) Very Low 1 2.61 Low 2 Low/Moderate Moderate 3 High 4 * Potential Severity asks the question, “How bad can it get?” ** See above Risk Level. Risk Level addresses risk to Citizens, Animals, Housing, Critical Structures and Infrastructure.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 10 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 44. Hazard: Water Supply Contamination Hazard: Water Supply Contamination County Location Cities Point and Non-Point sources Historic events None Likely to happen now? Unlikely How often? Flood events – 2 times every 10 years Where would it strike? County How bad could hazard get? Water source could be contaminated for large population When would hazard likely occur? Year-round What other hazards could occur Infectious diseases simultaneously? Economic impacts Tourism, expensive to ship water in Loss of life impacts Potential to be life threatening Risk Level Citizens/People: High VH: Very High Animals/Livestock: High H: High Housing: Limited L: Limited M: Minimal Critical Structures: Limited Infrastructure: Limited Total: Limited Risk Assessment Frequency of Occurrence Unlikely 1 Occasional 2 1 Likely 3 Highly Likely 4 Warning Time More than 12 hours 1 6 – 12 Hours 2 4 3 – 6 Hours 3 None – Minimal 4 Potential Severity* Limited 1 Minor 2 3 Major 3 Substantial 4 Risk Level** Minimal 1 Limited 2 2 High 3 Very High 4 Overall Priority (total divide by 4) Very Low 1 2.36 Low 2 Low/Moderate Moderate 3 High 4 * Potential Severity asks the question, “How bad can it get?” ** See above Risk Level. Risk Level addresses risk to Citizens, Animals, Housing, Critical Structures and Infrastructure.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 11 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 45. Hazard: Wastewater Treatment System Failure Hazard: Wastewater Treatment System Failure Location County Individual systems and municipal systems have either gotten old or Historic events flooding has prevented from working Likely to happen now? Somewhat likely How often? During flood or as systems age Where would it strike? County How bad could hazard get? Water source could be contaminated When would hazard likely occur? Year-round What other hazards could occur Infectious diseases, flood, water supply contamination simultaneously? During flood, losing wastewater system is expensive and Economic impacts inconvenient Loss of life impacts Could affect lives if contaminated water Risk Level Citizens/People: Limited VH: Very High Animals/Livestock: Limited H: High Housing: Limited L: Limited M: Minimal Critical Structures: Limited Infrastructure: Limited Total: Limited Risk Assessment Frequency of Occurrence Unlikely 1 Occasional 2 2 Likely 3 Highly Likely 4 Warning Time More than 12 hours 1 6 – 12 Hours 2 3 3 – 6 Hours 3 None – Minimal 4 Potential Severity* Limited 1 Minor 2 3 Major 3 Substantial 4 Risk Level** Minimal 1 Limited 2 2 High 3 Very High 4 Overall Priority (total divide by 4) Very Low 1 2.43 Low 2 Low/Moderate Moderate 3 High 4 * Potential Severity asks the question, “How bad can it get?” ** See above Risk Level. Risk Level addresses risk to Citizens, Animals, Housing, Critical Structures and Infrastructure.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 12 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 46. Hazard: Civil Disturbance / Terrorism Hazard: Terrorism Location County, cities, dam, airports, water systems Historic events None Likely to happen now? Unlikely School violence is increasing annually How often? No actual “terrorism” events in County Where would it strike? County How bad could hazard get? Threaten way of life When would hazard likely occur? Year-round What other hazards could occur Infectious diseases, flood, dam failure, water supply simultaneously? contaminations, hazardous materials Economic impacts Potential to be devastating Loss of life impacts Potential to affect lives Risk Level Citizens/People: High VH: Very High Animals/Livestock: Limited H: High Housing: Limited L: Limited M: Minimal Critical Structures: Limited Infrastructure: Limited Total: Limited Risk Assessment Frequency of Occurrence Unlikely 1 Occasional 2 1 Likely 3 Highly Likely 4 Warning Time More than 12 hours 1 6 – 12 Hours 2 4 3 – 6 Hours 3 None – Minimal 4 Potential Severity* Limited 1 Minor 2 3 Major 3 Substantial 4 Risk Level** Minimal 1 Limited 2 2 High 3 Very High 4 Overall Priority (total divide by 4) Very Low 1 2.57 Low 2 Low/Moderate Moderate 3 High 4 * Potential Severity asks the question, “How bad can it get?” ** See above Risk Level . Risk Level addresses risk to Citizens, Animals, Housing , Critical Structures and Infrastructure.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 13 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Overall Hazard Priority Level

Table 47. LqP Co Overall Hazard Priority Levels Special Areas of Hazard Lac qui Parle County Concern

Structure Fire Moderate/High Countywide

Bellingham, Boyd, Dawson, Louisburg, Hazardous Materials Moderate Madison, Marietta, Nassau Flash Flood/Other Countywide Moderate Flood Event (Townships) Boyd, Dawson, 100-Year Flood Event Moderate Marietta, Nassau, Lac qui Parle County Tornado Moderate Countywide Infectious Diseases Moderate Countywide Countywide, areas with CREP & CRP Lands, areas with Wildfire Moderate large concentrations of grasslands and forests Winter Weather Blizzard, ice storms, heavy snow, Moderate Countywide extreme cold Summer Weather Thunderstorm, lightning, hail, wind (excluding Moderate Countywide tornado), extreme heat Civil Disturbance/ Moderate Countywide Terrorism Water Supply Low/Moderate Countywide Contamination Wastewater Treatment Low/Moderate Countywide System Failure Drought Low Countywide Dam Failure Low Countywide

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 14 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Vulnerable Areas of the County

Tornados According to the National Climatic Data Center Storm Database, the county has experienced eight tornados since 1950, with the first in 1967. Three tornados took place in 2005 (two) and 2006, receiving magnitude values of F0 and a single funnel cloud formation in 2007. None have been very strong or affected urban areas, but in general the county has been spared from significant tornado damage. The most recent tornado occurred on August 12, 2010 and touched down in Madison and Louisburg. Local law enforcement and weather spotters observed a tornado touchdown in the southwestern portion of Madison, downing several trees and created a path through corn fields. A second tornado touchdown was seen on the southern portion of Louisburg, where trees were downed and a grain bin from the Louisburg Elevator was transported 100 yards. See Figure 3 (pg. 17) for a visual representation of tornado paths in Lac qui Parle County.

Traditionally, tornados are seen as a countywide hazard. In order to predict estimated damage caused by an F4/F5 tornado, Lac qui Parle County based fiscal analysis on the recommendation of the National Weather Service Data Management Department. According to the NWS, an acceptable method to estimate damage from a F4/F5 tornado in a small community would be to model the event in Greensburg, Kansas with a population of approximately 1,500 people. The devastation totaled around $250 million dollars – approximately 95% of the city. To model an F4/F5 tornado, the NWS suggested approximating that ninety percent of each land use category be considered demolished and totaling those losses, produced by 2009 market values. Table 48 (following page) highlights this information, providing the number of parcels damaged and estimated damage value by city, with a final damage amount of $142,751,610 dollars impacting 2,034 parcels of residences, commercial/industrial buildings, schools, churches, and government- owned properties (summation of all city parcels and assessed parcel values).

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 15 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 48. LqP Co Estimated Potential Damage by an F4/F5 Tornado Geographic Area Number of Parcels Value of Parcels Bellingham 143 $5,258,250 Boyd 159 $3,292,110 Dawson 721 $68,265,180 Louisburg 45 $948,150 Madison 770 $60,458,760 Marietta 125 $2,849,580 Nassau 71 $1,679,580 Total (Lac qui Parle County) 2034 $142,751,610 Source: Lac qui Parle County Assessor 2009

Three tornado F1 occurrences in 1970, 1981, and 2002 accumulated a total of $38,000 dollars in property damages; $3,000, $25,000, and $10,000 respectively.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 16 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 17 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Floods Flooding in Lac qui Parle County primarily occurs along rivers, affecting many of roads in the county, including township roads. During major flood events, floodwaters presented problems in South Dakota that necessitated cleaning out culverts and ditches with backhoes to move the water through. This water runs into Lac qui Parle County at a very fast rate and causing flooding issues in the county. Spring flooding is a constant concern caused by above normal (or rapid) snow melt, heavy rainfall, and snow density; and has taken place since early 2000. Especially notable in the springs of 2009 and 2010, numerous issues are seen on a county-wide level. The most common damage incurred by spring flooding is road damage including washouts and blocked and closed roads, which in turn causes accessibility issues for farmers. The areas most frequently inundated include south and southwestern Lac qui Parle County, notably Providence, Hamlin, and Lakeshore Townships and in Dawson, Minnesota.

According to estimates by the US Army Corp of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service, and FEMA, there are approximately 53,851 acres (see Table 49) in the 100-year floodplain and 928 acres in the 500-year floodplain in Lac qui Parle County. See Figure 4 (page 20) for a visual representation of 100 and 500-year floodplains in Lac qui Parle County. Table 49 below identifies the number of floodplain acres throughout Lac qui Parle County as determined by county digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps dated March 16, 2006.

Table 49. LqP Co & Cities 100 & 500-Year Floodplain Acreages Total Acres Percent of City Acres in Acres in Total in 100 & 500- that is in 100 & 100-Year 500-Year acres Year 500-year Floodplain Floodplain Floodplain Floodplain Lac qui Parle County 498,357 53,851 928 54,779 11.0% Boyd 331 37 0 37 11.3% Dawson 911 287 26 313 34.4% Marietta 241 2 0 2 1.0% Nassau 102 2 0 2 2.1%

In order to predict an estimated damage value if all 100-year floodplains were flooded throughout the county at a given time; all structures (or parcels when data was unavailable) were identified on individual city basis, in addition to the number of rural housing/farmsteads throughout the county. Table 50 (following page), provides the number of structures and their assessed 2009 values within 100-year floodplains in all cities and Lac qui Parle County. This data was gathered through city-specific inventories and are detailed further in the City Risk Assessment section of this chapter. The Lac qui Parle County Assessor provided assessed values of structures located within 100-year floodplains and any Critical Facility or parcel located in the floodplain was included in this risk assessment.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 18 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 50. Number of Structures/Parcels in 1% Year Chance Floodplains Geographic Number of Value of Total Number Total Value Area Critical Facilities Critical Facilities of Parcels of Parcels Lac qui Parle 0 $0 125* $21,693,125* County Boyd 0 $0 4** $80,262 Dawson 0 $0 18*** $1,857,169 Marietta 0 $0 1** $20,924 Nassau 0 $0 0 $0 Total 0 $0 148 $23,651,480 *Farmsteads (includes land and residential value – average value: $173,545) *Residences (structure value only – average value: $20,066) ***Includes 12 residences, 1 industrial & 3 commercial businesses, & 2 government structures (Ambulance garage/wastewater treatment plant

Table 51. LqP Co Summary of Expenses to Fight Flooding 1997 Flood 2001 Flood Total

Lac qui Parle County $565,130 $336,747 $901,877 Dawson $175,000 $35,000 $210,000 Total $740,130 $371,747 $1,111,877

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 19 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 20 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Repetitive Loss Structures. Repetitive loss structures are those structures which have sustained damages on two separate occasions of at least $1,000 each have been paid under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within a ten-year time span for which the cost of repairs at the time of the flood meets or exceeds 25 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. Currently, within Lac qui Parle County, there are two repetitive loss structures all located within Dawson, Minnesota, both of which are residential. The address, ownership and location of all repetitive structures are identified by the Lac qui Parle County Environmental Office and the City of Dawson, although their specific location will not be identified in this plan. See Figure 5 (page 22) for a visual representation of the general location of Repetitive Loss Properties in Lac qui Parle County.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 21 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 22 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Wildfires Wildfires occur throughout the state of Minnesota. According to the Minnesota State Fire Marshal, there are more than 2,000 annual wildfires with an estimated loss of more than $13 million dollars statewide. Yearly occurrences are wildfires started along the railroads and farmland. Two other potential wildfire hazards are along power lines and utility structures and timber bridges. Farm equipments’ hot exhaust can also start fields on fire. During a dry year, wildfires have the ability to spread quickly. In Lac qui Parle County, there are many home located near public lands which are grasslands and have a higher potential for fire damage. These properties are scattered throughout the county with many located in the north part of the county near Marsh Lake and along the Lac qui Parle River valley.

Milan Area Wildfire, April 2003. On April 12, 2003, a wildfire started on a vacant farm near Lac qui Parle County Road 30. Fifteen fire departments responded to the call over the weekend. Many of these fire departments did not have equipment meant to fight prairie fires, but they kept at it anyway. Many of these small town volunteer fire departments ended up with damaged and lost equipment and clutches on the fire trucks went out from driving on the bumpy prairie. There was at least one firefighter reported injured. The demands of this and other weekend fires stretched the resources of local, volunteer fire departments and the DNR crews that joined to battle the blazes. They obtained critical assistance from a DNR forestry tanker plane based in Brainerd and later National Guard helicopters with 500-gallon buckets. Wildfires that raced through grasslands south of Appleton over that weekend scorched an estimated 3,300 acres; about 1,700 of these acres were part of the Lac qui Parle Wildlife Management Area. The fire could have spread further if it was not for back burn efforts that kept the blaze south of Highway 119. Back burn efforts by the DNR also helped protect the area around Milan Beach and were not the source for a revived fire. An estimated $57,000 was spent on fighting the wildfire and repairing equipment.

Lac qui Parle County currently has about 34,335 acres enrolled in CREP, RIM, CRP and the Wetland Reserve Program. These areas are left for wildlife habitat and are not burned on a regular basis. As a result, years of dead grasses accumulate on these lands and are a good fuel for any fire that may start. Lac qui Parle County currently has 43,732 acres of grasslands and 13,702 acres of forests (see Table 52 below). Figure 6 (page 24), identifies two areas across the county which contain large patches of grasslands (25,860 acres) and forests (6,783 acres). Area 1: 20,343 acres of grassland and 5,808 acres of forests and Area 2: 5,517 acres of grasslands and 975 acres of forests. Also, located within the two areas are 433 farmsteads and an additional 84 farmsteads found within a ½ mile of the areas. The general locations of the large patch areas are found along the northern and southern borders of Lac qui Parle County.

Table 52. LqP CO General Wildfire Information Acreages: Grasslands Forests Acres in “Two Large Patch Areas” 25,860 6,783 Total Acres in County 43,732 13,702 Farmsteads located within: Large Patch Areas ½ Mile of Large Patch Areas Number of Farmsteads 433 84

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 23 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 24 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Dam Failure Dam failure is defined as the collapse or failure of an impoundment resulting in downstream flooding. Dam failures can result in loss of life and extensive property damages; and may result from an array of situations, including flood events, poor operation, lack of maintenance and repair and terrorism. Four major dams located in Lac qui Parle County include the Lac qui Parle Dam, Lac qui Parle Dam Refuge No. 2 Dam, Marsh Lake Dam, and Webber Pond Dam.

The Lac qui Parle Refuge No. 2 Dam and Webber Pond Dam are Low Hazard Potential dams, where failure may cause minimal property damage. Marsh Lake Dam is a Significant Hazard Potential Dam and may cause damage to structures or loss of life. The Lac qui Parle Dam has a high hazard potential classification where failure could cause loss of human life. In 2009, Dawson completed a project removing a Low Hazard Potential dam from within municipal limits. All the dams listed in this section are located outside municipal boundaries and would not cause impacts directly to residents; however, 55 farmsteads are located within a two mile buffer south of the dam locations. See Figure 7 on page 26 that illustrates the location of dams in Lac qui Parle County.

Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 25 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Lac qui Parle County Ch. 4 Pg. 26 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan