MINNESOTA STATE ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Approved April 21, 2008
Minnesota Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ...... 12 Plan Organization ...... 14 Acknowledgements...... 17 SECTION ONE: STATE PROFILE...... 19 Geographic Characteristics ...... 19 Climatic Characteristics ...... 21 Demographic Characteristics...... 22 Mitigation Success Stories in Minnesota ...... 27 SECTION TWO: HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAMS ...... 36 SECTION THREE: PLANNING PROCESS...... 54 Integration and Coordination ...... 54 2008 Plan Review and Update ...... 54 Coordinating Planning Agencies ...... 59 SECTION FOUR: HAZARD ANALYSIS ...... 64 Natural Hazards ...... 66 Flooding...... 67 Tornados...... 85 Hail ...... 93 Coastal Erosion ...... 99 Severe Winter Storms...... 102 Blizzards ...... 104 Ice and Ice Storms ...... 112 Landslide ...... 120 Sinkholes & Land Subsidence ...... 123 Earthquake...... 126 Drought ...... 134 Wildfire...... 140 Extreme Temperatures (Heat)...... 150 Lightning ...... 156 Windstorms ...... 160 Human Caused Hazards ...... 167 Terrorism ...... 167 Infectious Disease Outbreak ...... 169 Fires (Structures and Vehicles)...... 173 Infrastructure ...... 175 Nuclear Generating Plant...... 182 SECTION FIVE: RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 204 Methodology for Identifying Hazards ...... 204 Vulnerability Assessment by Jurisdiction ...... 215 Vulnerability Assessment for State Facilities ...... 260 Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction ...... 265 Local Risk Assessments...... 286 Estimating Potential Losses to Critical Facilities...... 299 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table of Contents SECTION SIX: MITIGATION STRATEGY ...... 306 Hazard Mitigation Goal Setting Process...... 306 Inventory of Programs, Policies and Funding Resources ...... 309 Mitigation Actions...... 326 State Capability Assessment ...... 400 Evaluation of Existing Programs, Policies and Projects ...... 423 SECTION SEVEN: COORDINATING LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING . 432 Local Plan Integration ...... 432 Local Capability Assessment ...... 433 Review of 2005 Recommendations...... 449 SECTION EIGHT: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS ...... 466 Plan Adoption ...... 466 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan...... 466
Tables Table 1 Grant Program Comparison: Mitigation Division Grant Programs ...... 37 Table 2 Major Flood Events in Minnesota (1950 – 2007) ...... 74 Table 3 Minnesota Counties with Q3 Data ...... 81 Table 4 Fujita Tornado Scale...... 85 Table 5 Enhanced F Scale for Tornado Damage ...... 86 Table 6 Historic Tornado Occurrences in Minnesota ...... 88 Table 7 Tornado Totals and Averages by Month (1950 - 2004) ...... 89 Table 8 Top 20 States for Number of Tornadoes, Fatalities, and Damages, 1950 to 1994 ...... 91 Table 9 Estimating Hail Size ...... 94 Table 10 Hail Indemnity Figures for 2000-2006 ...... 96 Table 11 Lake Superior Mean, Maximum, and Minimum Lake Levels, 1918-2006 ...... 99 Table 12 History of Blizzards in Minnesota (1940-2007)...... 104 Table 13 Notable Ice and Sleet Storms in Minnesota (1993-March 2007) ...... 112 Table 15 Earthquake PGA, Magnitude and Intensity Comparison ... 127 Table 16 Earthquake History of Minnesota ...... 130 Table 17 Minnesota Drought History ...... 135 Table 18 Single Fires of Record from 1976-2007...... 143 Table 19 Heat Index and Disorders...... 151 Table 20 Extreme Heat History in MN 1976-2007...... 152 Table 21 Lightning Injuries Reported in Minnesota 1993 - 2007 ..... 158 Table 22 Lightning Deaths Reported in Minnesota ...... 159 Table 23 Effect s of Wind Speed ...... 160 Table 24 Windstorms in Minnesota (1975-2007)...... 161 Table 25 Civilian Deaths, Civilian Injuries, and Dollar Loss Due to Fire (2001–2006) ...... 174 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table of Contents Table 26 Notable Dam Incidents in Minnesota [1980 - 2007]...... 177 Table 27 Minnesota Hazardous Materials Incidents by Mode for 2006 ...... 186 Table 28 Minnesota Traffic Fatalities, 1961 – 2006...... 189 Table 29 Motor Vehicle/Train Crash Summary, 1997 – 2006...... 194 Table 30 Clean Water Legacy Funding...... 200 Table 31 Initial Claims Related to Water Treatment Submitted to HSEM for Flood Damage in Southeast Minnesota, 2007 (DR-1717) .... 201 Table 32 Community Water Supply Systems in Minnesota...... 202 Table 33 Storm Drainage Failures in Minnesota ...... 202 Table 34 Probability Ranking and Criteria for Hazard Identification and Disposition ...... 205 Table 35 Mitigation Potential Ranking and Criteria for Hazard Identification and Disposition ...... 205 Table 36 Hazard Identification and Disposition ...... 207 Table 37 Agricultural Losses from Water-Related Insurance Claims from 1994-2006 ...... 218 Table 38 1989-2006 Disaster Payments for Public Assistance for Flooding* ...... 221 Table 39 Summary of Public Assistance Payments to Counties...... 231 Table 40 Tornado Damage from 1950-2007 ...... 233 Table 41 Tornado Damages including Property, Injuries and Deaths from 1950-2007 ...... 237 Table 42 Tornado related insurance claims 1994-2006 ...... 242 Table 43 Windstorm Damages from 1950-2007...... 243 Table 44: Windstorm Damages to Property and Life ...... 246 Table 45 Wind/Excess Wind Indemnity (Top Ten Counties) 1994-2006 ...... 250 Table 46: All Fire Indemnity Claims 1994-2006 ...... 254 Table 47 Wildfires from 1997-2007...... 256 Table 48 State Owned Facilities by County Replacement Value over $10 Million...... 261 Table 49 Annual Estimated Loss to Counties from Flooding ...... 266 Table 50 Tornado Damages from 1950-2007 (estimated annual losses) ...... 270 Table 51 Monetary Conversion Values for Injuries and Mortality..... 274 Table 52 Tornado Loss Estimate by Total Damages (Death, Injury & Property damage)...... 275 Table 53 Estimating Annual Loss due to Windstorms ...... 278 Table 54 Windstorm Loss Estimates by Total Damages (Injury, Death & Property Damages ) 1950-2007...... 282 Table 55 Agricultural losses from wind-related insurance claims from 1994-2006 (top 10 counties)...... 282 Table 56 Combined Fire Risk...... 283 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table of Contents Table 57 Indemnity Claims for Water, Hail, Excess Wind, and Wildfire Damages 1994-2006...... 284 Table 58 Estimated annual loss of property, injury and death for Tornado and Wind ...... 284
Annex A: State Hazard Capabilities Annex A1: Wildland Fire Capabilities Annex A2: Flood Capabilities Annex A3: Tornado Capabilities Annex A4: Lightning Capabilities Annex A5: Windstorm Capabilities Annex A6: Hailstorm Capabilities Annex A7: Extreme Temperature Capabilities Annex A8: Blizzard Capabilities Annex A9: Drought Capabilities Annex A10: Ice and Sleet Capabilities Annex A11: Earthquake Capabilities Annex A12: Terrorism Annex A13: Infectious Disease Outbreak Annex A14: Fire (Structures and Vehicles) Annex A15: Dams Annex A16: Nuclear Generating Plants Annex A17: Transportation Annex A18: Hazardous Materials Facilities Annex A19: Ground and Surface Water Supply
Appendices 1. Minnesota Recovers Task Force and Emergency Preparedness and Recovery Committee Membership 2. Minnesota State Building Code Participation 3. Minnesota Agricultural Disaster Declarations 4. Communities at Risk to Wildfire 5. State Owned Critical Facilities Database 6. Flood Risk Assessment from 2005 Plan 7. Tornado Risk Assessment from 2005 Plan 8. Windstorm Risk Assessment from 2005 Plan 9. Wildfire Risk Assessment from 2005 Plan 10. Minnesota Counties Hazard Mitigation Planning Grant Status 11. State of Minnesota Administrative Plan 12. National Flood Insurance Program Community Status Book Minnesota All-Hazard Mitigation Plan April 21, 2008 Verification of Plan Approval
Minnesota All-Hazard Mitigation Plan April 21, 2008 Verification of Plan Approval
This Plan has been reviewed and approved by:
Tim Pawlenty Kris Eide Governor, State of Minnesota Director, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Department of Public Safety MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Verification of Plan Approval
Dana Badgerow Mark Holsten Commissioner, Department of Commissioner, Department of Natural Administration Resources
Gene Hugoson Brad Moore Commissioner, Department of Agriculture Commissioner, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Glenn Wilson, Jr. Commissioner, Department of Commerce
Michael Campion Commissioner, Department of Public Safety
Major General Larry W. Shellito Commissioner, Department of Military Affairs
Bob McFarlin Acting Commissioner, Department of Tim Marx Transportation Commissioner, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
Dan McElroy James H. McCormick Commissioner, Department of Chancellor Minnesota State Colleges and Employment and Economic Development Universities MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Executive Summary Executive Summary Hazard Mitigation Programs Hazard mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural or human caused hazards and their effects. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act passed in 1988 established in Section 404 the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers several types of mitigation grants that allow a cost-share of 75 to 90 percent federal funding for eligible projects. The intent of these projects is to reduce repetitive losses due to the same hazard. The high federal cost share is an incentive to local and state government to participate in long-term mitigation planning.
In addition, the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) and Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) grant programs are available to applicants that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and have identified residential structures that qualify.
Examples of Mitigation in Minnesota The federally funded programs administered through the state of Minnesota equal approximately $100 million from 1989 to the present. One of the requirements of mitigation is to provide cost beneficial, technically feasible and environmentally sound projects, which benefit the community over the long term. The projects that have been funded or are in the process of being funded are: • The purchase of 980 properties to prevent repeated damages in flood plains. • The construction of several NOAA transmitters to provide 100% coverage in the state for the transmission of warnings via NOAA weather radios and the Emergency Alert System. • Provide whole home sprinkler systems and defensible space to make 251 homes more resistant to wildfire along the Gunflint Trail. • Funding to electrical cooperatives to make electric distribution systems more resistant damage from ice and severe storms in order to reduce power outages. • Upgrade of local infrastructure such as stormwater systems, water treatment plants, and roads. • Living snow fences along major roadways to prevent snow drifting over roads in winter. • Funds to develop and maintain state, county, city, and tribal mitigation plans. Local Plan Integration portrays the importance MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Executive Summary of having local and state mitigation plans that are approved by FEMA at the time of a disaster. Of the 87 counties in Minnesota, 33 jurisdictions (including two cities and three tribal governments) have FEMA approved plans. The remaining 54 (minus one county that has not begun the planning process) have started and are in various stages of developing multi- jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plans.
Mitigation Plans In an effort to streamline the HMGP grant process, FEMA requires states to develop their mitigation plans before disaster strikes. This allows for two courses of action. Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grants are offered so that communities may mitigate the effects of a hazard prior to a disaster. Communities affected by disaster are eligible to participate in both HMGP and PDM grants since the mitigation measures can be built back into the plans to rebuild the community. The 2008 Minnesota All-Hazard Mitigation Plan meets the FEMA requirement that state mitigation plans are revised every three years to update hazard and risk analysis in the state. FEMA also has a requirement that local communities have plans that are revised in five year cycles to qualify for mitigation grant funding.
State and local community mitigation plans essentially review the potential hazards in their respective jurisdictions and how those hazards may affect residents, infrastructure, services, business and industry. The planning then identifies the priorities and techniques to mitigate the effects from a particular hazard. Some techniques may be low cost and can be done at the local level while other measures may need the assistance of state and federal funding.
The difference between the Minnesota All-Hazard Mitigation Plan and local plans is that the state plan contains goals on how to support mitigation planning and programs statewide. The goals do not recommend specific mitigation techniques for a specific location but outline support for local governments with technical assistance and grant funding from state and federal agencies in regards to mitigation planning and projects. The state program goals also point to how mitigation planning needs a broad base of input from state agencies, regional development commissions, universities, private sector and communities.
MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Executive Summary Plan Goals and Objectives Goal 1. Maintain and enhance the State’s capacity to continuously make Minnesota less vulnerable to all hazards. • Institutionalize Hazard Mitigation • Improve organizational efficiency • Maximize the utilization of best technology
Goal 2. Build and support local capacity and commitment to continuously become less vulnerable to natural hazards. • Increase awareness and knowledge of hazard mitigation principles and practice among local public officials. • Provide direct technical assistance to local public officials and help communities obtain funding for mitigation planning and project activities • Encourage communities to develop, adopt, and implement local hazard mitigation plans • Improve compliance with State floodplain regulations and encourage participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) • To assist jurisdictions in developing mitigation projects and identifying funding for cost-beneficial mitigation projects. • Continuously demonstrate and capitalize upon the connection between hazard mitigation and sustainable development
Goal 3. Improve coordination and communication with other relevant entities. • Establish and maintain lasting partnerships • Streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of effort • Incorporate hazard mitigation into the activities of other organizations
Goal 4. Increase public understanding, support, and demand for hazard mitigation. • Identify hazard-specific issues and needs • Heighten public awareness of natural hazards • Publicize and encourage the adoption of appropriate hazard mitigation measures • Educate the public on the benefits of mitigation measures • Help educate the public on the benefits of hazard-resistant construction and site planning • Maximize available post-disaster “windows of opportunity” to implement major mitigation outreach initiatives
MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Introduction INTRODUCTION Purpose This updated version of the Minnesota All-Hazard Mitigation Plan (Plan) follows the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000 plan revision requirements. Another important addition to the state Plan is the incorporation of local mitigation planning outcomes. Both natural and human caused hazards are addressed.
The authority for this document is the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended by Public Law 106- 390, October 30, 2000, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. This Plan conforms to the 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206: Mitigation Planning and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Requirements.
The state of Minnesota is vulnerable to a variety of potential hazards. These hazards, both natural and human-caused, threaten loss of life and property. Events such as riverine and flash flooding, urban fire, and wildfire, blizzard, tornado and straight-line wind, hailstorm, earthquake, ice storm, drought, and chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive incidents have the potential for inflicting devastating economic loss and personal hardship. Natural disasters cost the state and its taxpayer’s money, both directly and indirectly. Many disasters in the state do not warrant federal disaster designation, which often result in local governments, businesses and citizens bearing the costs of recovery. Risk and vulnerability to natural and human caused hazards will continue to increase as Minnesota’s population grows.
Hazard mitigation planning and preparedness is the most effective instrument to reduce losses by reducing the impact of disasters upon people and property. Although mitigation efforts will not completely eliminate impacts of disastrous events, the state shall endeavor to reduce the impacts of hazardous events to the extent possible.
This All Hazard Mitigation Plan represents the efforts of the state of Minnesota in fulfilling the responsibility for hazard mitigation planning. The purpose of this Plan is to identify the State’s major hazards, assess the vulnerability to those hazards, and take steps to reduce vulnerability using the technical and program resources of Minnesota agencies. The Plan identifies goals and recommended actions and initiatives for state government to reduce and/or prevent injury and damage from hazardous events. The intent of the plan is to provide unified guidance for ensuring coordination of recovery-related hazard
12 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Introduction mitigation efforts following a major emergency/disaster, and to implement an on-going comprehensive state hazard mitigation strategy intended to reduce the impact of loss of life and property due to disasters.
Scope The overall goal of the Plan is to eliminate or reduce the impact of natural and human-caused incidents on the people and property of the state of Minnesota. The Plan evaluates and ranks the major natural and human caused hazards affecting the state of Minnesota as determined by frequency of event, economic impact, deaths and injuries. The Plan assesses hazard risk, reviews current state and local hazard mitigation capabilities, develops mitigation strategies and identifies state agency and other interagency working group’s actions to address mitigation needs. The Plan does not attempt to develop local mitigation plans or projects. Mitigation recommendations are based on input from state and local agencies and national best practices. The Plan identifies existing resources and develops tools to assist communities to help them succeed in their mitigation efforts. This is accomplished by establishing statewide mitigation policies, providing technical resources through state agency staff expertise and support, providing financial assistance through various programs, training and education and other agency initiatives.
Mitigation Definition Hazard mitigation may be defined as any action taken to eliminate or reduce the future risk to human life and property from natural and human caused 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
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
13 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Introduction • Reducing agricultural losses • Maintaining critical facilities in functioning order • Protecting infrastructure from damage • Protecting mental health • Reducing legal liability of government and public officials
In line with goals of hazard mitigation planning in the state of Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency Management vision is keeping Minnesota Ready through collaboration and coordination at all levels of government.
MN HSEM Vision and Mission: Keeping Minnesota Ready The mission of HSEM is to help Minnesota prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from natural and human caused disaster. Our team develops and maintains partnerships; collects and shares information; plan; train and educates; coordinates response resources; and provides technical and financial assistance.
Plan Organization As part of this review and update of the Plan the overall format of the plan has been revised and is now organized in the following sections:
Section One: The State Profile includes geographic, climatic and demographic characteristics. This section also includes a few hazard mitigation Success Stories that have been proven to reduce loss and protect life and property in the state.
Section Two: The Federal Mitigation Programs available for funding. This section outlines the five hazard mitigation assistance program FEMA offers– the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation programs, the Flood Mitigation Assistance program, the Severe Repetitive Loss pilot program and the Repetitive Flood Claims program. The State Administration Plan and Sub-grantee handbook are tools that are also referenced.
Section Three: The Planning Process. This section describes how the Plan was updated. A list of coordinating agencies and their role in hazard mitigation planning as outlined.
Section Four: The Hazard Analysis section of the plan outlines all 20 hazards that potentially affect the state. The nature of each hazard, history of hazard occurrence in Minnesota, probability of occurrence
14 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Introduction and sources of information are included. Other pertinent information for each hazard is included.
Section Five: Risk Assessment. This section includes the methodology for identifying hazards, vulnerability assessment for both jurisdictions and state facilities, and estimates potential loses to jurisdictions.
The probability ranking and criteria for mitigation potential and hazard identification and disposition are based on data from known reliable sources for all 20 hazards. Flooding, Tornadoes, Straight Line Winds and Wildfire are the top four natural hazards the state categorizes as having both High Probability Ranking and High Mitigation Potential Ranking.
Criteria for High Probability Ranking: • The hazard has impacted the State annually, or more frequently • The hazard is widespread, generally affecting regions or multiple counties in each event • There is a reliable methodology for identifying events and locations
Criteria for Mitigation Potential High Ranking: • Methods for reducing risk from the hazard are technically reliable • The state or counties have experience in implementing mitigation measures • Mitigation measures are eligible under federal grant programs • There are multiple possible mitigation measures for the hazard • The mitigation measure(s) are known to be cost-effective • The mitigation measures protect lives and property for a long period of time, or are permanent risk reduction solutions
The vulnerability assessment for counties potential loss estimate for the top four hazards are based on past losses and methodology appropriate to each hazard. Methods include agricultural losses from insurance claims, disaster payments for Public Assistance, and costs related to property damages, injuries and deaths.
A state owned facility assessment been initiated. At this time only data for the general number of facilities and replacement values are available. This data overlaid with the top four hazards are presented in this section. It is difficult to analyze each of the hazards on state facilities due to existing data. Estimating vulnerability of state facilities is ongoing and will be completed in the 2011 Plan update, as will potential loss estimations.
15 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Introduction Section Six: The Mitigation Strategy starts with the Hazard Mitigation Goal Setting Process to give insight into the background of how the goals were formulated for the program.
The Inventory of Hazard Mitigation Programs, Policies, and Funding Resources section provides information on resources available to assist with hazard mitigation planning and actions. These capabilities have been segregated into two major areas: federal and state agencies and related organizations.
The Mitigation Strategy states goals, objectives, actions, and projected funding sources to guide the mitigation program. The State Capability Assessment lists the programs and the funding sources that are used in state-wide mitigation efforts. The Available Resources section list resources that are used in mitigation planning or resources that may be used in the future for mitigation planning.
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning describes how local mitigation planning and projects are prioritized, coordinated and funded. Local Funding and Technical Assistance is available from the local, state, and federal levels. Local planning capabilities differ but a lack of capability does not exclude a community from any of the grant programs.
Local Plan Integration portrays the importance of having local and state mitigation plans that are approved by FEMA at the time of a disaster. Of the 87 counties in Minnesota, 33 jurisdictions (28 counties, two cities and three tribal governments) have FEMA approved plans. The remaining 53 counties (minus one county that have not begun the planning process) have started and are in various stages of developing multi-jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plans.
An analysis of the most vulnerable counties impacted by the top state four hazards (flood, fire, tornado, winds) has been conducted. Counties with strong hazard mitigation plans and capabilities for implementing hazard mitigation projects are included. Impediments to jurisdictions lacking plans and capabilities for implementing hazard mitigation projects are identified.
Prioritizing Local Assistance discusses how the criteria and ranking for HMGP and PDM funding differ. HMGP is evaluated on the local level whereas PDM is evaluated at the national level. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (gives more detailed information about the projects and how projects are approved by FEMA. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
16 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Introduction Criteria and Ranking outlines the procedures and criteria for project approval under this program.
Section Eight: Plan Maintenance Process outlines how the MNRTF, the SHMO and hazard mitigation planners will monitor, evaluate and update the Plan. Discussion of how to monitor the progress of mitigation activities may include a database that both the state and participating jurisdictions will be able to access and update.
Summary of Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Federal Share Allocations gives a historical account of the federal share grants in Minnesota. Approximately $86 million in grants support not only recovery but planning to protect the state from recurring damage due to disaster.
Note: Straight Line Winds and Windstorms are used interchangeably in the Plan. This hazard is treated as a different category than Tornadoes (may also include high winds).
Acknowledgements The mitigation staff of the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM) would like to acknowledge and thank the members of the Minnesota Recovers Task Force (MNRTF) and the Emergency Preparedness Response Committee (ERPC) for their involvement in the review of the updated Minnesota All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The initial development and current review of the plan was a multi-agency effort with Homeland Security and Emergency Management serving as the lead agency for the updated planning process. HSEM mitigation staff would also like to thank the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region V staff and Disaster Assistance Employee Joan Tweedale for her contribution to the plan revision process. HSEM should also like to thank Sean Managen, with the State Fire Marshal Division for his assistance in providing information and maps for this version of the plan.
The Hazard Mitigation Task Force was comprised of members of the Minnesota Recovers Task Force and the Emergency Preparedness Response Committee. The following agencies have reviewed the updated plan:
Coordinating Agency: Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
17 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Introduction Support Agencies: Department of Administration Department of Agriculture Board of Animal Health Department of Commerce Department of Corrections Department of Education Department of Employee Relations Department of Employment and Economic Development EMS Regulatory Board Department of Finance Department of Health MN Housing Finance Agency Department of Human Services Department of Labor and Industry Metro Transit Department of Military Affairs Department of Natural Resources Pollution Control Agency Department of Public Safety Department of Revenue Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Department of Transportation University of Minnesota
18 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section One: State Profile SECTION ONE: STATE PROFILE Geographic Characteristics Minnesota is located in the north central United States. Near the geographic center of North America, it is bordered on the north by the Canadian provinces of Manitoba and Ontario, on the west by North Dakota and South Dakota, on the south by Iowa, and on the east by Wisconsin and Lake Superior. Minnesota entered the Union on May 11, 1858, as the 32nd state.
Figure 1 Minnesota Location Map
Minnesota covers 86,943 square miles, of which 4,780 square miles are inland waters and 2,546 square miles consist of a portion of Lake Superior under the state's jurisdiction. Of the 50 states, Minnesota ranks 12th in total land area. From north to south the state measures 406 miles, and from east to west it measures 358 miles at its maximum extent and about 180 miles at its narrowest point.
The mean elevation is approximately 1,200 feet. Three areas in the state reach higher than 1,600 feet: the Iron Range (paralleling the north shore of Lake Superior), the Coteau Des Prairies (also known as Buffalo Ridge), and a small area in the Lake Itasca region. The highest point in the state is Eagle Mountain in the extreme northeast,
19 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section One: State Profile at 2,031 feet. The lowest elevation is 602 feet along the shores of Lake Superior.
The natural environment of the state is broken into three distinct biomes. The coniferous forest in Minnesota is found in the northern half of the state, but grades into the deciduous forest then prairie grassland in the northwestern part of the state. The deciduous forest biome extended in a diagonal line from the southeastern part of the state to the northwest. Most of these forests were cleared and converted to farmland during Minnesota's first 50 years of statehood. The State once had 18 million acres of prairie that stretched across the southern portion of the state and northward along the western border. Like the deciduous forest, the vast majority of the prairie biome has been converted to agricultural land.
The following map shows land use and cover per the 1990 census. The Land Management Information Center has links to multiple sources on land use/cover data for Minnesota. http://www.lmic.state.mn.us/chouse/land_use.html
Legend Urban and rural development Cultivated land Hay/pasture/grassland Brushland Forested Water Bog/marsh/fen Mining
20 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section One: State Profile Description Acreage Percent of state Urban and rural development 1,472,267 2.7 Cultivated land 22,694,200 42 Hay/pasture/grassland 4,977,451 9.2 Brushland 1,326,796 2.5 Forested 14,434,482 26.7 Water 3,211,643 5.9 Bog/marsh/fen 5,728,056 10.6 Mining 147,175 0.3 State total 53,992,070 100
In addition, the site has links to historic data, including the changes in impervious surfaces in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and the state. These data sets and maps can be helpful to communities to monitor land use, and plan.
Climatic Characteristics Minnesota has a continental-type climate and is subject to frequent outbreaks of continental polar air throughout the year, with occasional Arctic outbreaks during the cold season. Occasional periods of prolonged heat occur during summer, particularly in the southern portion of Minnesota, when warm air pushes northward from the Gulf of Mexico and the southwestern United States. Pacific Ocean air masses that move across the western United States produce comparatively mild and dry weather at all seasons.
Mean annual temperatures range from 36 degrees Fahrenheit (° F) in the extreme north to 49° F along the Mississippi River in the southeast. State temperature extremes range from -60° to 114° F.
Monthly mean temperatures vary from 85° F in the southwest to -11° F in the northwest. Mean temperatures during January in the northern portions of the state average near 40°F; this is 10 degrees colder than temperatures recorded at stations near Lake Superior and in southern Minnesota. The mean temperature in July for the state averages about 70° F in most places. This is five to 10 degrees warmer than at stations near Lake Superior. Thus, Lake Superior stations are cool in the summer and relatively warm in the winter.
Although total precipitation is important, its distribution during the growing season is more significant. For the most part, native vegetation grows for seven months (April to October) and row crops
21 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section One: State Profile grow for five months (May through September). During the crop growing period, approximately two-thirds of the annual precipitation occurs. Mean annual precipitation is 35 inches in extreme southeast Minnesota but gradually decreases to 19 inches in the extreme northwest portion of the State. At most locations there have been months with no precipitation recorded. Statewide, two of the driest years were 1910 and 1976, while two of the wettest were 1965 and 1977. Seasonal snowfall averages near 70 inches in the highlands along the north shore of Lake Superior in northeast Minnesota and gradually decreases to 40 inches along the Iowa border in the south and along the North Dakota and South Dakota borders in the west.
Heavy snowfalls of greater than 4 inches are common anytime from mid-November through mid-April. Heavy snowfalls with blizzard conditions affect the State on the average about two times each winter.
Conditions of severe drought with an annual Palmer Drought Index of - 3 or lower are expected on the average about once in 10 years in southwest and west central Minnesota, to about once in 25 years over eastern Minnesota. The northeast part of the state experiences severe drought about once in 50 years.
The state of Minnesota has been granted Presidential Disaster Declarations 40 times between 1965 and 2007 (42 years). Of those declarations, 33 involved flooding. Those numbers translate into approximately a 78% chance of a major flood annually somewhere in the state.
Demographic Characteristics Minnesota’s population increased by 40,362 persons, or 0.8 percent, between July 2005 and July 2006, a modest increase over the rate of growth observed in recent years. According to new estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau, Minnesota’s population on July 1, 2006 was 5,167,101. Since the 2000 Census, Minnesota has grown by 247,609 people, or 5.0 percent, ranking 19th among states in the number of people added and 23rd in the percent of growth. Minnesota remains one of the fastest-growing states in the Midwest. Only New Hampshire, among Northeast and Midwest states, has grown at a faster rate over the past six years. Minnesota continues rank among the leading states in income level, educational attainment, and labor force participation
22 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section One: State Profile according to a 2007 report from the Minnesota State Demographic Center.
Minnesota’s rankings include: 1st in home ownership (75.8% owner-occupied) 2nd in labor force participation (72.2% for ages 16 and over) 3rd in high school completion (90.9% for ages 25 and over) 5th lowest poverty rate (9.2% of all people) 9th highest per capita income ($37,373).
Population projections indicate that the strongest areas of growth will remain the outer ring suburbs within the seven county metropolitan area surrounding the twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The seven county metro area is made up of the following counties: Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington. 2030 projections also indicate significant growth in the counties immediately adjacent to the 7 county metro area, and in counties across the state possessing high lake densities. These projections indicate that 79 of the state’s 87 counties will experience population increases. Six of the eight counties with projected population declines are spread along the western border of the state, with the other two counties located in southwestern Minnesota.
Figure 2 shows the population density per square mile at the County level for all 87 counties in Minnesota. Anticipated population growth from 2005 to 2015 is shown in Figure 3.
23 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section One: State Profile Figure 2 2000 Population Densities per Square Mile
Source: Dept of Administration/Land Management Information Center (LMIC)
Minnesota currently ranks 9th in the nation with 19 Fortune 500 Companies. The 19 companies in Minnesota had combined total revenues of $300.7 billion in 2006. Minnesota's corporations also compete in the private sector. With 11 of the largest private companies in the country, the state ranks 12th in the Forbes Largest Private Companies list. One of these companies (Cargill) ranks second with $69.9 billion in revenues. The largest industries in Minnesota are manufacturing, agriculture, services, wholesale and retail trade, and
24 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section One: State Profile finance insurance and real estate. Home health care and community health care for the elderly are the industries with the highest projected rate of growth over the next 10 years, while textiles and motor vehicle manufacturing are expected to see the greatest decline. Data processing services, management and technical consulting, and scientific research and development are projected to be the fastest growing high pay industries over the next 10 years. High pay industries are those industries at the 4-digit North American Industry Classification System level that have an average weekly wage higher than the area’s average, and that comprise at least 0.2% of total area employment.
Minnesota’s agriculture has a long history of serving as an economic cornerstone for the state’s economy. The market value of production was $8,575,627,000, and crop sales accounted for $4,562,882,000 and livestock sales accounted for $4,012,745,000 of the total value. The market value of production of average per farm was $106,083.
Agriculture supports many other industries, such as manufacturing, transportation, wholesale and retail trade, services, construction, banking, insurance, and real estate. Minnesota is the fifth largest agricultural producer in the nation with 80,839 farms covering 27.5 million acres, generating $9.8 billion. Minnesota ranks first in the nation in production of sugar beets, turkeys, sweet corn for processing, and green peas for processing. 80% of agricultural jobs are located off the farm. The economic contribution of Minnesota’s agricultural industry reaches far beyond the agricultural sector due to the “multiplier effect”.
•Output impact: The “multiplier effect” of Minnesota’s agricultural production and processing generates $55 billion in economic activities for the state.
•Employment impact: The “multiplier effect” of Minnesota’s agricultural production and processing supports over 367,000 jobs.
The average size of farm was 340 acres, however the current trend in agriculture in Minnesota is towards larger farms. Family farms are showing slight declines in numbers, but many are finding success in organic farming and other specialty niches.
Tourism is also a key section of Minnesota's economy, comparable to agriculture in its contribution to the gross state product. Leisure and
25 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section One: State Profile hospitality in Minnesota generates $10 billion in gross annual sales, and more than $600 million is generated in state sales taxes. Minnesota's leisure and hospitality industry employs more than 236,000 workers. The annual number of travelers in Minnesota (28.6 million) is nearly five times the total population of the state.
Future Development Trends Overall, the state is showing growth in both population and industry. One on-going challenge associated with this growth is maintaining a balance between development and natural resource protection. Each community is responsible for ensuring ordinances that protect residents from flooding, wildfire and other hazards are enforced. Communities with floodplain ordinances and communities that participate in FireWise are more resistant to associated hazards. Comprehensive, land-use plans, watershed management plans and all types of long-term community planning are a local responsibility. Hazard mitigation plans required federal funding aim to give incentives to these communities to reduce vulnerability to all hazards for existing properties. The state does not dictate how communities grow; however, the current participation of all counties (some tribes and some cities) in Minnesota in all- hazard mitigation planning is a
26 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section One: State Profile positive step towards making the state and its residents disaster resistant.
In each community, risk assessments are based on past damages to existing structures. The risk assessment addresses the hazards with the highest potential for loss. Addressing hazards for the increased potential for flood damages and areas vulnerable to tornados/winds with intense development pressures is identified for each community based on its risk assessment.
In addition, counties in the northern portion of the state are encouraged to address growth and the proximity of (typically second) homes near lakes and in heavily forested areas to utilize best management practices for the wildland-urban interface, and other thinning projects, defensible space, and utilization of federally funded sprinklers for wildfire protection.
The following success stories illustrate how mitigation projects have worked to reduce damages to people and property, and keep Minnesota and its population safe. Utilizing existing programs, funding mitigation programs, and coordinating with other planning efforts, losses can be even further reduced.
Mitigation Success Stories in Minnesota Sprinklers and Firewise: A Winning Combination Ham Lake Fire, Gunflint Trail, Minnesota, May 2007 On July 4, 1999, a unique windstorm hit the most remote area in the State of Minnesota. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), managed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service as a designated, non-motorized wilderness area, draws millions of American and world-wide visitors each summer who enjoy the peaceful, majestic woods and sky-blue lakes. The BWCAW has several access points, many of which are located along a paved, 58-mile two-lane, dead-end road called the Gunflint Trail.
The wind storm, referred to as “The Blowdown” occurred at 12:20 p.m. on that hot Sunday, with winds clocked at speeds in excess of 100 mph. The storm affected 477,000 acres, or 16 percent of the Superior National Forest. In the BWCAW, 370,000 acres were impacted, with the heaviest damage occurring between Ely (west of Cook County) to 60 miles down the Gunflint Trail. The storm swath was 30 miles long and 12 miles wide. Over 40 million trees were toppled like toothpicks, trapping hundreds of remote canoers and
27 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section One: State Profile campers whose portages had become mazes covered with toppled 100 year old white pine, jack pine, aspen, cedar, and red pine trees. Almost every property along the Gunflint Trail had some level of damage with downed trees and/or debris.
Amazingly, no one was killed in the storm, but immediately following the blowdown, the threat of wildfire became a number one concern. With one road serving hundreds of residents and tourists, a wildfire would cause total devastation with loss of life and property valued at over $70 million. The fire threat to this area was unprecedented. Something had to be done to reduce the threat of wildfire and save lives and property.
The threat of wildfire was of such great concern that for many years following the blowdown, the USDA Forest Service and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources staffed full-time fire fighters in Grand Marais for the entire summer. The blowdown had created a summer-long fire season, not the typical spring and fall time season, and everyone wanted assurance that the Gunflint Trail Corridor would be protected with fire suppression efforts available immediately. During these summers, several prescribed burns were done to reduce the fuel loads and create fire breaks along the Gunflint Trail in an effort to reduce the severity of the imminent wildfire.
The Gunflint Trail Corridor along with the support of Cook County, the State of Minnesota, and FEMA, took a proactive approach to this new, heightened fire threat and chose to be prepared for the looming wildfire. The Gunflint Trail Volunteer Fire Department (GTVFD) developed a “Gunflint Trail Wildfire Sprinkler Protection Plan” as well as coordinated Firewise activities on properties. The objective of the Plan was to proactively mitigate wildfire threat to the Gunflint Trail Corridor that is safe, effective, and cost efficient. The Plan was also written to be consistent with the USDA Forest Service’s “Fuels Risk of Blowdown” suppression tactics and firefighter safety concerns. The community would mitigate for wildfire by providing a means for hydrating buildings and proximal fuels prior to ignition through the use of permanent sprinklers installed at lodges, businesses, homes, seasonal cabins, and garages.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) project administered by the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM), formerly the Division of Emergency Management entailed creating defensible space using
28 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section One: State Profile Firewise standards and installing sprinkler systems on homes and businesses. The HMGP project allowed homeowners to have 75 percent of costs for clearing brush around their homes or installation of sprinklers paid through HMGP funding. The project was administered as several grants: one for defensible space and the others for permanent sprinklers for home owners and businesses, portable sprinklers and hydrants for the GTVFD. The grants totaled $816,524 and paid for 161 structures to create defensible space, 134 properties to install permanent sprinkler systems, several portable sprinkler systems and a dry-hydrant system. In total, the HMGP grant helped 251 properties and the GTVFD along the Gunflint Trail. As many people have said since the Ham Lake Fire of 2007, if it had not been for the FEMA funding, the sprinkler systems would not have been installed and defensible space would not have been created to protect their home and property. Therefore many more structures would have been lost. The grant enabled many residents and businesses along the Trail to become Firewise and proactive in the fight against the ensuing fire threat.
In addition to taking proactive mitigation measures on individual properties and adding to the volunteer fire department response equipment, the GTVFD developed a comprehensive evacuation and emergency response plan immediately after the 1999 blowdown. This plan had been practiced in drills which proved essential in executing the successful and smooth evacuations ordered during the Ham Lake Fire of 2007.
HSEM, Cook County, and the Gunflint Corridor should all be commended for the initiative, creativeness, and proactive approach to the threat of wildfire. The State provided critical assistance to the County in completing such unique project applications and was able to advance these projects at the state and federal level. The Gunflint Corridor community has have done more than many fire-prone communities. The success of this proactive approach to fire can be seen by the number of homes saved in this event versus burned. There is always more that can be done, but the community embraced Firewise with sprinklers and defensible space, and the results are very positive. Vivid signs of the successful results are the many homes that survived the 2007 Ham Lake Fire.
A Rural Electric Cooperative Successfully Hardens Its System Mankato, Minnesota BENCO Electric Cooperative serves over 11,000 predominantly rural customers in south central Minnesota. Many of the Cooperative’s lines
29 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section One: State Profile are old with small conductors that are susceptible to breaking during ice storms and high winds. In 1997 BENCO received $342,000 in funding under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to rebuild a 9.5- mile line directly serving about 300 rural consumers in Faribault County using stronger T2 conductor cable. The line serves as a back- up source of power to an additional 600 consumers. Several consumers rely on electrical service to deal with their medical conditions. There are also numerous livestock confinement operations that rely on electrical service for ventilation, watering, and feed movement. Extended outages pose the potential of significant losses in production and animals.
The Cooperative’s records indicate that between 1993 and 1997 their whole system experienced over $605,000 in storm related damages and over 390,000 consumer outage hours. Since the rebuilding of this particular line there have been no outages due to ice storms or high winds. A representative of BENCO has stated that “Faribault County has benefited tremendously from this project. To date it has weathered the test of storms.” Several additional BENCO projects are currently being funded under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
East Grand Forks Accelerated Acquisition Program East Grand Forks, MN In April 1997, the Red River swelled with the runoff of melting snow from a record-setting winter season. The river rose to a height of 54 feet-26 feet above its flood stage-and overran the town of East Grand Forks, Minnesota and Grand Forks, North Dakota. During this devastating disaster, a total of 23,263 Minnesota families were impacted by the flooding. All of East Grand Forks' 9,000 people were forced to leave their homes and 99 percent of the homes in East Grand Forks were damaged in some way by the flood. All of the downtown businesses were impacted by the flooding.
Other damage: • 8 wells/water treatment plants affected • 2,000 electric poles were lost • 400 transmission structures damaged • 63 out of 193 electric systems were inoperable following the flooding • Natural gas pipelines were shut down in flooded areas, several lines were lost as bridges were washed out • 60 road systems were affected by flooding • Several sections of rail line were closed due to high water conditions
30 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section One: State Profile • Air traffic control systems suffered damage from the storm
The northern location of the town, in northwestern Minnesota, allows only a short building season. Therefore, an accelerated acquisition program was needed to enable flood survivors an opportunity to rebuild before the next winter.
With cooperation among FEMA, HSEM, and the Governor's appointed "Minnesota Recovers" Task Force (MNRTF), the City of East Grand Forks received project approval to acquire 407 properties within 75 days after the disaster declaration. This allowed the City to make its first buyout offer on August 4, 1997.
All properties acquired under the accelerated program were substantially damaged residences in the 100-year floodplain. The acquired properties will become open space and eliminate the risk of flooding for more than 400 families. In addition to the 407 initial properties acquired, the City has received additional FEMA and State funding to acquire 100 rental properties for an additional $5 million. By the end of 1998, the additional 100 properties were acquired.
Standard Homeowner's insurance policies do not cover flood damage. The National Flood Insurance Program makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in participating communities.
Of the $30 million spent from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program in Minnesota that year, nearly $15 million of these funds were allocated to East Grand Forks for more than 500 structures.
For additional success stories click on the following link: http://www.hsem.state.mn.us/uploadedfile/success_stories.pdf
The following is a history of major disasters, fire suppression, and Emergency Declarations in Minnesota from 1957 through 2007. The total amount of federal and state funds over this 50 year period totals $763 billion.
31 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section One: State Profile History of Major Disaster, Fire Suppression, and Emergency Declarations in Minnesota 1957 – 2007 Declaration Description of EProgram* Number Funding** Date of Counties
6/22/57 Flooding PA 0 $313,785 4/11/65 OEP-188 PA 65 $9,588,776 Flooding 3/22/66 OEP-215 PA 25 $1,385,063 Flooding 9/9/68 OEP-250 Heavy PA 1 $176,118 rains and flooding 4/18/69 OEP-255 PA 70 $4,611,577 Flooding 8/5/69 OEP-268 Heavy PA 4 $146,716 rains and flooding 7/22/70 OEP-291 Heavy PA 11 $3,708,210 rains and flooding 8/1/72 OEP-347 Severe PA 13 $1,854,903 storms and flooding 8/25/72 OEP-350 Severe PA 5 $3,280,155 storms and flooding 6/10/74 FDAA-440 Heavy PA 12 $1,798,396 rains and flooding 7/13/74 FDAA-446 PA 6 $753,678 Severe storms and flooding 7/5/75 FDAA-473 PA 1 $167,534 Flooding 7/17/75 FDAA-476 PA 17 $4,201,910 Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding 4/22/78 FDAA-555 Major PA 10 $2,094,939 storms, ice jams, snow melt and flooding
32 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section One: State Profile 7/8/78 FDAA-560 PA, IA 17 $10,528,670 Severe storms, flooding, and tornadoes 4/30/79 FDAA 582 Severe PA, IA 11 $6,300,349 storms and flooding 8/6/87 DR-797 Severe PA, IA 10 $12,164,002 storms, tornadoes, flooding 5/8/89 DR-824 Flooding PA, IA, HMGP 8 $5,002,484 12/26/91 DR-929 Ice PA, HMGP 12 $9,494,942 storm 6/26/92 DR-946 Severe PA, IA, HMGP 10 $8,495,000 storms, tornadoes, and flooding 6/11/93 DR- 993 Severe PA, IA, HMGP 57 $43,226,158 storms, tornadoes, and flooding 8/18/95 DR-1064 Severe PA, HMGP 12 $6,607,070 storms and tornadoes 1/5/96 DR-1078 Severe PA, HMGP 4 $5,109,608 ice storm 6/1/96 DR-1116 PA, HMGP 26 $11,187,363 Flooding and severe storms 1/7/97 DR-1151 Severe PA, HMGP 12 $15,366,153 ice storm 1/16/97 DR-1158 Snow PA 49 $28,900,005 Emergency 4/8/97 DR-1175 Severe PA, IA, HMGP 59 $235,798,732 flooding, severe winter storms, snowmelt, high winds, rain and ice 8/5/97 DR-1187 Severe PA, IA, HMGP 7 $12,469,421 storms, high winds, tornadoes, and
33 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section One: State Profile flooding 4/1/98 DR-1212 Severe PA, IA, HMGP 7 $45,183,277 storms and tornadoes 6/23/98 DR-1225 Severe PA, HMGP 19 $35,165,812 storms, straight- line winds and tornadoes 7/28/99 DR-1283 Severe PA, IA, HMGP 9 $16,544,215 storms, straight- line winds and flooding 8/26/99 DR-1288 PA, HMGP 6 $9,843,427 Flooding 6/27/00 DR-1333 heavy PA, IA, HMGP 17 $20,112,439 rain, flooding and tornadoes 10/19/00 Fire Suppression Fire 5 $2,581,842 Declaration 3245 Suppression 5/16/01 DR-1370 Severe PA, IA, HMGP PA – 31 $7,951,226 winter storms, IA -- 57 flooding and tornadoes 5/31/02 Fire Suppression Fire 1 $209,475 Declaration 2409 Suppression 6/9/02 DR-1419 Severe PA, IA, HMGP PA – 19 $44,432,777 storms, flooding IA – 17 and tornadoes 10/7/04 DR-1569 Severe PA, IA, HMGP 5 $9,630,400 storms and flooding 9/13/05 FEMA-3242-EM PA Statewide$2,835,373 Hurricane Katrina*** 1/4/06 DR-1622 Severe PA, HMGP PA – 9 $9,784,982 winter storm, ice HMGP – Statewide 6/5/06 DR-1648 Severe PA, HMGP PA – 9 $8,318,080 flooding HMGP – Statewide 8/1/07 FEMA-3248-EM PA PA – 1 $4,406,244 I-35W Bridge (Estimate) Collapse 8/23/07 DR-1717 Severe PA, IA, HMGP PA – 8
34 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section One: State Profile flooding IA – 7 HMGP – Statewide Total $736,642,292 * PA (Public Assistance Program), IA (Individual Assistance Program), HMGP (Hazard Mitigation Grant Program) ** Funding amount includes only the Federal and State share of funding received/paid under the Stafford Act. Other federal funds, special state appropriations, and local funds are not included. ***This Emergency Declaration authorized the provision of PA Program Category B (emergency protective measures) assistance, including direct Federal assistance, at 100% Federal funding to assist the State and local governments in meeting the immediate housing and other needs of Hurricane Katrina victims who “self- evacuated” to Minnesota.
Each county in the state of Minnesota has endured at least one major disaster declaration. The counties have used the following hazard mitigation programs to help with funding in the long-term recovery process.
35 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Two: Hazard Mitigation Programs SECTION TWO: HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAMS FEMA offers five hazard mitigation assistance programs – the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program, the Flood Mitigation Assistance program, the Severe Repetitive Loss pilot program and the Repetitive Flood Claims program. Although all five programs have unique statutory authorities, program requirements and triggers for funding, all of the programs also have the common goal of providing funds to States and local communities to reduce the loss of life and property from future natural hazard events. Funding has been made available for FY 2007.
As per federal requirements, the state of Minnesota will continue to comply with all applicable Federal statutes and regulations during the periods for which it receives grant funding, in compliance with 44 CFR 13.11(c). The state of Minnesota will amend its Plan whenever necessary to reflect changes in State or Federal laws and statutes as required in 44 CFR 13.11(d).
State and Local Hazard Mitigation programs are detailed later in the Plan. Table 1 illustrates the similarities and differences among the grant programs.
36 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Two: Hazard Mitigation Programs
Table 1 Grant Program Comparison: Mitigation Division Grant Programs
Program Hazard Flood Mitigation Pre-Disaster Repetitive Severe Element Mitigation Grant Assistance (FMA) Mitigation (PDM) Flood Claims (RFC) Repetitive Program (HMGP) Loss (SRL) Pilot Program Authorities Authorized by §404 of Section 1366 of the Authorized by §203 of Section 1323 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1361A the Robert T. Stafford National Flood the Robert T. Stafford 4030, as amended by the FIRA 2004, of the Act, 42 Disaster Assistance Insurance Act of 1968 Disaster Assistance Public Law 108-264. U.S.C. 4102a, and Emergency Relief (NFIA, or “the Act”); 42 and Emergency Relief as amended Act (Stafford Act), 42 USC 4104c, as Act (Stafford Act), 42 by the FIRA U.S.C. 5170c amended by the U.S.C. 5133 2004, Public National Flood Law 108-264. Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (NFIRA), Public Law 103-325; and the FIRA 2004, Public Law 108-264.
37 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Two: Hazard Mitigation Programs
Program Hazard Flood Mitigation Pre-Disaster Repetitive Severe Element Mitigation Grant Assistance (FMA) Mitigation (PDM) Flood Claims (RFC) Repetitive Program (HMGP) Loss (SRL) Pilot Program Purpose To provide funds to To implement cost- To provide funds to To reduce or eliminate the long-term To reduce or States, territories, effective measures that states, territories, risk of flood damage to structures eliminate the Indian Tribal reduce or eliminate the Indian Tribal insured under the National Flood long-term risk governments, and long-term risk of flood governments, and Insurance Program (NFIP) that have of flood communities to damage to buildings, communities for hazard had one or more claim payment(s) damage to significantly reduce or manufactured homes, mitigation planning and for flood damages. severe permanently eliminate and other structures the implementation of repetitive loss future risk to lives and insured under the mitigation projects residential property from natural National Flood prior to a disaster properties and hazards. HMGP funds Insurance Program event. Funding these the associated projects in accordance (NFIP). plans and projects drain on the with priorities reduces overall risks to National Flood identified in State, the population and Insurance Tribal or local hazard structures, while also Fund (NFIF) mitigation plans, and reducing reliance on from such enables mitigation funding from actual properties. measures to be disaster declarations. implemented during the recovery from a disaster.
38 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Two: Hazard Mitigation Programs
Program Hazard Flood Mitigation Pre-Disaster Repetitive Severe Element Mitigation Grant Assistance (FMA) Mitigation (PDM) Flood Claims (RFC) Repetitive Program (HMGP) Loss (SRL) Pilot Program FY 2007 HMGP priorities are set Mitigation activities that Provide funds to Acquisition of insured properties that Mitigation Priorities by the State under reduce or eliminate the states, territories, have had one or more NFIP claims. activities that each disaster long-term risk of flood Indian Tribal reduce or declaration that damage to insured governments, and eliminate the includes authorized properties. communities for hazard long-term risk HMGP assistance. mitigation planning and of flood the implementation of damage to mitigation projects severe prior to a disaster repetitive loss event. properties.
39 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Two: Hazard Mitigation Programs
Program Hazard Flood Mitigation Pre-Disaster Repetitive Severe Element Mitigation Grant Assistance (FMA) Mitigation (PDM) Flood Claims (RFC) Repetitive Program (HMGP) Loss (SRL) Pilot Program Applicant (Grantee) State State emergency State emergency Same as FMA, but only those States Same as FMA. Eligibility emergency management agencies management agencies or communities that cannot meet the management agencies or a similar State office or a similar office (i.e., requirements of the FMA program for or a similar State office (i.e., the office that has the office that has either cost share or capacity to (i.e., the office that primary emergency emergency manage the activities. has primary management or management emergency floodplain management responsibility) of the management or responsibility), the state, the District of floodplain District of Columbia, the Columbia, the U.S. management U.S. Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands, the responsibility), the American Samoa, the Commonwealth of District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, the American Samoa, and American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the the Commonwealth of Commonwealth of Northern Mariana the Northern Mariana Puerto Rico, the Islands, and Federally- Islands, as well as Commonwealth of the recognized Indian Tribal Federally recognized Northern Mariana governments. Each Indian Tribal Islands, and Federally State, Territory, or governments recognized Indian Tribal government shall Tribal governments. designate one agency Each State, Territory, to serve as the or Tribal government Applicant for the shall designate one program. agency to serve as the Grantee for the program.
40 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Two: Hazard Mitigation Programs
Program Hazard Flood Mitigation Pre-Disaster Repetitive Severe Element Mitigation Grant Assistance (FMA) Mitigation (PDM) Flood Claims (RFC) Repetitive Program (HMGP) Loss (SRL) Pilot Program Sub- (Applicant/Subgrantee) State-level agencies, State-level agencies Same as FMA, but only those States Same as FMA. Applicant State and local Federally recognized including state or communities that cannot meet the Eligibility governments, certain Indian Tribal institutions (e.g., state requirements of the Flood Mitigation private non-profit governments, and local hospital or university); Assistance (FMA) program for either organizations or communities (to include Federally recognized cost share or capacity to manage the institutions, Indian State-recognized Indian Indian Tribal activities. tribes or authorized Tribes, authorized governments; local Tribal organizations, Indian Tribal governments, including and Alaska native organizations, and state-recognized Indian villages or Alaska Native villages) tribes, authorized organizations. are eligible to apply to Indian Tribal Individuals or the Applicant for organizations, and businesses may not assistance. Private Alaska Native villages; apply directly to the individuals and private public colleges and State or FEMA, but non-profit (PNP) universities; and eligible local organizations are not Indian Tribal colleges governments or eligible sub-applicants. and universities. private non-profit However, a relevant Private non-profit organizations may State agency or local (PNP) organizations apply on their behalf. government may apply and private colleges to the Applicant for and universities are not assistance to mitigate eligible Sub-applicants; private or private non- however, an eligible, profit (PNP) structures. relevant State agency or local government may apply to the Applicant as the Sub- applicant for assistance to benefit the private entity.
41 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Two: Hazard Mitigation Programs
Program Hazard Flood Mitigation Pre-Disaster Repetitive Severe Element Mitigation Grant Assistance (FMA) Mitigation (PDM) Flood Claims (RFC) Repetitive Program (HMGP) Loss (SRL) Pilot Program Eligible The HMGP can be used Project grants are Project grants are Project grants are available for: Project grants Project to fund projects to available for: available for: Acquisition, structure demolition, or for flood Grants protect either public or Acquisition, structure Voluntary acquisition of structure relocation with the property mitigation private property, as demolition, or structure real property (i.e. deed restricted for open space uses activities such long as the project fits relocation with the structures and land, in perpetuity. as: within State and local property deed restricted where necessary) for Acquisition, government mitigation for open space uses in open space conversion; All properties must be insured at the structure strategies to address perpetuity; Relocation of public or time of application. demolition, or areas of risk, and Elevation of structures; private structures; structure complies with program Dry floodproofing of Elevation of existing relocation with guidelines. Examples non-residential public or private the property of projects include: structures; and, structures to avoid deed Acquiring and Minor structural flood flooding; restricted for relocating structures control activities. Structural and non- open space from hazard-prone structural retrofitting uses in areas All properties must be (e.g., storm shutters, perpetuity; Retrofitting structures insured at the time of hurricane clips, bracing Elevation of to protect them from application. systems) of existing structures; floods, high winds, public or private Dry earthquakes, or other structures to floodproofing natural hazards meet/exceed applicable of historic Constructing certain building codes; structures; types of minor and Construction of safe Minor physical localized flood control rooms (tornado and localized flood projects severe wind shelters) control Constructing safe for public and private projects; and, rooms inside schools structures that meet Mitigation or other buildings in requirements in FEMA Reconstruction tornado-prone areas 320 and FEMA 361; (Demolition and rebuilding of structures). 42 All properties must be insured at the time of MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Two: Hazard Mitigation Programs
Program Hazard Flood Mitigation Pre-Disaster Repetitive Severe Element Mitigation Grant Assistance (FMA) Mitigation (PDM) Flood Claims (RFC) Repetitive Program (HMGP) Loss (SRL) Pilot Program Eligible Hydrologic and Project Hydraulic Grants studies/analyses, (cont.) engineering studies and drainage studies for the purpose of project design and feasibility determination directly related to the proposed project; Vegetation management for natural dune restoration, wildfire, or snow avalanche; Protective measures for utilities (e.g. electricity, gas); water and sanitary sewer systems and/or infrastructure (e.g. roads and bridges); Storm water management projects (e.g., culverts, retention basins) to reduce or eliminate long-term risk from flood hazards; and, Localized flood control projects (certain ring 43 levees, bank stabilization, floodwall systems) that are designed specifically to MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Two: Hazard Mitigation Programs
Program Hazard Flood Mitigation Pre-Disaster Repetitive Severe Element Mitigation Grant Assistance (FMA) Mitigation (PDM) Flood Claims (RFC) Repetitive Program (HMGP) Loss (SRL) Pilot Program Eligible Planning grants are Planning grants are Planning grants are Planning grants are not available. Planning Planning available for: available for: available for: grants are not Grants Developing State, Flood mitigation New Plan development available. local, or Tribal planning activities. Plan upgrades mitigation plans Comprehensive Plan Revisions Funding is available for up to 7% of total State grant Eligible The HMGP provides Management Costs Management costs are Same as FMA, except only available Management Management three categories of (also known as available to support for project activities. Grantees up to costs available Costs "direct administrative Technical Assistance the planning and 10%, Sub-grantees up to 5%. to support costs": State Grants) allowed to project sub- project sub- management, Grantee support planning and applications; Grantees applications. administrative and project activities. See up to 10%, Sub- Grantees up Sub-grantee FY 2007 Program grantees up to 5%. to 10%, Sub- administrative. Guidance. grantees up to 5%.
44 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Two: Hazard Mitigation Programs
Program Hazard Flood Mitigation Pre-Disaster Repetitive Severe Element Mitigation Grant Assistance (FMA) Mitigation (PDM) Flood Claims (RFC) Repetitive Program (HMGP) Loss (SRL) Pilot Program Planning Applicants must have a Local Flood Mitigation In order to receive State/Tribal Standard or Enhanced State/Tribal Requirements FEMA-approved local Plan meeting 44 CFR project grants, all hazard mitigation plan approved by Standard or mitigation plan in Part 78.5 required prior Applicants MUST have FEMA in accordance with 44 C.F.R. Enhanced accordance with 44 to award as condition of a FEMA-approved Part 201 required by application hazard C.F.R. Parts 201.6 and receiving project State/Tribal Standard deadline. mitigation 206.434(b) to be grants. or Enhanced hazard plan approved eligible to receive mitigation plan in No local plan requirement. by FEMA in project grant funding accordance with 44 accordance under the HMGP. All CFR Part 201 by the with 44 C.F.R. activities submitted for No State plan application deadline. Part 201 consideration must be requirement. In addition, all Sub- required by consistent with the applicants MUST have application Grantee's State/Tribal a FEMA-approved deadline. standard or enhanced hazard mitigation plan hazard mitigation plan in accordance with 44 Local plan and the Applicant's CFR Part 201 to be requirements Tribal/local/university eligible to receive will be hazard mitigation plan project grant funding addressed in for the local under the PDM Regulations. jurisdiction in which program. PDM the activity is located. planning grants will continue to be available to Applicants and Sub-applicants that do not have a FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan to enable them to meet the planning requirements.
45 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Two: Hazard Mitigation Programs
Program Hazard Flood Mitigation Pre-Disaster Repetitive Severe Element Mitigation Grant Assistance (FMA) Mitigation (PDM) Flood Claims (RFC) Repetitive Program (HMGP) Loss (SRL) Pilot Program Application The primary Applicants must apply Applicants must apply Applicants must apply using paper To be Process responsibility for electronically via FEMA’s electronically via OMB and FEMA forms, including the described in selecting and eGrants application, FEMA’s eGrants eGrants project sub-application, Regulations. administering available at application, available at available at mitigation activities https://portal.fema.gov. https//:portal.fema.gov www.fema.gov/government/grant/rfc resides with the State. or www.grants.gov The State sets Sub-applicants apply Sub-applicants apply mitigation priorities directly to the State, directly to the State, Sub-applicants apply directly to the and selects project Tribal, or Territory Tribal, or Territory State, Tribal, or Territory Applicant, applications that are Applicant, who reviews Applicant, who reviews who reviews and prioritizes sub- developed and and prioritizes sub- and prioritizes sub- applications. The Applicant submits submitted by local applications. The applications. The the Grant application with sub- jurisdictions. Although Applicant submits the Applicant submits the applications to FEMA for review and individuals may not Grant application with Grant application with approval. apply directly to the sub-applications to sub-applications to State for assistance, FEMA for review and FEMA for review and local governments may approval. approval. sponsor an application on their behalf. After its eligibility review, the State forwards applications consistent with State mitigation planning objectives to FEMA for review and approval.
46 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Two: Hazard Mitigation Programs
Program Hazard Flood Mitigation Pre-Disaster Repetitive Severe Element Mitigation Grant Assistance (FMA) Mitigation (PDM) Flood Claims (RFC) Repetitive Program (HMGP) Loss (SRL) Pilot Program FY 2007 Federal funding under $31 million $100 Million $10 million FEMA is Available the HMGP is available combining the Funds following a major $40 million FY disaster declaration, if 2006 and $40 requested by the million FY Governor. As of 2007 funds for October 4, 2006, if a a total of $80 State has a FEMA- million approved Standard available. State Mitigation plan, HMGP funds are available based on up to 15% for amounts not more than $2 Billion of the total of Public and Individual Assistance funds authorized for the disaster; up to 10% for amounts of $2 Billion to not more than $10 Billion; 7.5% for amounts of $10 Billion to not more than $35.333 Billion. If a State has a FEMA- approved Enhanced Mitigation plan, HMGP funds are available based on up to 20% of the total of Public and Individual Assistance 47 funds authorized for the disaster.
MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Two: Hazard Mitigation Programs
Program Hazard Flood Mitigation Pre-Disaster Repetitive Severe Element Mitigation Grant Assistance (FMA) Mitigation (PDM) Flood Claims (RFC) Repetitive Program (HMGP) Loss (SRL) Pilot Program Cost-Share HMGP grant funds may Up to 75% Federal, Up to 75% Federal, Up to 100% Federal (no non-Federal Up to 75% Requirements be used to pay up to minimum 25% non- minimum 25% non- match requirement). Federal, 75 % of the eligible Federal match required. Federal match minimum 25% project costs. The Of the total non-Federal required. Small, non-Federal non-Federal match share, not more than impoverished match does not need to be one-half may be communities may be required. cash; in-kind services provided from in-kind eligible for up to a 90% or materials may be contributions. Federal cost-share. Reduced used. match (10% Reduced match (10% non-Federal) non-Federal) allowed allowed for for States with States with approved State approved mitigation plans State meeting the hazard mitigation mitigation planning plans meeting requirements under the hazard section 322 of the mitigation Robert T. Stafford planning Disaster Relief and requirements Emergency Assistance under section Act (42 U.S.C. 5165) 322 of the that specifies how the Robert T. State reduces the Stafford number of repetitive Disaster Relief loss properties. and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5165) that specifies how the48 State reduces the number of repetitive loss properties MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Two: Hazard Mitigation Programs
Program Hazard Flood Mitigation Pre-Disaster Repetitive Severe Element Mitigation Grant Assistance (FMA) Mitigation (PDM) Flood Claims (RFC) Repetitive Program (HMGP) Loss (SRL) Pilot Program Distribution The HMGP is Allocations to eligible PDM grants are Awarded nationally without reference Allocations to of Funds administered by the Applicants (State or awarded on a to State allocations, quotas, or other eligible State. The mitigation territory) based on the competitive basis and formula-based allocation(s) of funds. Applicants planning and number of NFIP-insured without reference to Grants will be awarded in the order (State or application properties and the state allocations, of the greatest savings to the NFIF. territory) development process number of repetitive quotas, or other In 2007 this will be demonstrated by based on the begins at the local loss properties in each formula-based the verified benefit-cost analysis of number of level. States prioritize State or Territory. Set- allocation(s) of funds. submitted projects. severe local applications and aside amount reserved repetitive loss select projects for for Indian Tribal properties in funding. governments or each State or communities that Territory. cannot apply through Set-aside the State or Territory. amount (10%) reserved for communities that receive little or no assistance under the allocation formula.
49 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Two: Hazard Mitigation Programs
Program Hazard Flood Mitigation Pre-Disaster Repetitive Severe Element Mitigation Grant Assistance (FMA) Mitigation (PDM) Flood Claims (RFC) Repetitive Program (HMGP) Loss (SRL) Pilot Program Application Generally, applications February 28, 2007, February 5, 2007, February 28, 2007, 5:00 p.m., To be Deadline must be submitted to 11:59 p.m., 11:59 p.m., Regional Office local time. determined. the State for Eastern Standard Time. Eastern Standard Time. consideration within 12 months following a disaster declaration.
50 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Two: Hazard Mitigation Programs
Program Hazard Flood Mitigation Pre-Disaster Repetitive Severe Element Mitigation Grant Assistance (FMA) Mitigation (PDM) Flood Claims (RFC) Repetitive Program (HMGP) Loss (SRL) Pilot Program Application Eligibility and Eligibility and Eligibility and Eligibility and Completeness Review, Eligibility and Review Completeness Review, Completeness Review, Completeness Review, Mitigation Planning requirement Completeness including Benefit Cost including Benefit Cost including Applicant/Sub- Technical Review: including Benefit Review, Analysis (BCA), Analysis (BCA), Applicant eligibility, Cost Analysis (BCA), for Project and Mitigation Benefit Cost Analysis Engineering Feasibility Engineering Feasibility Property Ranking Planning (BCA), and Mitigation and Mitigation Planning and Mitigation Planning Planning requirements Environmental and Historic requirement requirements requirements National Ranking, FEMA Preservation Reviews Technical Environmental and Environmental and will score all eligible Review: Historic Preservation Historic Preservation planning and project sub- including Reviews Reviews applications on the basis Benefit Cost of predetermined, Analysis objective, quantitative (BCA), factors to calculate a Engineering National Ranking Score. Feasibility, for National Evaluation-- National panels chaired Project by FEMA and composed of Ranking representatives from Environmental FEMA Headquarters and and Historic Regions, other Federal Preservation agencies, States, Reviews Federally-recognized Indian Tribal governments, Territories, and local governments convene to evaluate planning and project sub- applications on the basis of additional pre- determined qualitative factors. Technical Review--FEMA conducts technical reviews for Benefit Cost and Engineering 51 Feasibility on the highest scoring project sub- applications representing approximately 150% of MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Two: Hazard Mitigation Programs
Program Hazard Flood Mitigation Pre-Disaster Repetitive Severe Element Mitigation Grant Assistance (FMA) Mitigation (PDM) Flood Claims (RFC) Repetitive Program (HMGP) Loss (SRL) Pilot Program Deadline to Generally, HMGP See FY 2007 Program Available until See FY 2007 Program Guidance. To be Award funding must be Guidance. expended. determined. Funding obligated to the State within 24 months of a disaster declaration. Obligated grant funds must be utilized within the period of performance for the grant award. Source: http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2128
52 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Two: Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs As part of the mitigation programs implementation, the HMGP is narrated by the HMGP Administrative Plan and the Sub-grantee handbook. These documents give directions to sub-grantees regarding management of their grants. As summary of both follow:
HMGP Administrative Plan The state of Minnesota HMGP Administrative Plan and Procedures (Appendix 11) is required as Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288 as amended, and the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Public Law 106- 390, establishes a cost-sharing Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) to be used to fund state and local hazard mitigation projects. This section is closely tied to the post-disaster hazard mitigation plans defined and required in Section 409 of the Act and the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K). Sections 322 and 404 in combination with several other state and federal programs and activities help to form an overall pre-and-post disaster hazard mitigation strategy for the State of Minnesota and affected local governments in the state. The purpose of the administrative plan is to describe the organization, staffing, and procedures the State of Minnesota will use when implementing the Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program in both the post and pre-disaster mitigation environment. This manual is updated to reflect changes in policy, lessons learned administering the plan and procedures, post disaster after action reports, and input from the Minnesota Recovers Task Force.
HMGP Sub-grantee Handbook As part of the HMGP process the purpose of the sub-grantee handbook is both to provide general HMGP information and to summarize specific sub-grantee responsibilities relative to the program. HMGP is implemented following a presidential declaration of a major disaster. The program’s objective is to reduce repetitive losses from natural disasters by funding cost-effective projects intended to eliminate/reduce future disaster expenditures for the repair/replacement of public and private property, and for the relief of personal loss, hardship, and suffering. Under the Section 404 HMGP, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hazard mitigation monies are provided to the state. In Minnesota, these monies are awarded to the Minnesota Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM) which serves as the grantee. Potentially eligible sub-grantees (applicants) include: state and local governments, certain private non-profit organizations or institutions, and Indian tribes or authorized tribal organizations.
53 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Three: Planning Process SECTION THREE: PLANNING PROCESS Integration and Coordination Integration of current planning efforts taking place throughout the state and coordination of these and other local efforts are two keys in creating effective, thorough and accurate plans. Isolated planning efforts can result in redundancies and lost opportunities, not to mention the loss of valuable financial resources. It is important to identify possible areas of overlap between agencies and groups that work directly or indirectly with mitigation. This recognition process can result in partnerships or at the very least, can lay the foundation for ideas to be shared.
The Plan has and will continue to incorporate the findings of local mitigation plans once they become available, since these plans included a strong public participation component, the state plan shall reflect local input.
Of the 87 counties in Minnesota, 33 jurisdictions (including two cities and three tribal governments) have FEMA approved plans. The remaining jurisdictions and are in various stages of developing multi- jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plans. These local All-Hazard Mitigation Plans are consistent with and incorporate information from this Plan. Local Hazard Mitigation plans are encouraged to incorporate other local planning mechanisms, thus providing a unified mitigation strategy throughout all levels and aspects of government within Minnesota.
2008 Plan Review and Update Since this document is a revision of an existing Plan it is worthy to note that a thorough public participation process was already conducted: citizen input on identifying goals, policies, solutions, and mitigation strategies for the range of identified hazards.
Keeping qualified employees in mitigation positions has been difficult over the past four years. Turnover in HSEM has made tracking the early planning process difficult. There have been three hazard mitigation planners in the past three years. Turnover in the State Hazard Mitigation Officer position has also occurred with three people in the position for short periods in the past four years. In addition, there was turnover at the director level, with five different people appointed to the position in the past seven years.
54 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Three: Planning Process Since August of 2007, Kristen Sailer has been the SHMO, supported by Kris Eide, Director of HSEM, appointed to her position in 2005. With the addition of two hazard mitigation planners, both in October of 2007, the 2011 update is anticipated to be a much more concise and integrated document.
Targeted stakeholder outreach was conducted for this update. Based on the deadline, direct contact with agencies was made by email and phone to obtain updated information. This information and integrated into the mitigation strategies, goals, and program capabilities.
The following is a detailed sequence of events of the planning process.
September 2006 – A new hazard mitigation planner was hired at the state. The new state planner reviewed this plan with Disaster Assistance Employee (DAE) Joan Tweedale.
Contact was made with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Fire Management Section, MN Interagency Fire Center staff member Barb Meyer. Ms. Meyer was able to provide HSEM with data regarding wildfires throughout state. She provided data on acres burned, number of fires, amounts of personal property, residences and outbuildings destroyed, damaged and at risk due to wildfire. She was able to guide HSEM through definitions of personal property, and discussions of defining what is meaningful to incorporate into the plan. The division was able to give HSEM a spreadsheet with accurate data on losses due to wildfire per county for the past 10 years. They were also able to create a map based on number of acres burned per incident for the past year. The cause of wildfire was discussed deemed important data to include in the plan are, and is included in the plan.
Discussion of hazard mitigation priorities for wildfire included training and interagency coordination. The use of Firewise practices in addition to sprinkler systems during the BWCA wildfires and the resulting protection of personal property and life was deemed a success and is a priority for mitigation.
Communication with Nancy Rader, GIS Data Coordination Specialist with Land Management Information Center was helpful providing updated shape files to utilize in mapping critical facilities.
November 2006 – FEMA mitigation staff met with state mitigation staff to discuss the state plan and the plan update guidance.
55 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Three: Planning Process
February 2007 – State hazard mitigation staff developed an outline for reorganizing and updating the plan. Staff also reviewed the deficiencies in the plan, addressing comments from the planning DAE and the FEMA region hazard mitigation planner. Because of this outline, state staff submitted a request for DAE assistance with the risk assessment and capability assessment portions of the plan.
March 2007 – FEMA approved the request for DAE assistance and Joan Tweedale started work on the risk assessment portion of the plan. State mitigation staff reorganized the plan to fit the new outline. Part of this reorganization involved development of sections that were not found in the previous version of the plan. The new sections include a state profile and a new capabilities assessment.
September 2007 - MN Recovers Task Force met due to disaster where mitigation plan update was presented in discussion.
October 2007 – Two new Hazard Mitigation Planners were hired to assist with update of the Plan.
November & December 2007 – The State Hazard Mitigation Team (SHMT) (the SHMO and both hazard mitigation planners) reviewed the new layout of the plan, edited the content of the plan. Additional sections were added, including state facilities maps, state capability assessment and additional resources list.
Discussion of creating a detailed chart of communities/counties with comprehensive, watershed, and other plans was discussed. This chart would also include communities with land use ordinances, zoning and building codes. Information gathering has begun, but it was decided to conduct this type of comprehensive data gathering for the 2011 plan update.
Lisa Hartfiel from the Mn/DOT Bridge Office was contacted to get reports on bridges for history reported in the transportation section.
Jason Boyle, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Waters Division, Dam Safety Program, was contacted many times to clarify the state dam program. Jason also gave information to update the history of dams.
Jeffrey Bloomquist, USDA Farm Service Agency was contact to get financial reports about various agriculture disasters in Minnesota. The
56 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Three: Planning Process information needed approval from headquarters to be released. The approval was in process at the time of the plan completion.
Tim Donakowski, Radiation Section, Division of Environmental Health, Minnesota Department of Health was contacted to verify information regarding the nuclear generating plants in the state.
Judy McDermott, Drinking Water Protection Section, Environmental Health Division, Minnesota Department of Health supplied a list of drinking water processing plants and wells in Minnesota. This information was digested for report in the surface and ground water protection section.
Jerry Rosendahl, Director, Division of State Fire Marshal and the State Fire Marshal’s Pipeline Safety Team updated information about fire safety, building codes, fire codes, and pipeline safety.
John Aide, Minnesota Joint Analysis Center was contacted to update information regarding terrorism and determine its appropriate hazard rating.
Gary Lokken, Critical Infrastructure Program, HSEM submitted material for regarding terrorism and assisted in determining it hazard rating.
Steve Tomlyanovich, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to- Know Act (EPCRA) Program HSEM submitted information about hazardous material facilities and assisted in determining the hazard rating.
John Dooley, Minnesota State Communications Officer, HSEM consulted about EAS and assisted in the rating of the recommendation and mitigation strategy.
Tom Cherney, Minnesota Duty Officer Program, Minnesota Department of Public Safety was contacted about prioritizing the ARMER radio and EAS in the mitigation strategy.
Ceil Strauss, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; Waters Division was contacted about updating and priority of DNR items in the mitigation strategy.
Barbara Fonkert, Schools Safety Program, Homeland Security and Emergency Management was contacted in regards to updating
57 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Three: Planning Process recommendations and priority for warning of hearing and sight impaired populations.
December 2007 - The State Hazard Mitigation Team met with HSEM Planning staff to request assistance with formatting of plan. The planning staff was able to assist in the formatting of the document. Additional administrative support for future versions of the plan may be requested.
January 2008 – Representatives of the state public safety agencies, to include people from all areas of emergency management, mitigation, response, recovery, preparedness, review the plan. Refer to Appendix 1 for a complete list of organizations and representatives that were contacted. The MNRTF, EPRC and Association of Emergency Managers of Minnesota (AMEM) are intergovernmental agency groups in Minnesota that have knowledge, expertise and ability to implement hazard mitigation projects through their programs.
The draft plan was posted for public viewing on the HSEM for two weeks, from January 11, 2008 through January 25, 2008. Stakeholders were able to comment on the plan through the HSEM website.
The state received approximately 15 comments from various agencies. SHMT reviewed the comments and edited the plan accordingly. The SHMT contacted those that commented on the plan as to the outcome of their suggestions.
Plan submitted to FEMA for review.
February 2008 – State hazard mitigation staff will review and incorporate changes required by FEMA.
SHMT will finalize the plan.
SHMT will submit the plan to FEMA for final review and approval.
March 2008 – SHMT will solicit adoption of all agencies and the Governor’s Office.
2011 Update Goals One action item that will have a major impact on the planning process for the 2011 plan will be the addition of a mitigation planner, equipment, and training to run HAZUS. Once training is completed a
58 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Three: Planning Process level I and II analysis will be available for risk assessments for each of the top hazards.
Coordinating Planning Agencies The majority of mitigation plans, policies and programs are directed by federal legislation (CFR 44 Emergency Management and Assistance), and Executive Orders (19988 and 19900). The state takes its role very seriously regarding emergency management. HSEM and other state agencies that participate in preparedness, recovery, response and mitigation abide by the following policies and executive orders. This policy indicates the importance of coordination with federal, other state agencies and locals in emergency management.
The 2007 MN State Statute Chapter 12 Emergency Management Policy Declaration (12.02): It is further declared to be the purpose of this chapter and the policy of the state that all emergency management functions of this state be coordinated to the maximum extent with the comparable functions of the federal government, including its various departments and agencies, of other states and localities, and of private agencies of every type, to the end that the most effective preparations and use may be made of the nation's labor supply, resources, and facilities for dealing with any disaster that may occur.
Governor’s Executive Order, Section 1864 HSEM shall have overall responsibility for supporting both local government emergency operations planning and all-hazards mitigation planning. This responsibility includes the development and maintenance of prototype emergency operations plans, mitigation plans and supporting documents, as well as planning requirements guidance.
The following interagency groups exemplify how planning goals can be achieved and how planning projects can be integrated into existing efforts. The State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Team is a combined group of individuals who participate in the Minnesota Recovers Task Force and the Emergency Preparedness Response Committee. Counties are encouraged to review the state Plan and utilize resources as a starting point for creating their plans.
59 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Three: Planning Process • Minnesota Recovers Task Force The Minnesota Recovers Task Force formed in response to the Great Flood of 1993, when the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers and their tributaries overflowed, causing one of the most costly and devastating floods in the history of the United States. The task force’s purpose is to combine government resources toward long- term recovery efforts and hazard mitigation activities.
The MNRTF helps get funds and assistance directly to those areas most affected by a recent disaster. This approach is an example of how funds, ideas and resources can cross agency and political boundaries to accomplish mitigation actions. Presidential Declaration 1717, flooding in southeastern Minnesota brought together the MNRTF. Subcommittees formed to assist individuals and communities in need. Housing, Infrastructure, Mitigation/Floodplain management, Business and Human Services subcommittees meet and report to the task force as a whole. Based on type, severity and extent of disaster, different subcommittees will be formed.
• Emergency Preparedness Response Committee (EPRC) HSEM Program staff serves as the chair of the State Emergency Preparedness and Response Committee, whose members represent the state agencies that have key emergency responsibility assignments. The Committee is all-hazard in scope. HSEM utilizes the EPRC to help coordinate a variety of State agency emergency preparedness-related tasks. The EPRC also facilitates inter-and- intra-agency cooperation.
Each state agency cited in Executive Order 07-14 designates a member of its staff as its emergency preparedness response contact/coordinator (EPRC/C). The EPRC/C is a point of contact for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Committee (EPRC). The Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management coordinate the activities of the EPRC to ensure the state responds appropriately and immediately to any type of disaster that occurs in Minnesota and in the nation. Each department is required to have their own emergency plan. The EPRC also reviews overall state plans then recommends the plan to their commissioner for approval. These state plans include the Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan (MEOP) and the Minnesota All Hazard Mitigation Plan. A contact list and procedures that are used to activate the State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC) are also reviewed by
60 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Three: Planning Process the EPRC. The members of the EPRC usually represent their department in the SEOC when activated to make sure state response activities are coordinated and that information is being shared between departments and the governor.
The following programs reinforce the idea of integration and coordination in planning for hazard mitigation.
• State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy Initiative Every opportunity is taken by the state to coordinate mitigation ideals with other program processes or initiatives. Such an opportunity came with the recent State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy initiative that is designed to get communities to assess their risk to possible terrorist threats. A key component of this effort is an online risk assessment tool. The state saw an opportunity here to ask those communities that are not currently conducting a mitigation plan to use the outcome from such an assessment to apply to a mitigation plan in the future. Even though this risk assessment only focused on one hazard— terrorism—communities could conduct a natural hazards risk assessment at the same time they conduct the terrorism risk assessment. Twenty-six counties were solicited to conduct such a process.
• Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan (MEOP) The MEOP is an obvious planning document that shares a similar interest with the State All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Here, short-term recovery decision-making associated with emergency operations, can lead to implementing mitigation strategies aimed at reducing long-term risk to human life and property.
• Minnesota National Incident Management System (MnIMS) An example of an integrated planning effort is the Minnesota National Incident Management System (MnIMS). The previous Minnesota Incident Command System (MNICS) integrated the National Incident Management System to become MnIMS. The new system and associated training was approved by the Department of Homeland Security in 2006. Responders statewide have since been trained on MnIMS.
MnIMS is designed to integrate local, state and federal resources from during a response. This system is used daily in Minnesota to coordinate emergency response between the fire service, law
61 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Three: Planning Process enforcement, and emergency medical services. Incidents and disasters of larger scale may require response from mutual aid organizations and/or more vertical integration of state and federal agencies.
The Cavity Lake wildfires and the I-35W bridge collapse were examples that occurred in 2007 where the seamless integration between local, state, and federal responses was witnessed due to the use of MnIMS.
• Minnesota Building Codes and Standards Another planning link can be seen with the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, Construction Codes and Licensing Division who administers the Minnesota State Building Code - Statutory Authority (16B.59 - 16B.75) that sets construction standards to assure the health, safety, comfort and security of building occupants. One important planning document that comes out of this office is the Disaster Preparedness Manual, A Guidebook for Minnesota Building Officials produced by the Disaster Mitigation Committee of the North Star Chapter. Included in this document are creative mitigation measures that surround building code enforcement.
Unfortunately, not all counties have chosen to adopt the state’s building code. See Appendix 2 for Minnesota State Building Code map. Of the 855 cities in Minnesota, 405 have adopted the state building code, of the 1791 townships 253 have adopted the code and of the 87 counties, 20 have adopted the building code. Insurance companies do take note of communities that do have an adopted and enforced building code and make insurance rate adjustments accordingly.
• Minnesota State Fire Code The Minnesota State Fire Code is administered by the Department of Public Safety, State Fire Marshal Division. Statutory authority for the code is contained in Minnesota Statutes 299F.011. The code is based on the International Code Council's (ICC) International Fire Code (IFC), as amended for Minnesota. A link to the Minnesota amendments to the IFC, and information about the State Fire Code, can be found at www.fire.state.mn.us. The code contains requirements for fire safety hazard mitigation in new construction, as well as fire safety system maintenance requirements which are in force throughout the life of structures.
62 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Three: Planning Process
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources In terms of water conservation the DNR implements a state statute, M.S. 103G.261, that defines water use priorities for use when water supplies are limited. Similarly, M.S. 103G.291 has several subdivisions related to public water suppliers. For example, Subp.3 requires public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people to have a "water emergency and conservation plan" approved by the DNR. Approximately 320 plans have been submitted. DNR has guidelines for developing plans and other materials that identify methods for reducing water use. Plans must include local water allocation priorities consistent with the priorities in M.S. 103G.261 along with triggers for implementing measures to reduce s for protection of higher priority essential water uses. Communities applying for projects under the State Drinking Water Revolving Fund must have and implement a DNR approved water emergency and conservation plan.
It is sometimes hard to identify such integrated efforts as outlined here because the concept of mitigation remains an elusive topic for many. An agency may in fact be involved in activities that support mitigation but they may not readily recognize, or place a label on their actions. This is why mitigation planning and outreach is so important: to get these isolated efforts going in the same direction so that combined benefits can be realized through the existing communities and task forces.
The planning process is a very important part of how coordination and integration of mitigation occurs. In the next section the Minnesota hazard analysis is conducted.
63 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis SECTION FOUR: HAZARD ANALYSIS 44CFR 201.4(c)2)(i) – The risk assessment shall include an overview of the type of all natural hazards that can affect the state. This section of the plan is a result of a risk and vulnerability assessment conducted for the State of Minnesota. The risk assessment is part of the State Hazard Mitigation Plan and is intended to support the State’s long-term hazard mitigation planning efforts. It was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000 and to provide a statewide overview of natural hazards and their risks. This Plan also assesses human-caused hazards such as; fire, hazardous materials spills, dam and levee failure, radiological, critical infrastructure failure, and water supply contamination.
The framework of the risk assessment was developed to provide a basis for activities proposed during the State’s mitigation planning effort and should be used by state and local officials to plan and prioritize resource allocations. The risk assessment results should be used to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to minimize potential losses from hazards identified in this study.
The hazards profiled in the Minnesota Risk Assessment were selected from the comprehensive list of natural hazards FEMA identified in the 1997 publication, Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment: A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy (MHIRA).
This plan update did not re-prioritize hazards. The critical infrastructure hazard was updated and analyzed due to the I-35W bridge collapse. Human caused hazards history was also updated due to expertise of new hazard mitigation planner.
The risk assessment was based on input from published sources such as the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the Minnesota Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, among others.
Based on the above sources, historical data, public perception and technical requirements, the following 20 hazards were considered for analysis: • Floods • Tornadoes
64 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis • Hail • Coastal Erosion • Severe Winter Storms • Landslide • Sinkholes & Land Subsidence • Earthquake • Drought • Wildfire • Extreme Temperatures • Lightning • Windstorms • Dam Failure • Fire (structural) • Water Supply Contamination • Hazardous Materials • Nuclear Accidents (uncontrolled releases of radioactive materials) • Infectious Disease • Infrastructure Failure
The DMA2000 and supporting requirements in the Interim Final Rule (IFR) requires States to first identify hazards that may affect them, perform a comprehensive multi-hazard assessment, which includes a review of detailed information concerning hazard characteristics, past occurrences and probability of future occurrences. The initial hazard identification cataloged potential hazard. Statewide and determined which have the most chance of significantly affecting the State and its citizens. The hazards include those that have occurred in the past as well as those that may occur in the future. A variety of sources were used in the investigation, as noted earlier.
The following sections provide information on the nature of each hazard that the State of Minnesota is susceptible to, a history of the hazard in the state and the probability of its occurrence in the future.
65 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Natural Hazards 44 CFR 201.4(c)(2)(i) – The risk assessment shall include an overview of the location of all natural hazards that can affect the State, including information on previous occurrences of hazard events, as well as the probability of future hazard events, using maps where appropriate.
The Minnesota Risk Assessment examines natural disasters on a statewide basis and for individual counties. Natural hazards include those caused by climatological, geological, hydrological, or seismic events. Natural hazards are natural events that threaten lives, property, and other assets. Often, natural hazards can be predicted. They tend to occur repeatedly in the same geographical locations because they are related to weather patterns or physical characteristics of an area. Natural hazards such as flood, fire, tornado, and windstorms affect thousands of people each year.
Natural disasters have the potential to affect all of Minnesota, including agricultural producers, farmers and other rural residents. The Department of Agriculture has Disaster Assistance available for such needs. Appendix 3 indicates all agricultural disaster declarations from 1989 to 2006. Agricultural disasters often affect large geographic areas, from multiple counties to multiple states. Many disasters are multiple hazards, such as tornado, high winds, heavy rains and hail. In addition, dates of disaster designation may be effective for months, in the case of drought.
This section will outline the natural hazards identified through the risk assessments. The natural hazards are as follows:
• Floods • Tornadoes • Hail • Coastal Erosion • Severe Winter Storms • Landslide • Sinkholes & Land Subsidence • Earthquake • Drought • Wildfire • Extreme Temperatures • Lightning • Windstorms
66 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Flooding Nature of Hazard Flooding is the accumulation of water within a water body (e.g., stream, river, lake, and reservoir) and the overflow of excess water onto adjacent floodplains. As illustrated in Figure 3, floodplains are lowlands, adjacent to water bodies that are subject to recurring floods. Floods are natural events that are considered hazards only when people and property are affected. Nationwide, hundreds of floods occur each year, making it one of the most common hazards in all 50 states and U.S. territories (FEMA, 1997).
There are a number of categories of floods in the U.S., including the following: • Riverine flooding, including overflow from a river channel, flash floods, alluvial fan floods, ice-jam floods, and dam break floods • Local drainage or high groundwater levels • Fluctuating lake levels • Coastal flooding, including storm surges • Debris flow • Subsidence
67 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis The most common type of flooding event is riverine flooding, also known as overbank flooding. Riverine floodplains range from narrow, confined channels in the steep valleys of mountainous and hilly regions, to wide, flat areas in plains and coastal regions. The amount of water in the floodplain is a function of the size and topography of the contributing watershed, the regional and local climate, and land use characteristics. In steep valleys, flooding is usually rapid and deep, but of short duration, while flooding in flat areas is typically slow, relatively shallow, and may last for long periods of time.
The cause of flooding in large rivers is typically prolonged periods of rainfall from weather systems covering large areas. These systems may saturate the ground and overload the rivers and reservoirs in numerous smaller basins that drain into larger rivers. Localized weather systems (i.e., thunderstorms), may cause intense rainfall over smaller areas, leading to flooding in smaller rivers and streams. Annual spring floods, due to the melting of snowpack, may affect both large and small rivers and areas.
Source: FEMA, August 2001.
While there is no sharp distinction between riverine floods, flash floods, ice jam floods, and dam-break floods, these types of floods are widely recognized and may be helpful in considering the range of flood risk and appropriate responses:
Flash flood is a term in wide use by experts and the general population, but there is no single definition or clear means of distinguishing flash floods from other riverine floods. Flash floods involve a rapid rise in water level, high velocity, and large amounts of
68 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis debris, which can lead to significant damage that includes the tearing out of trees, undermining of buildings and bridges, and scouring new channels. The intensity of flash flooding is a function of the intensity and duration of rainfall, steepness of the watershed, stream gradients, watershed vegetation, natural and artificial flood storage areas, and configuration of the streambed and floodplain. Dam failure and ice jams may also lead to flash flooding. Urban areas are increasingly subject to flash flooding due to the removal of vegetation, covering of ground cover with impermeable surfaces, and construction of drainage systems. Local flash flooding can be very destructive along the steep bluffs of Lake Superior and the hilly terrain and narrow valleys of southeast Minnesota; however, flash flooding can occur anywhere in Minnesota. Flash flooding (defined as a six inches or more rain in 24 hours) occurs on average, three times a year somewhere in the state.
Ice jam floods are primarily a function of the weather and are most likely to occur where the channel slope naturally decreases, culverts freeze solid, reservoir headwaters, natural channel constructions (e.g., bends and bridges), and along shallows.
A type of flooding that does not result directly from overflowing lakes and streams but must be addressed is flooding that result from inadequate infrastructure, e.g., inadequate storm sewers and storm drainage systems. In Minnesota, floods resulting from inadequate infrastructure are often upstream and away from traditionally delineated floodplain areas that are subject to local land-use regulations. Therefore, this type of flooding has not typically been mapped by NFIP, and NFIP only requires local governments to impose land use regulations in a mapped floodplain. The NFIP standard flood insurance policy, however, often pays claims for flood losses in these areas with inadequate infrastructure.
Local drainage floods may occur outside of recognized drainage channels or delineated floodplains due to a combination of locally heavy precipitation, a lack of infiltration, inadequate facilities for drainage and stormwater conveyance, and increased surface runoff. Such events frequently occur in flat areas, particularly during winter and spring in areas with frozen ground, and also in urbanized areas with large impermeable surfaces. High groundwater flooding is a seasonal occurrence in some areas, but may occur in other areas after prolonged periods of above-average precipitation. Losses associated with local drainage are most significant when they occur with other hazards described in this document, such as widespread flooding and thunderstorms; therefore, they are not analyzed as a distinct hazard.
69 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Many urban areas that have historically been flood prone have been removed from the floodplain through the application of two construction types: (1) flood control dams, which reduce peak discharges; and, (2) levees, which redirect floods away from areas that would otherwise be inundated.
The third and somewhat less frequent category of floods in Minnesota is slowly rising lake levels. This type of flood is caused by a long-term, above-average precipitation trend in landlocked basins with poor lake outlet. This type of flooding has caused significant localized damages but seldom results in Presidential Disaster Declarations. Water rises slowly over months or years, so the flooding is not caused by a single event.
Minnesota is often referred to as the land of 10,000 lakes; the State has more than 95,000 miles of streams and rivers. These lakes and watercourses are confined within their banks throughout most of the year. On occasion, these water bodies, however, reclaim the low-lying surrounding lands, which results in flooding. Unwise floodplain development exacerbates flooding conditions. The outcome of this includes threat to human and animal health and safety as well as tremendous social and economic losses to individuals, communities, and taxpayers as a whole. In most cases, floods in Minnesota take one of two forms: large-scale flooding and flash flooding. Generally, large-scale floods result from a combination of deep, late-winter snowpack, frozen soil that prevents infiltration, rapid snowmelt due to an intrusion of tropical air, and widespread precipitation caused by cyclonic storms that approach the State from the southwest. Flash floods result from powerful, concentrated, slow-moving thunderstorms. Flooding can also occur along Lake Superior. Flooding along Lake Superior occurs most frequently when the lake is at a high level and high winds create waves that inundate low-lying areas.
The aforementioned types of "natural" flooding occur nationally. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Waters through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) usually map them. Regulation of new construction in mapped flood hazard areas is a responsibility of local government.
Flood History in Minnesota The major 20th century floods in Minnesota took place in 1950, 1965, 1969, 1972, 1987, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2006 and 2007. These floods
70 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis are considered among the most severe in Minnesota's history in terms of stream flow magnitude, extent of lands inundated, loss of life, and property damage. Spring and summer rains caused the 1993 flooding. The floods of 1950, 1965, 1969, 1972, 1997 and 2006 coincided with spring snowmelts, thereby, increasing both the stage and discharge of the snowmelt events. The peak discharges of 1993 only affected a few of the major watersheds. For the southern half of Minnesota, 1965 and 1969 were the years of record peak discharges. Widespread flooding occurred again in 2000. Starting in mid-May and continuing intermittently through July 2001, heavy rain fell over much of Minnesota. Heavy rains from August 18-20th produced record 24 hour totals in southeast Minnesota and resulted in seven fatalities in 2007. Notable floods in Minnesota from 1950-2007 are summarized in Table 2.
The heavy rain episode of August 18-20, 2007 was one of the most extraordinary precipitation events in Minnesota's modern history. During the event, a new Minnesota 24-hour rainfall record was broken. The State Climate Extremes Committee has agreed that the 15.10" total recorded at 8:00 AM on Sunday, August 19, 2007 near Hokah in Houston County is the largest 24-hour rainfall total ever measured at an official National Weather Service observing station in Minnesota.
This is the largest 24-hour rainfall total ever recorded by an official National Weather Service reporting location in Minnesota. The deluge produced flooding tied to seven fatalities. Major flood damage occurred in many southeastern Minnesota communities. Hundreds of homes and businesses were impacted. Reports of stream flooding, urban flooding, mudslides, and road closures were numerous throughout southern Minnesota.
71 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
72 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
73 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 2 Major Flood Events in Minnesota (1950 – 2007) Date of Incident Area Affected Remarks
2007 Winona, Fillmore, Disaster Declaration Number 1717 was declared on Houston, Olmsted, August 23, 2007 for seven southeast Minnesota Counties Dodge, Steele and due to flooding from August 18th to August 20th. An Wabasha official National Weather Service climate observer near Hokah in Houston County reported a storm total of 16.27 inches. Of the 16.27 inches, 15.10 inches fell within the observer's 24-hour observation cycle ending at 8:00 AM on Sunday, August 19. This is the largest 24-hour rainfall total ever recorded by an official National Weather Service reporting location in Minnesota. The deluge produced flooding tied to seven fatalities. Major flood damage occurred in many southeastern Minnesota communities. Hundreds of homes and businesses were impacted. Reports of stream flooding, urban flooding, mudslides, and road closures were numerous throughout southern Minnesota. 2006 Becker, Clay, Kittson, Disaster Declaration Number 1648 was declared on June Marshall, Norman, Polk, 5, 2006 for nine northwest Minnesota counties due to Red Lake, Roseau and flooding from March 30th to May 3rd. Wilkin Counties 2004 Southern Minnesota: Presidential Disaster Number 1569 was declared on Dodge, Faribault, October 7, 2004 for five southern Minnesota counties due Freeborn, Mower, and to severe storms and flooding. Approximately $1.2 million Steele Counties in grants have been approved to assist these counties.
74 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Date of Incident Area Affected Remarks
2002 Becker, Beltrami, Clay, Flooding occurred on June 14, 2002 resulting in Clearwater, Itasca, Presidential Disaster Declaration Number 1419 for 14 Kittson, McLeod, counties. Pennington, Polk, Roseau, Goodhue, Hubbard, McLeod and Wright Counties 2001 Throughout Minnesota Flooding, due to heavy rainfall and snow melt in March to July, occurred in 61 counties and 4 Tribal Governments resulting in Presidential Disaster Declaration Number 1370. Total of 66 counties approved for some form of disaster assistance. 2000 NW, SE, and Central Flooding, due to heavy rainfall in May to July, occurred in Minnesota: 17 counties resulting in Presidential Disaster Declaration Chippewa, Number 1333. The northwestern, southeastern and Clearwater, Dodge, central regions of the State were impacted the most. Faribault, Freeborn, Roseau, Winona, Becker, Clay, Dakota, Fillmore, Houston, Mower, Norman, Mahnomen, Yellow Medicine Counties and the White Earth Indian Reservation
75 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Date of Incident Area Affected Remarks
1999 Northern Minnesota: Flooding occurred in northern Minnesota in March to May Kittson, Marshall, 1999 resulting in Presidential Disaster Declaration 1288 Pennington, Polk, Red for 6 counties. Damages to personal property, public Lake, and Roseau infrastructure, and businesses totaled at least $11 million. counties In the spring of 1999, the Red River Valley experienced flooding as a result of snow melt and heavy rains. Roseau County’s drainage ditch system sustained an extensive amount of damage. 1999 Beltrami, Cook, Itasca, Disaster Declaration Number 1283 was issued for nine Lake, and St. Louis, counties in Northern Minnesota on July 26, 1999. The Aitkin, Cass, Clay, and northeastern part of Minnesota experienced high winds. Hubbard St. Louis county suffered the most uninsured residential due to heavy rains and flash flooding. Beltrami county experienced high ground water levels that caused a number of serious that included wet basements and failed septic systems. The total cost of the disaster was estimated at approximately $52.2 million. 1997 West Central Minnesota Disaster Declaration Number 1187 was issued for seven counties on August 5, 1997 for severe storms, high winds, tornadoes and flooding. Flooding and high winds swept through parts of west central Minnesota. Schools in Minneapolis and St. Paul sustained considerable damage, which resulted in more the $2 million in assistance.
76 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Date of Incident Area Affected Remarks
1997 Minnesota Due to the rapid melt of deep snow covering much of Minnesota, serious flooding occurred through Minnesota in March to May 1997, with the Red Rives and the Minnesota River valleys being the hardest hit. Six schools, on e medical facility and several other public facilities were so severely damaged that they had to be replaced. An additional late winter storm in early April added to the problem. These floods resulted in a Presidential Disaster Declaration (Disaster Declaration Number 1175) for 58 counties in Minnesota. State and federal aid payment totaled at least $386,121,956. 1996 Minnesota Flash flooding occurred March to May 1996, resulting in a Presidential Disaster Declaration (Disaster Declaration Number 1116) for 26 counties throughout Minnesota. State and federal disaster payments totaled $10,904,423.
77 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Date of Incident Area Affected Remarks
1993 Southern Minnesota Serious and repeated flooding occurred throughout the spring and summer of 1993. The southern, southwestern, and western regions of the State were hardest hit. Much of southern Minnesota experienced floods that were commonly greater than a 10-year flood event. The surprising exceptions were the Zumbro, Root, and the Cedar Rivers. Even though there was significant damage along these rivers, the highest recorded discharge during the flood event fell short of what would be expected in a 10-year flood. The floods of 1993 resulted in a Presidential Disaster Declaration (Disaster Declaration Number 993) for 57 counties in the State of Minnesota. State and federal disaster assistance payments totaled $99.3 million. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture estimates that lost production values resulting from this flood totaled $1.5 billion. 1992 Western and southern Disaster declaration issued on June 26, 1992 for eleven Minnesota counties in western and southern Minnesota for severe storms, tornadoes and flooding. There were heavy rains and flooding and major damage was caused by tornadoes that swept through southwestern Minnesota. The cities of Chandler, Lake Wilson and Clarkfield were the hardest hit. 1987 Anoka, Beltrami, Severe storms, heavy rain, and tornadoes resulted in Carver, Dakota, major flooding throughout the metropolitan area. Hennepin, Norman, Damages exceeded $12 million and resulted in Polk, Ramsey, Scott, Presidential Disaster Declaration 797. Washington
78 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Date of Incident Area Affected Remarks
1975 Northwest Minnesota A flash flood of 3-8 inches fell during a 12 to 15-hour period in Northwest Minnesota. The heavier rains began along the North Dakota border and ended to the southeast of Leach Lake. The heavy rains covered most of Marshall, Beltrami and Pennington Counties, the northern parts of Clearwater, Cass and Hubbard Counties and western Itasca County. 1972 Central Minnesota In July flooding in Central Minnesota (from west of Little Falls east to the border) resulted from the largest 24-hour rainfall recorded in Minnesota. The outcome included a Presidential Disaster Declaration for 18 counties in the State of Minnesota (Disaster Declaration Numbers 347 and 350), the loss of 3 lives, hundreds of road washouts, and damages over $20 million. In late September the third and largest “flash flood” to affect Duluth within that same year resulted in the loss of 2 lives and property damage estimated at $1 million. 1969 Red River, North River, Flooding on the Minnesota and Des Moines Rivers and the Minnesota River, Des Red River of the North resulted from snowmelt and Moines River rainfall. The outcome included a Presidential Disaster Declaration for 74 counties in the State of Minnesota (Disaster Declaration Numbers 255 and 268), the loss of 9 lives, and property damages estimated at $150 million. This flood event was the impetus for the State of Minnesota adopting the Comprehensive Floodplain Management Act.
79 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Date of Incident Area Affected Remarks
1965 Minnesota River, Flooding on the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers resulted Mississippi River from snowmelt and rainfall. The outcome included a Presidential Disaster Declaration for 65 counties in the State of Minnesota (Disaster Declaration Number 188), record stages on the Mississippi River, the loss of 16 lives, and property damages estimated at $181 million. 1950 Carlton County, Aitkin Flooding in the Northern half of the state resulted from County, Clay County, snowmelt and rainfall. The outcome included peak Polk County, St. Louis discharges approximated at a 100-year recurrence County interval on the St. Louis River at Scanlon (Carlton County) and on the Mississippi River at Aitkin (Aitkin County); extensive damages to the communities of Moorhead (Clay County), Crookston, East Grand Forks (Polk County), Floodwood (St. Louis County), and Aitkin (Aitkin County); and property damage losses estimated at $16 million.
80 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Floodplain Data Figure 4 is based on digital Q3 flood data. The Q3 Flood Data product is a digital representation of certain features of FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) product, intended for use with desktop mapping and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology. Digital Q3 Flood Data has been developed by scanning the existing FEMA hardcopy and vectorizing a thematic overlay of flood risks. The vector Q3 Flood Data files contains only certain features from the existing FIRM hardcopy. The digital Q3 Flood Data are currently scheduled for review to determine the need for revisions and/or updates. However, no specific update schedule has been determined to date as federal funding for this program has been cut. Hardcopy FIRM data is available statewide. FIRM data, in combination with Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and site specific elevation and asset data, is the most accurate way to characterize flood risk. Table 3 lists the counties in Minnesota for which Q3 flood data is available
The floodplains are shown in black. In the counties that have Q3 data but no delineation shown the Q3 data is only for floodplain delineations in the major towns.
Table 3 Minnesota Counties with Q3 Data Aitkin Hennepin Nicollet Stearns Anoka Houston Norman Stevens Becker Itasca Olmsted Swift Beltrami Kandiyohi Otter Tail Todd Benton Kittson Pennington Traverse Big Stone Lac Qui Parle Polk Wabasha Blue Earth Lake Of The Woods Pope Wadena Brown Le Sueur Ramsey Washington Carver Lincoln Red Lake Wilkin Cass Lyon Redwood Winona Chippewa Mahnomen Renville Wright Clay Marshall Roseau Yellow Medicine Dakota Mcleod Scott Douglas Morrison Sherburne Goodhue Mower Sibley Grant Murray St. Louis
Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Big Stone, LacQuiParle, and Swift Counties have been completed. Preliminary maps for Brown, Hennepin, Lyon
81 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis and Renville Counties are being completed. Mapping efforts are underway and preliminary maps should be coming out in the next 6 months in Chippewa, Clay, Dakota, Goodhue, Kandiyohi, Nicollet, Ramsey, Redwood, Washington, and Yellow Medicine Counties.
Probability of Occurrence All portions of the State of Minnesota are subject to flooding. Some locations, however, are more susceptible to severe, repeated flooding than others. As noted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Waters, one river that has flooded consistently nearly every other or every third year is the Red River of the North. Repeated flooding at this location is due primarily to two factors: (1) The river flows north, often into areas that have not yet thawed, hence the water backs up; (2) Flat terrain around the river allows flooding above the banks to go on for miles (much further than most rivers in Minnesota).
Flash floods are also of great concern to the State of Minnesota. In a publication entitled, Sixteen Year Study of Minnesota Flash Floods (DNR, State Climatology Office and University of Minnesota Soil Sciences Department, January 1988), it is noted that Minnesota averages five flash floods annually. The earliest flash floods have occurred in May. The monthly distribution of flash floods shows June with the greatest number of events and the flash flood “season” continuing through September. Analysis of Minnesota's flash flood history has revealed that over 50 percent occur in the evening between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. and 27 percent of flash floods occur from midnight through 7 a.m. The counties of Lyon, Mower, Olmsted, St. Louis, Stearns, and Winona have experience the greatest number of storm events capable of producing flash flooding, averaging at least one every 5 years. Olmsted County has experienced the greatest number of events (8) and averages one flash flood every 3.1 years. The National Weather Service (NWS) notes that nearly half of all flash flood fatalities are auto related. They further note that people who are in automobiles when flash floods occur near them are most at risk from flooding in general.
According to Floodplain Management: A Handbook for Local Officials (DNR, Division of Waters, January 1993) the State of Minnesota experiences an average annual direct flood loss of at least $60 - 70 million. Average annual direct flood loss figures of this type have historically included: • Direct loss to the individual homeowner, business, and agricultural interests (e.g., structural and contents damage, damage to motor vehicles, crop loss, etc.) • Damage to the community infrastructure (storm sewers, roads, bridges, etc.) • Costs associated with the flood fight and clean up
82 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis There is increased national awareness that the indirect losses due to flooding are very dramatic, affecting individuals living in and out of the floodplain. The indirect losses related to flooding include: • Lost profits to businesses closed during floods • Wage losses and unemployment benefits • Federally subsidized flood insurance payments via the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) • Income tax deductions for flood losses not covered by insurance • Low-interest disaster relief loans
The taxpayers are burdened with a significant portion of the cost of responding to unwise floodplain development. These indirect costs may, in fact, equal or exceed the direct costs.
The State of Minnesota has been granted Presidential Disaster Declarations 44 times between 1957 and 2007 (or 50 years). Of those declarations, 35 involved flooding. Those numbers translate into approximately a 70% chance of a major flood annually somewhere in the State. State and federal disaster assistance payments associated with these disasters total $736,642,292.
This risk assessment considers hazards over the entire State of Minnesota. Flood probability and magnitude are highly location-specific, so it is not possible to characterize these generally across the State in a meaningful way. The risk assessment section of the plan includes very detailed information on flood that implicitly includes the probability and magnitude determinations on a State and County basis. However, truly accurate determinations of flood probability and magnitude require site-specific engineering studies and data- gathering that is beyond the scope of this hazard profile. Statewide, floods are rated High for probability in the qualitative ranking Table 26.
Sources of Information Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1997. Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment: A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Hazard Mapping: Q3 Data. http://www.fema.gov/fhm/fq_q3.shtm#q364 Minnesota Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. Past Disaster Information. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Floods. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/floods/index.html National Climatic Data Center http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/climatenormals/clim60/states/Clim_MN_01.pdf Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Waters State Climatology Office and the University of Minnesota Soil Science Department.
83 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Sixteen Year Study on Minnesota Flash Floods. http://climate.umn.edu/doc/flashflood.htm USDA Risk Management Agency. Saint Paul Regional Office http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/info?storeId=10001&catalog Id=10001&langId=- 1&content=productQ3AvailMN&title=Q3%20Availability%20- %20Minnesota&parent=productInfo&parentTitle=Product%20Information MN DNR Waters Southeast Minnesota Flood Damage http://climate.umn.edu/doc/journal/flash_floods/ff070820.htm
84 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Tornados Nature of Hazard A tornado is a violently rotating column of air that extends toward the ground from the base of a convective cloud. Tornadoes can form in many environments. Three of these environments include: within intense squall lines, within supercell thunderstorms, and in the right front quadrant of landfalling hurricanes. Tornadoes may or may not be visible to the naked eye. The funnel can be transparent or can be hidden by falling rain around it. Often times the only way to determine the presence of a tornado is by the damage it has left behind. Most tornadoes do not touch the ground, but when the lower tip of a tornado touches the earth, it can cause extensive damage. Tornado damage severity is measured by the Fujita Tornado Scale, which assigns a numerical value of 0 to 5 based on wind speeds, as shown in Table 4. The letter F may precede the number (e.g., FO, F1, F2). Most tornadoes last less than 30 minutes, but can exist for more than an hour. The majority of tornadoes are classified in the F0 and F1 category. The path of a tornado can range from a few hundred feet to miles, and tornado widths may range from tens of yards to more than a quarter of a mile.
Table 4 Fujita Tornado Scale Category Wind Speed Description of Damage F0 40-72 mph Light damage. Some damage to chimneys; break branches off trees; push over shallow- rooted trees; damage to sign boards. F1 73-112 mph Moderate damage. The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane speed. Roof surfaces peeled off; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos pushed off roads. F2 113-157 Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame mph houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light-object missiles generated. F3 158-206 Severe damage. Roofs and some walls torn off mph well-constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted; cars lifted off ground and thrown. F4 207-260 Devastating damage. Well-constructed houses mph leveled; structures with weak foundations blown off some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated. F5 261-318 Incredible damage. Strong frame houses lifted mph off foundations and carried considerable
85 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis distance to disintegrate; automobile-sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100- yards; trees debarked. Source: FEMA, 1997
Currently the historical tornado data presented in the plan is based on the Fujita Scale above. However, future tornadoes will be classified using the new Enhanced F Scale as shown on the following page. This scale will be implemented in the United States on February 1, 2007
Table 5 Enhanced F Scale for Tornado Damage
Operational EF Fujita Scale Derived EF Scale Scale
Fastest 3 Second 3 Second 3 Second F EF EF 1/4-mile Gust Gust Gust Number Number Number (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph)
0 40-72 45-78 0 65-85 0 65-85
1 73-112 79-117 1 86-109 1 86-110
2 113-157 118-161 2 110-137 2 111-135
3 158-207 162-209 3 138-167 3 136-165
4 208-260 210-261 4 168-199 4 166-200
5 261-318 262-317 5 200-234 5 Over 200
*** Important Note about Enhanced F-Scale Winds: The Enhanced F-scale still is a set of wind estimates (not measurements) based on damage. Its uses three-second gusts estimated at the point of damage based on a judgment of 8 levels of damage to the 28 indicators listed below. These estimates vary with height and exposure. Important: The 3 second gust is not the same wind as in standard surface observations. Standard measurements are taken by weather stations in open exposures, using a directly measured, "one minute mile" speed.
86 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Tornado History Minnesota lies along the north edge of the region of maximum tornado occurrence in the United States. Tornado Alley, as that part of the central United States has come to be known, reaches across parts of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, East Nebraska, and West Iowa. In Minnesota, tornadoes have occurred in every month from March through November. The earliest verified tornado in Minnesota occurred on March 18, 1968, north of Truman, and the latest in any year on November 16, 1931, east of Maple Plain. Historically and statistically, June is the month of greatest frequency. Nearly ¾ of all tornadoes in Minnesota have occurred during the months of May (16%), June (33%), and July (27%). The most probable danger period in Minnesota is late spring and early summer, between 2 p.m. and 9 p.m.; however, tornadoes can and do occur at any time of the day or night. See Figure 5 for the location and magnitude of tornadoes in Minnesota from 1950- 2006.
Despite a higher number of tornadoes reported in recent years, the number of fatalities and injuries due to tornadoes has been decreasing. This is thanks in part to better National Weather Service tools in detecting tornadoes, namely the NEXRAD Doppler radar network installed in the mid 1990's. Also, the ability of alerting the public has improved as well with more National Weather Service radio transmitters and a close relationship with media outlets. An energetic spotter network has also been the key to alerting the public in Minnesota. There have only been 6 deaths due to tornadoes in Minnesota in the last 14 years (1992-2006) and there haven't been multiple deaths due to a single tornado since 1978. In fact, the increasing number of tornadoes reported may be a direct result of improved communications networks, public awareness, warning systems and training.
Most of the deadly and damaging tornadoes occur in groups of outbreaks that often last from 6 to 12 hours. One of the worst such outbreak in Minnesota occurred on June 28, 1979, when 16 tornadoes slashed across the state, from northwest to southeast, in a six and one half hour period. Two additional tornadoes occurred in eastern North Dakota with this system. Many such outbreaks have occurred, including the April 30, 1967 cluster in south central and southeast Minnesota.
87 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 6 Historic Tornado Occurrences in Minnesota Date Location Comment September Rogers One death 16, 2006 August 24, Lake Emily, near One dead, 37 injured 2006 Kasota June 11, Mower F3 category tornado 2004 June 24, Buffalo Lake F2 category caused 5 injuries 2003 June 13, Parkers Prairie F3 category caused 3 injuries 2001 July 25, Granite Falls One death. 2000 March 29, St. Peter and The greatest March tornado outbreak 1998 Comfrey in Minnesota history. Two people died in a family of 13 tornadoes. June 14, Twin Cities from One dead, 83 injured. 1981 Edina to Roseville August 6, Outing Twelve dead and 70 injured. 1969 June 13, Tracy Nine dead, 125 injured. 1968 On May 6, Twin Cities Metro The most damaging series of 1965 area tornadoes in Minnesota slashed across west and north sections of the killing 14 persons and injuring 685 with damage in excess of $50 million. On this day, eight tornadoes struck south central MN including three that were rated F4. 11 people were killed and 81 were injured. A four block wide swath was cut in the town of Waseca. June 20, Moorhead, MN & Ten dead and more than 100 injured. 1957 Fargo, ND May 10, Southeast Minnesota Seven dead and 19 injuries. 1953 August 17, Mankato, North About an hour apart, tornadoes 1946 Mankato, Wells slashed through the cities, leaving 11 dead and 60 injured (Mankato and North Mankato, and 200 injuries in Wells.
88 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 6 Historic Tornado Occurrences in Minnesota Date Location Comment June 18, Champlin More than 220 people were injured 1939 and 9 killed. June 22, Fergus Falls 59 lives lost; second deadliest killer 1919 tornado in Minnesota history. August 21, Tyler 36 lives lost. 1918 April 14, St. Cloud and Sauk Deadliest tornado in Minnesota history 1886 Rapids razed parts of St. Cloud and Sauk Rapids, leaving 72 dead and 213 injured. August 21, Rochester 31 deaths, numerous injuries. 1883 Source: http://climate.umn.edu/doc/historical/tornadic.htm
Some statistics on the greatest number of tornados in Minnesota from 1950 to 2004: One Year: 74 in 2001 One Month: 38 in June 2001 One Day: 27 on June 16, 1992
Annual average number of tornados in Minnesota from 1950 to 2004 was nearly 24, the average number of deaths due to tornados was 1.7 and injuries average is 33.7. The total number of tornados during this period is 1,371. There were 92 deaths and over 1800 injuries. Monthly averages and percent per month follow.
Table 7 Tornado Totals and Averages by Month (1950 - 2004) Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total Total 18 70 221 453 364 153 64 27 1 1371 Average 0.3 1.3 4.1 8.4 6.7 2.8 1.2 0.5 0.01 25 Percent >1 5 16 33 27 11 5 2 .04 100
89 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
90 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Probability of Occurrence Tornado risk for each state can be calculated many different ways. The Disaster Center uses a unique formula that not only takes into account the likelihood of a tornado striking a particular state, but also the risks of death, injury and the costs of tornadoes for locations based on the size of the state. Nationally, Minnesota ranks number 17 for frequency of tornadoes, 18 for number of deaths, 19 for injuries and 6 for cost of damages. When these statistics are compared to other States by the frequency per square mile, Minnesota ranks number 29 for frequency of tornadoes, number 22 for fatalities, number 26 for injuries per area, and number 11 for costs per area, based on data from 1950 to 1995.
Table 8 Top 20 States for Number of Tornadoes, Fatalities, and Damages, 1950 to 1994 Tornadoes Fatalities Injuries CPI adjusted dollars
State State State State Amount Rank Number Rank Number Rank Number Rank 1 Texas 5490 1 Texas 475 1 Texas 7452 1 Texas $1,955,927,552 2 Oklahoma 2300 2 Mississippi 386 2 Mississippi 5344 2 Indiana $1,648,654,336 3 Kansas 2110 3 Arkansas 279 3 Alabama 4483 3 Kansas $1,212,980,480 4 Florida 2009 4 Alabama 275 4 Ohio 4156 4 Georgia $1,117,426,176 5 Nebraska 1673 5 Michigan 237 5 Arkansas 3697 5 Oklahoma $1,065,659,392 6 Iowa 1374 6 Indiana 218 6 Indiana 3641 6 Minnesota $1,015,354,624 7 Missouri 1166 7 Oklahoma 217 7 Illinois 3599 7 Ohio $ 965,464,832 8 S. Dakota 1139 8 Kansas 199 8 Michigan 3214 8 Illinois $ 823,819,264 9 Illinois 1137 9 Illinois 182 9 Oklahoma 3184 9 Missouri $ 739,382,784 10 Colorado 1113 10 Tennessee 181 10 Georgia 2662 10 Iowa $ 709,211,904 11 Louisiana 1086 11 Ohio 173 11 Florida 2594 11 Nebraska $ 632,463,872 12 Mississippi 1039 12 Missouri 155 12 Tennessee 2592 12 Massachusetts $ 617,793,280 13 Georgia 888 13 Louisiana 134 13 Kentucky 2333 13 Pennsylvania $ 615,033,088 14 Alabama 886 14 Georgia 111 14 Kansas 2267 14 Alabama $ 609,664,768 15 Indiana 886 15 Kentucky 105 15 Missouri 2252 15 Louisiana $ 593,237,248 16 Arkansas 854 16 Massachusetts 99 16 Louisiana 2169 16 Mississippi $ 541,601,536 17 Wisconsin 844 17 Wisconsin 94 17 North 1778 17 Arkansas $ 516,939,264 Carolina 18 Minnesota 832 18 Minnesota 87 18 Iowa 1774 18 Florida $ 498,256,384 19 N. Dakota 799 19 Florida 82 19 Minnesota 1707 19 Wisconsin $ 410,756,864 20 Michigan 712 20 N. Carolina 81 20 Wisconsin 1442 20 Connecticut $ 385,388,800
The “tornado month” in the State is June, with July next, and then May. During these three months, over 75 percent of all tornadoes occur; May has about 17 percent, June around 33 percent, and July approximately 28 percent. Tornadoes have never been reported in the State during December,
91 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis January and February. The southern half of Minnesota has three to four times as many tornadoes as the northern half of the State. The deadliest Minnesota tornado of record was the Saint Cloud-Sauk Rapids tornado on April 14, 1886, when 74 lives were lost. The most damaging tornadoes were those occurring in the northern part of Minneapolis in the late afternoon of May 6, 1965, causing about $280 million (2001 figures) in damage.
Minnesota experienced 832 tornadoes during the period 1950 to 1994, an average of slightly more than 33 per year. Although site-specific tornado probability is impossible to determine, given the relatively long reporting period used in this calculation, it is reasonable to assume that the average annual number will remain relatively constant in the future. It is worth noting, however, the numbers of deaths and injuries can fluctuate drastically depending on the severity of the tornadoes and the locations that they impact. The Risk Assessment section includes a more detailed discussion of tornado risk, and includes calculations of risks to State-owned and operated facilities. Tornadoes are rated High for probability in the qualitative ranking Table 28.
Sources of Information Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1997. Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment: A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy. FEMA. 2001. Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses. NOAA, Storm Prediction Center. Tornado Numbers, Deaths, Injuries, and Adjusted Damage, 1950-1994. Available from World Wide Web: www.spc.noaa.gov/archive/tornadoes/st-rank.html NOAA, National Weather Service Forecast. 2004 Minnesota Tornadoes (preliminary). Available from World Wide Web: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/mpx/2004torlist.html National Weather Service. 1983, updated 2004. Minnesota Tornado History and Statistics. http://climate.umn.edu/doc/historical/tornadic.htm http://www.disastercenter.com/minn/tornado.html.
92 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Hail Nature of the Hazard A hailstorm is an outgrowth of severe thunderstorms and develops within a low-pressure front as warm air rises rapidly in to the upper atmosphere and is subsequently cooled, as shown in Figure 6, leading to the formation of ice crystals. These are bounced about by high velocity updraft winds and accumulate into frozen droplets, falling as precipitation after developing enough weight (FEMA, 1997).
Figure 3 How Hail Is Formed
Source: NWS, January 10, 2003
The National Weather Service (NWS) defines severe thunderstorms as those with downdraft winds in excess of 58 miles an hour and/or hail 0.75 inch in diameter or greater. While only about 10 percent of thunderstorms are classified as severe, all thunderstorms are dangerous because they produce numerous dangerous conditions, including one or more of the following: hail, strong winds, lightning, tornadoes, and flash flooding (NWS, Flagstaff). The land area affected by individual hail events, an average of 15 miles in diameter around the center of the storm, is similar to the area affected by the parent thunderstorm. Hail risk at a point or over an area is a function of the target at risk (property or crop) and the hail frequency and intensity.
The size of hailstones varies and is a direct consequence of the severity and size of the thunderstorm. The higher the temperatures at the Earth’s surface, the greater the strength of the updrafts, and the greater the amount of time the hailstones are suspended, the larger the size of the hailstones. Hailstones
93 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis vary widely in size, as shown in Table 9. Note that hail penny size (0.75 inch in diameter) or larger is considered severe.
Hailstorms occur most frequently during the late spring and early summer, when the jet stream moves northward across the Great Plains. During this period, extreme temperature changes occur from the surface up to the jet stream, resulting in the strong updrafts required for hail formation. Hail causes $1 billion in damage to crops and property each year. The costliest hailstorm in the United States was in Denver in July 1990 with reported damage of $625 million. The largest hailstone ever recorded which fell in Coffeyville, Kansas on September 3, 1970, measured over 5.6 inches in diameter and weighed almost 2 pounds (NWS, January 10, 2003).
Table 9 Estimating Hail Size Size Inches in Diameter Pea 1/4 inch Marble/mothball 1/2 inch Dime/Penny 3/4 inch Nickel 7/8 inch Quarter 1 inch Ping-Pong Ball 1 1/2 inch Golf Ball 1 3/4 inches Tennis Ball 2 1/2 inches Baseball 2 3/4 inches Tea cup 3 inches Grapefruit 4 inches Softball 4 1/2 inches Source: NWS
Individuals who serve as volunteer “storm spotters” for the NWS are located throughout the State, and are instructed to report hail 0.75 inch or larger. Hailstorms are frequent occurrences across the United States. Since 1988, there have been on average nearly 3,000 individual hail events reported each year. Although they occur in every State on the mainland United States, hailstorms occur most frequently in the Midwestern States, particularly in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska. Hailstorms can occur throughout the year; however, most hailstorms occur during the months of April through October. July is the prime month of crop loss produced by hail.
Hail History The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) maintains a list of weather-related disasters in the United States over the past 21 years, in which overall damages and costs reached or exceeded $1 billion. Figures reflect direct and indirect damages, costs, and deaths. One of these billion-dollar disasters is 94 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis the Minnesota Severe Storms/Hail in May 1998, in which damaging severe thunderstorms with large hail fell over wide areas of Minnesota, resulting in over $1.5 billion damage/costs and 1 death.
Each year hail storms result in property and crop damage. From 4/30/2006 to 4/30/2007 (most current information available) there were 587 hail events with hail over.75 inches resulting in $115 million in property damages and over $7 million in crop damages.
The NWS reports hail events based on specific geographic areas or distances. Therefore, hail from one storm may be listed as multiple, separate hail events. The following summaries combine a number of hail events occurring during a specific period. In April 1994, two persons were injured and homes were damaged during a severe thunderstorm, which dropped golf ball-size hail. In July 1994, large hail and strong winds destroyed over 270,000 acres of crops, causing more than $35 million in damages. In July 1995, hail wiped out over 640 acres of crops, estimated at $3 million. In May 1996, baseball size hail damaged $500,000 in crops and $2.7 million in property and injured two farmers.
In June 1996, hail destroyed more than 300,000 acres of crops, estimated at more than $9 million, and caused more than $700, 000 in property damages. In July 1997, grapefruit size hail damaged more than 30,000 acres of crops, resulting in more than $5 million in crop damage and $200,000 in property damages. In May 1998, hail caused more than $6 million in property damages to an automobile dealership and other structures. In August 1998, hail caused $50 million property damages. In July 2000, large hail destroyed or damaged more than 30,000 acres of crops, causing $4 million in crop damages, and caused more than $100,000 for property damages. In August of 2006, hail damaged or destroyed over 57,000 acres of crops, causing over $7 million in damage and $116 million in property damages. From 2000 to 2006 hail has caused $227 million in property damages and more than $38 million in crop damages. The figures, however, only reflected damages reported to the NCDC. These figures do not include the financial losses related to a significant number of the hail events, as those amounts are undetermined.
The following map indicates locations of large hail incidents (at least 0.75”) from 1955-2006.
95 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
The following table shows crop damage indemnities paid to Minnesota farmers from 2000 to 2006 from hail damage. These numbers are from crops insured through the USDA. There are other private, non-government subsidized hail insurance companies that are not reflected in these numbers.
Table 10 Hail Indemnity Figures for 2000-2006 Year Indemnity Amount 2000 $10,352,182.00 2001 $12,441,764.00 2002 $6,427,305.00 2003 $15,560,297.00 2004 $11,613,699.00 2005 $5,494,539.00 2006 $7,706,012.00 96 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Insurance data has a number of limitations including the fact that not all farmers have taken insurance coverage (hail insurance is estimated to cover 25 to 30 percent of all crop losses caused by hail). In addition, crop-hail losses shift with time due to the amount of coverage (liability) and the crop value, as well as the temporal variations in hail occurrences, which are large.
The Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Division of Traffic Safety, maintains statistics on injuries and deaths, specifically related to motor vehicle accidents. According to these statistics for the years 1995 through 1999 in Minnesota, 40 fatal motor vehicle accidents occurred when freezing rain, sleet and/or hail conditions existed, resulting in the deaths of 45 people. These figures amount to an average of eight fatal motor vehicle accidents and nine deaths annually statewide. Furthermore, 2,608 injury motor vehicle accidents occurred when freezing rain, sleet and/or hail conditions existed in the same time period, resulting in the injury of 3,749 people. This is an average of 522 injury motor vehicle accidents and 750 injuries annually statewide. These accidents represent approximately 1.5 percent of all fatal and 1.6 percent of all injury motor vehicle accidents reported in the State.
Hailstorms cause nearly $1 billion in property, livestock, and crop damage each year. Severe hailstorms cause considerable damage to buildings, automobiles, and airplanes. Significant property damage does not occur until hailstone size reaches about 1.5 inches in diameter. This size will cause damage to cars, windows, and siding. When hailstones get larger and approach three inches in diameter, roofs start to experience major damage.
Damage depends not only on the size of the hail but upon depends on the hardness of the stones, the angle of the impact and wind speed while the hail is in progress. Rapidly increasing hail damages to property have brought average annual losses to $1.2 billion (in 1997-adjusted dollars) during the 1990s.
Hail crop losses in recent years nationally are estimated at $1.3 billion annually, representing between one and two percent of the annual crop value. Hail losses vary considerably regionally, representing, for example, one to two percent of the crop value in the Midwest, five to six percent of the crops produced in the High Plains and much less elsewhere in the nation. Crops are vulnerable to damage especially as peak hailstorm activity coincides with the Midwest’s peak agricultural seasons for wheat, corn, barley, oats, rye, tobacco, and fruit. Long-stemmed vegetation is particularly vulnerable to damage by hail impact and accompanying winds. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Federal Crop Insurance Corporation maintains multi-peril indemnity amounts for crop losses by various hazards including hail.
97 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Probability of Occurrence Minnesota has experienced an average of 397 hail events per year during the period 1993 to 2006 (5,561 total events/14 year period = 397). Although there is a considerable difference between the high and low figures (58 is the lowest figure, and 723 is the highest in any year in the period), the long-term average is presumed to remain relatively constant, although changes in weather patterns do have the potential to affect recurrence numbers and averages. The frequency of hail indicates a high of three to four days annually in southwestern Minnesota, decreasing to near two days in the northern portion of the State. The month with the most hail is June, with May next, and then July. During these three months, about 60 percent of the hail occurs; June has 24 percent, May has 20 percent and July has 16 percent. The size of the hail reported is generally in the pea to dime-sized category, with several reports annually of baseball-size and larger.
The annual probability of hail occurring somewhere in the State is clearly quite high. However, the site-specific incidence of hail is considered low because of the localized nature of the hazard.
Sources of Information Blueprint for Safety (2003). Hail Formation. http://www.blueprintforsafety.org/hail/hail01.htm NCDC list of Billion Dollar U.S. Weather Disasters http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/billion2006.pdf NOAA, National Climatic Data Center. Storm Events. NCDC Storm Events Database http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi- win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms Summary of Natural Hazard Statistics http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi- win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms Stanley A. Changnon, Jr. “Data and Approaches for Determining Hail Risk in the Contiguous United States,” Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 38, No. 12, pp. 1730-1739. Stanley A. Changnon, Jr. and David Changnon “Long-Term Fluctuations in Hail Incidences in the United States,” Journal of Climate, Volume 13, No. 3, pp. 658-664.
98 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Coastal Erosion Nature of the Hazard Coastal erosion is defined as the wearing away of land and the loss of beach, shoreline, or dune material over a period of time as a result of natural coastal processes or human influences. Characteristics such as supply of sand and processes such as sea level change, currents, tides, waves, and wind are natural factors that contribute to the rate of erosion. Human-caused contributors to erosion include dredging tidal entrances, jetty and groin construction, hardening shorelines with seawall, beach nourishment, and construction of harbors and sediment-trapping dams.
As high lake levels increase, bluff recession rates also increase. Increasing assaults by wave action against the base of the bluff cause erosion and beach-building sediments. Navigational improvements and dredge-material disposal practices deplete both tributary and shoreland sources of sediment; removing these sediments from the shore system contributes to erosion. Ice ridges that form and break up each winter along the shoreline cause erosion by trapping sand in floating fragments of ice that are carried offshore into deep water. This continual natural process is one of the principal mechanisms by which sand is lost from the near shore system (USGS, 1992).
Coastal erosion is usually a gradual process, and sudden incidents prompting emergency action are rare. Such rare events include strong storms with high winds or heavy wave action that can cause sudden failure of bluffs.
Coastal property owners are acutely aware of hazards during periods of high water levels and especially right after a damaging storm or a bluff failure, but this awareness can fade over time if low lake levels slow the erosion rate.
Table 11 Lake Superior Mean, Maximum, and Minimum Lake Levels, 1918-2006
Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Mean 601.5 601.4 601.2 601.3 601.6 601.9 602.1 602.2 602.2 602.1 602 601.8 Max 602.7 602.5 602.4 602.6 602.8 602.9 603.1 603.2 603.2 603.4 603.3 603.1 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1950 1952 1985 1985 1985 1985 Min 599.8 599.6 599.5 599.5 599.6 599.9 600.3 600.5 600.8 600.7 600.4 600.1 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1925 1925 1925 Source: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Coastal Erosion history in Minnesota Northeast Minnesota has 189 miles of Lake Superior shoreline and a coastal population of over 212,000. Erosion along 36 miles of unstable, tall clay shoreline is a particular problem. Typically, shorelines are quite high—often 99 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis greater than 25 feet—and erosion and bluff instability can harm the aquatic zone near the shore. Table 11: shows historical water levels in Lake Superior.
Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources administers a Lake Superior Coastal Program; it provides pass through grants from the federal government’s Coastal Zone Management Program. The coastal waters— including Lake Superior, connecting waters, harbors, roadsteads, and estuary- type areas such as bays, shallows, and marshes—and protection zones appear in the following figure.
The Coastal Program Boundary includes Cook, Lake, St. Louis and Carlton counties. The Lake Superior Basin drainage includes the above counties and parts of Pine, Aitkin and Itasca counties.
Probability of Occurrence Minnesota's Lake Superior Coastal Program Final Environmental Impact Statement states, “Geologic processes are constantly reworking Lake Superior and its shore. While the processes generally act very slowly to yield almost
100 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis unperceivable changes, the combination of beach and bluff erosion associated with rising water levels of Lake Superior has, and will continue to cause, considerable changes along the shoreline of Lake Superior.”
Estimating Potential Losses Costal erosion for Lake Superior and other lakes in the Great Lakes Basin are caused by many dynamic factors, including the duration of flooding from high water levels (days to months), storm surge (hours to a day) and wave runups (seconds to hours). It is difficult to estimate the annual amount of coastal erosion on Lake Superior. Erosion of dunes and beaches may be as wind and waves build or remove their materials. Erosion of bluffs and banks is by nature irreversible.
Sources of Information Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/news/northshore.html Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Lake Superior Coastal Program, http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/lakesuperior/index.html http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/lakesuperior/feis/part3.html#A1 University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute http://seagrant.wisc.edu/coastalhazards/Default.aspx?tabid=438 http://www.nrri.umn.edu/coastalGIS/DataIndex.html
101 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Severe Winter Storms Nature of the Hazard Winter storms vary in size and strength and include heavy snowstorms, blizzards, freezing rain, sleet, ice storms and blowing and drifting snow conditions. Extremely cold temperatures accompanied by strong winds can result in wind chills that cause bodily injury such as frostbite and death. Severe winter and ice storms can cause unusually heavy rain or snowfall, high winds, extreme cold, and ice storms throughout the continental United States.
Winter storm occurrences tend to be very disruptive to transportation and commerce. Trees, cars, roads, and other surfaces develop a coating or glaze of ice, making even small accumulations of ice extremely hazardous to motorists and pedestrians. The most prevalent impacts of heavy accumulations of ice are slippery roads and walkways that lead to vehicle and pedestrian accidents; collapsed roofs from fallen trees and limbs and heavy ice and snow loads; and felled trees, telephone poles and lines, electrical wires, and communication towers. As a result of severe ice storms, telecommunications and power can be disrupted for days. Such storms can also cause exceptionally high rainfall that persists for days, resulting in heavy flooding.
Winter storms present a serious threat to the health and safety of affected citizens and can result in significant damage to property. Heavy snow or accumulated ice can cause the structural collapse of buildings, down power lines or isolate people from assistance or services. The wind chill temperature is how cold people and animals feel when outside. Wind chill is based on the rate of heat loss from exposed skin caused by wind and cold. As the wind increases, it draws heat from the body, driving down skin temperature and eventually the internal body temperature. Therefore, the wind makes it feel much colder. If the temperature is 00 F and the wind is blowing at 15 mph, the wind chill is -19 F. At this wind chill temperature, exposed skin can freeze in 30 minutes.
The NWS issues a Wind Chill Advisory for Minnesota when widespread wind chills of -40 F or lower with winds at least 10 miles per hour (mph) are expected. In some parts of southern Minnesota, the threshold may be -35 F. A Wind Chill Warning is issued when widespread wind chills of -60 F or lower with winds
102 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis greater than 10 mph are expected. In some parts of southern Minnesota, the threshold may be -50 F, as shown in Figure 9.
Winter Storm History in Minnesota The topography, land-use characteristics and winter climate of western and southern Minnesota cause this area to be particularly vulnerable such that blowing and drifting snow is a common occurrence. The number of days with potential problems ranges from 115 in the south to 155 in the north. For an average winter season, taxpayers in Minnesota spend approximately $100 million in snow removal costs, with Mn/DOT expending $41 million. In the event of a winter season with anomalously high snowfall and exceedingly strong winds, as was the case for much of the state during the winter of 1996-97, the cost of snow removal can soar to $215 million. Figure 10 shows the annual mean snowfall in the State.
Source: Minnesota Climatology Working Group
103 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Blizzards Table 12 shows the history of blizzards in Minnesota, noting significant losses and/or meteorological events. Most notable are the “Armistice Day Blizzard” in November 1940 in which there were 49 deaths; “The Storm of the Century” in January 1975 in which there were 14 deaths; the blizzard in February 1984 in which there were 16 deaths; the “Halloween Monster Storm” of 1991 which did not result in any deaths, but set staggering snowfall records; and the unprecedented series of blizzards in November 1996 through January 1997 which resulted in a Presidential Disaster Declaration (FEMA-1158-DR-MN). The following is a brief summary of blizzard events in Minnesota during that season. November 16-17, 1996 Blizzard in NW and WC December 17-19, 1997 Blizzard in western and southern counties December 20-21, 1997 Blizzard in NW December 23, 1997 Blizzard in WC December 31, 1997 New Year's Eve Blizzard in NW January 4-5, 1997 Blizzard in western counties January 9-10, 1997 Blizzard in western and southern counties January 15-16, 1997 Blizzard in western counties January 21-22, 1997 Blizzard in western counties March 4, 1997 Blizzard in WC April 5-6, 1997 Blizzard in western counties during flood fight
The total seasonal snowfall at Fargo-Moorhead was 117 inches, setting up the record-setting flood of 1997 in the Red River Valley.
Table 12 History of Blizzards in Minnesota (1940-2007) Date Location Remarks 2/28/07- Cook, Lake, St. Louis, Carlton Blizzard brings over 20 inches 3/2/07 of snow and winds exceeding 50 mph to the Duluth area. A week earlier, the Duluth area received over 12 inches of snow in another blizzard event that dumped over two feet of snow on SE Minnesota. 3/2/2007 Big Stone, Traverse None reported.
104 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 12 History of Blizzards in Minnesota (1940-2007) Date Location Remarks 3/1/2007 Clay, Wilkin Cottonwood, New snowfall of 12 to 15 Jackson, Lincoln, Lyon, inches beginning early Murray, Nobles, Pipestone, morning on March 1st and Rock, Cook, Lake, St. Louis, continuing into the night of Carlton March 2nd was accompanied by sustained winds of over 30 mph at times with gusts over 40 mph. Schools and school activities were cancelled and numerous businesses closed. Power outages were reported as the heavy snow and strong winds brought down power lines. 2/24/2007 Lake, St. Louis / Carlton None reported. Dodge, Fillmore, Houston, Mower, Olmsted, Wabasha, Winona 1/24/2006 Clay, Grant, Norman, Becker, A burst of strong northwest Otter Tail, Wilkin, Kittson winds worked up the Red River Valley, causing a four hour period of ground blizzard conditions. Wind speeds peaked between 50 and 60 mph and occurred with just a little light snow. The Minnesota State Patrol closed Interstate 94 between Moorhead and Fergus Falls. A six vehicle accident occurred on Interstate 94 at exit 54 (in Fergus Falls), which left three people injured.
105 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 12 History of Blizzards in Minnesota (1940-2007) Date Location Remarks 11/28/2005 Becker, Chippewa, Clay, Blizzard conditions with no Clearwater, Grant, Hubbard, deaths. Visibilities were Lac Qui Parle, Lincoln, Lyon, frequently reduced to near Mahnomen, Norman, Otter zero and travel was made Tail, Pipestone, Rock, Stevens, impossible in many areas. Swift, Wadena, Wilkin, Many schools and businesses Yellow Medicine were forced to close. There were a few reports of minor damage caused to homes and vehicles by the strong winds. Ice buildup from a period of freezing rain disabled four substations owned by Minnesota Valley Cooperative Light and Power, located near the South Dakota border in Lac Qui Parle County. Power lines were also severed across portions of Chippewa, Lac Qui Parle and Yellow Medicine Counties during the morning hours after sunrise. Numerous automobile and truck accidents were reported across the region.
106 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 12 History of Blizzards in Minnesota (1940-2007) Date Location Remarks 11/27- Beltrami, Clearwater, Clay, A winter storm that caused 11/29/05 Lake of the Woods, Marshall, over $3.9 million in damages. Norman, Pennington, Polk, An inverted trough stretched Red Lake, Roseau, Wilkin into the Red River Valley, from a low pressure system passing through the central plains. The precipitation began as a mixture of rain and freezing rain, falling quite heavily at times. Thousands of people lost power as several thousand wooden power poles were snapped. Roads were blocked by fallen trees, branches, and power lines. Many vehicle accidents and several injuries were reported due to the treacherous road conditions. Clay, Norman, and Wilkin Counties received a Presidential Disaster Declaration. 1/22/2005 Dodge, Fillmore, Mower, Wind gusts as high as 40 to Olmsted 50 mph caused blowing snow to reduce visibility to zero at times. Snow drifts in some areas were 4 to 6 feet deep, which made numerous highways impassable.
107 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 12 History of Blizzards in Minnesota (1940-2007) Date Location Remarks 1/21/2005 Becker, Big Stone, Blue Earth, Blizzard conditions with wind Brown, Chippewa, Clay, speeds up to 64 MPH. Douglas, Faribault, Freeborn, Scattered power outages were Grant, Kandiyohi, Kittson, Lac reported in Redwood, Brown Qui Parle, Le Sueur, and Watonwan counties after Mahnomen, Marshall, Martin, ice coated power lines were Mcleod, Meeker, Nicollet, blown down by the high Norman, Otter Tail, winds. Numerous automobile Pennington, Polk, Pope, Red accidents were also reported Lake, Redwood, Renville, Rice, region wide during the storm. Roseau, Sibley, Steele, Hundreds of vehicles were Stevens, Swift, Traverse, reported in the ditch. Waseca, Watonwan, Wilkin, Yellow Medicine 2/11/2003 Blue Earth, Brown, Chippewa, A strong and fast moving cold Douglas, Faribault, Freeborn, front plowed out of the Kandiyohi, Lac Qui Parle, Le Canadian Prairies and into Sueur, Martin, Mcleod, Minnesota, bringing a quick Nicollet, Pope, Redwood, snow that totaled two to three Renville, Sibley, Steele, inches. The powdery snow Stevens, Swift, Waseca, was whipped around by winds Watonwan, Yellow Medicine frequently gusting over 45 mph producing near-zero visibility. Whiteout conditions were prevalent throughout the open terrain of west central and south central Minnesota. 3/9/2002 Dodge, Fillmore, Houston, As a deep low pressure moved Mower, Olmsted, Wabasha, into the northern Great Lakes, Winona it produced west winds of 30 to 40 mph, with gusts around 50 mph. Even though only an inch or less of new snow had fallen, the very strong winds produced whiteout conditions, with visibility 1/4 mile or less. The poor visibility combined with falling temperatures caused numerous accidents and 1 fatality and 6 injuries.
108 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 12 History of Blizzards in Minnesota (1940-2007) Date Location Remarks 3/8/2000 Clay, Clearwater, Mahnomen, Blizzard conditions with no Norman, Polk deaths reported. 12/19/1999 Kittson Blizzard conditions with no deaths reported. 3/17/1999 Kittson, Marshall, West Polk Blizzard conditions with no deaths reported. 2/12/1999 Kittson, Marshall, Norman, Early morning blizzard Pennington, Red Lake, conditions with peak winds Roseau, West Polk reported to 52 miles per hour (mph). No deaths reported. 12/18/1998 Kittson, Marshall, Norman, Blizzard conditions with no West Polk deaths reported. 11/10/1998 Northwest region No deaths reported and no dollar estimates listed. 11/9/1998 Cottonwood, Jackson, Lincoln, No deaths reported; $200,000 Lyon, Murray, Nobles, in property damage. Pipestone, Rock, Big Stone and Traverse 3/13/1998 Becker, Clay, Kittson, No deaths reported, but Mahnomen, Marshall, Norman, $15,000 in property damage Pennington, Polk, Red Lake, was reported. Roseau, West Polk 4/5/1997 Clay, Kittson, Marshall, Blizzard conditions. Three Norman, West Polk, Wilkin injuries reported. An estimated $25 million in damage, mainly loss of livestock. 4/5/1997 Big Stone, Traverse Blizzard conditions, no deaths or injuries. North winds blew to 40-60 miles per hour (mph). Wind chills fell to 15 to 30 below. Substantial livestock losses. Damages estimated at $4 million. 3/5/1997 Clay, Kittson, Marshall, Blizzard conditions, but no Norman, West Polk, Wilkin deaths associated with the storm.
109 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 12 History of Blizzards in Minnesota (1940-2007) Date Location Remarks 1/22/1997 Western MN A series of blizzards from mid- November through the end of January resulted in a Presidential Disaster Declaration (FEMA-1158-DR- MN). Numerous roads, schools, and businesses were closed throughout the extended storm period. A number of deaths occurred in conjunction with these storms, including two resulting from persons leaving their car to walk in blizzard conditions. Mar-96 West Central and Southwest Blizzard conditions from mid- MN day on the 24th into the morning of the 25th. Regional school closings were prompted by this storm. Dec-95 Western and Southern MN The intensity of this storm prompted statewide closings of schools and many businesses on the 7th. Dec-91 Southwestern MN Several schools, businesses, and roads closed; power outages. Oct-91 Statewide “Halloween Monster Storm”. 28.4” snow at Twin Cities; 36.9” in Duluth. Mar-89 Central and Southern MN 1 death. 600 traffic accidents in the Twin Cities metro area. Jan-89 Northwestern MN 26” of snow at Fargo- Moorhead area; 50 mph winds at Red River Valley. Nov-88 Southwestern MN Blizzard stranded or forced thousands of travelers to seek shelter in local SW MN communities. Mar-85 Statewide 1 death in Renville County; 1 death in Douglas County. Jan-85 Western and Southern MN 1 death.
110 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 12 History of Blizzards in Minnesota (1940-2007) Date Location Remarks Feb-84 Southwestern MN 16 deaths. 1” to 2” snow; 80 mph wind. Nov-83 Southern and Eastern MN 8 deaths. Up to 18” of snow; high winds. Apr-83 Southeastern MN 17” of snow. Feb-83 Statewide 12” of snow. Dec-82 Southern and East Central MN 1 death in Lakeville (Dakota County). Nov-82 Southwestern and Central MN 1 death in Willmar (Kandiyohi County). Jan-82 Anoka County 1 death. Jan-82 Hubbard County 1 death. Mar-79 Southern MN 3 deaths. Mar-75 St. Louis County 12” of snow; 100 mph wind; 20' waves at Duluth. Jan-75 Statewide “Storm of the Century”. 14 deaths. 1-2' of snow; winds up to 80 mph. Jan-72 Southwestern MN 4”-10” of snow; winds up to 72 mph at Worthington. Dec-68 Statewide 6 blizzards during 12/68 - 1/69 resulted in serious negative impacts on wildlife due to deep snow. Jan-67 Statewide 7 deaths. Mar-66 Northern MN 4-day storm. 23” of snow in Aitkin, 37” in Int'l Falls. Mar-41 Statewide 32 deaths. High winds up to 75 mph in Duluth. Nov-40 Statewide “Armistice Day Blizzard”. 49 deaths.
The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) maintains a list of weather-related disasters in the United States over the past 21 years, in which overall damages and costs reached or exceeded $1 billion. Figures reflect direct and indirect damages, costs, and deaths. One of these billion dollar disasters is the Northeast Ice Storm of January 1998, which was an intense ice storm hitting Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, with extensive forestry losses; over $1.4 billion damage/costs; and 16 deaths. See NCDC’s list of Billion Dollar U.S. Weather Disasters at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/reports/billionz.html.
111 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Ice and Ice Storms NCDC is the world’s largest active archive of weather data including the Storm Events Database. See http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms . The following ice and sleet storms are recorded for the period January 1993 through March 2007, as provided in Table 13.
Table 13 Notable Ice and Sleet Storms in Minnesota (1993-March 2007) Date Location Remarks 12/30/2006 Big Stone, Traverse None Reported. 11/28/2006 Koochiching, A quarter inch of ice was reported Beltrami, Lake Of in Big Falls and Little Fork. Many The Woods, vehicle accidents were reported in Marshall, Roseau these areas. 11/27/2005 Big Stone, Traverse Widespread freezing rain with ice accumulations between 1 and 2 inches. The high winds and heavy ice accumulations caused widespread power outages for some locations for over 10 days. Shelters were set up for those who did not have generator power or another place to go. This was one of the worst ice storms in history. 01/01/2005 Dodge, Fillmore, Freezing rain spread across Houston, Mower, southeast Minnesota with Olmsted, Wabasha, widespread ice accumulations of Winona 1/4 to 1/2 inch. Numerous accidents were reported by law enforcement officials, but there were no serious injuries 12/30/2004 St. Louis, Freezing rain caused ice up to one- Koochiching, Aitkin, half inch thick to accumulate on Cass, Cook, Lake, roads, sidewalks, trees and power Itasca, St. Louis, lines. There were many reports of Carlton, Clay, Otter tree damage and sporadic power Tail, Grant, Wadena, outages. Wilkin
112 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 13 Notable Ice and Sleet Storms in Minnesota (1993-March 2007) Date Location Remarks 11/22/2003 Olmsted, Wabasha Freezing rain affected much of southeast Minnesota, with ice accumulations up to 1/2 inch thick. Law enforcement officials reported numerous automobile accidents due to icy roads, while there were a few power outages. 11/03/2003 Cottonwood, Snowfall of 2 to 4 inches was Jackson, Lincoln, accompanied by freezing rain and Lyon, Murray, freezing drizzle. Travel was greatly Nobles, Pipestone, affected by slippery roads, with Rock numerous accidents being reported. 04/16/2003 Aitkin, Cass, Crow A mixture of sleet and freezing rain Wing, Pine, St. Louis fell, causing an icy glaze up to 1/2” / Carlton to accumulate on roads, trees, and power lines. In addition to the precipitation, the head of the lakes area had very strong winds sustained at 35 to 50 mph. The Aerial Lift Bridge in Duluth reported gusts up to 66 mph. The peak wind at the Duluth Airport was 56 mph. The strong winds closed the port entry of Duluth as the strong east winds packed ice into the ship canal. Numerous trees and power lines were blown down. 12/17/2002 Aitkin, Cass, Cook, Freezing rain, at times mixed with Lake, Crow Wing, sleet and snow, began late at night Itasca, Koochiching, and continued through most of the St. Louis, Carlton day. One-quarter to one-half inch of ice collected on roads and sidewalks
113 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 13 Notable Ice and Sleet Storms in Minnesota (1993-March 2007) Date Location Remarks 4/22/2001 Southern Lake, An intense low pressure system Southern St. Louis / moved northeast through the Carlton western Great Lakes area producing heavy precipitation. Because of the cold temperatures, much of the precipitation fell as freezing rain on the higher elevations away from Lake Superior. Almost an inch of ice coated trees, power lines, and roadways. Tree damage was widespread, downed power lines caused power outages that lasted as long as three days and affected approximately 22,000 homes and businesses. Countless homes and vehicles sustained damage from trees and branches that collapsed under the weight of the ice 2/24/2001 Dodge, Fillmore, Southeast Minnesota was affected Houston, Mower, by another in a series of ice storms, Olmsted, Wabasha, which coated much of the area with Winona 1/4 inch of ice. Law enforcement officials reported icy roads contributing to several accidents, none of which were serious. 01/29/2001 Dodge, Fillmore, Freezing rain produced ice Houston, Mower, accumulations of 1/4 to 1/2 inch, Olmsted, Wabasha, prompting schools and several Winona Crow Wing, businesses to close. Northern Aitkin, Pine, Southern Aitkin, Southern Cass, Southern Lake, Southern St. Louis / Carlton
04/16/2000 Southwest Ice Storm - Freezing rain caused Minnesota significant ice accumulation on trees, power lines, and other exposed surfaces.
114 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 13 Notable Ice and Sleet Storms in Minnesota (1993-March 2007) Date Location Remarks 03/08/2000 Northwest and West Ice Storm - A thin band of freezing Central Minnesota precipitation fell. 04/03- Northwest Minnesota Ice Storm – Significant 4/1999 accumulations of ice brought down power lines and trees, causing hundreds of people to live without power for several days. 04/03- Northeast Minnesota Ice Storm - Ice accumulations up to 4/1999 ¼ of an inch, with a mixture of sleet, snow, and slush on the ground, made travel very hazardous. The weight of ice accumulations brought down trees and power lines and caused extensive damage to an 800-foot television tower. 04/01- Northeast Minnesota Ice Storm - Ice accumulations of ¼ 2/1999 to ½ inch occurred, which caused slippery roads and airport runways as well as widespread electrical outages. 02/01/1999 Northeast Minnesota Ice Storm - Freezing rain and freezing drizzle coated the area with as much as ¼ inch of ice. 01/04- South Central and Ice Storm - Freezing rain produced 5/1998 Southeast Minnesota ice accumulations ranging from ¼ to ¾ of an inch. Numerous car accidents were reported, one of which resulted in a fatality. 01/04/1998 Southeast Minnesota Ice Storm – Widespread ice accumulations of ¼ to ¾ of an inch caused several accidents. One injury was reported. 04/04- Northwest Minnesota Ice Storm – ½ to one inch of ice 6/1997 built up on exposed surfaces. Hundreds of power poles/ lines snapped, which cut power. Estimated damages were $18 million.
115 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 13 Notable Ice and Sleet Storms in Minnesota (1993-March 2007) Date Location Remarks 03/13/1997 Southwest Ice Storm - Freezing rain caused Minnesota ice accumulations, which disrupted travel and caused numerous accidents. 01/30/1997 Northwest Minnesota Ice Storm – ½ inch of freezing rain fell. 01/03- Southwest Ice Storm - Freezing rain caused 4/1997 Minnesota ice accumulation on trees, power lines, and roads. 01/01- Northeast Minnesota Ice Storm - Freezing rain left up to 2/1997 a ¼-inch of ice on area roads. Part of State Highway 61 was closed for several hours. 11/14- Southwest Ice Storm - An ice storm with 18/1996 Minnesota freezing rain caused widespread damage to power lines, poles, and trees. Thousands lost power. Many small farm structures were damaged. A 600-foot radio tower was toppled. Estimated property damages were $13 million. 11/14- Southern Minnesota Ice Storm - ½-inch thick ice was 15/1996 common over the area. 02/22- Northwest Minnesota Ice Storm - Freezing rain forced law 23/1996 enforcement officials to advise no travel. 01/17- Southwest Ice Storm - Freezing rain caused 18/1996 Minnesota severe icing, which resulted in damage to power lines. Damage from a building fire near Mountain Lake was aggravated by the inability of firefighters to respond quickly due to the icy roads. Estimated damages were $350,000.
116 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 13 Notable Ice and Sleet Storms in Minnesota (1993-March 2007) Date Location Remarks 01/17- East Central and Ice Storm - An extended period of 18/1996 Southern Minnesota rain and freezing rain resulted in significant icing conditions. Up to one-foot thick ice formed on roads. There were significant tree damage and power outages. More than 180,000 Minneapolis/St. Paul metro residents and the entire town of Lafayette were without power. 01/17- Southwest Ice Storm - Freezing rain caused 18/1996 Minnesota severe icing, which resulted in damage to power lines. Damage from a building fire near Mountain Lake was aggravated by the inability of firefighters to respond quickly due to the icy roads. Estimated damages were $350,000. 01/10/1996 Western Minnesota Ice Storm -Widespread freezing rain created a thin layer of ice. 12/13/1995 Southern Minnesota Glaze - Between ¼ and ½ inch of glaze occurred forcing some school closures. 04/11- West Central and Heavy Snow and Ice – A 12/1995 Southwest combination of heavy snow and ice Minnesota resulted in treacherous weather conditions. Widespread power outages prompted the Governor to declare a state of emergency. 04/10- Southwest Freezing Rain - Freezing rain and 11/1995 Minnesota freezing drizzle fell over a three- day period. Thousands of people were without power, some for two days or more. Estimated damages were $200,000.
117 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 13 Notable Ice and Sleet Storms in Minnesota (1993-March 2007) Date Location Remarks 11/27- Southwest, Central, Heavy Snow and Ice - The snow 28/1994 Northeast, and closed the Minneapolis-St. Paul Southeast International Airport. The storm Minnesota. contributed to at least three fatalities. A buildup of ice and snow, combined with strong winds, resulted in numerous downed power lines. 04/28- Entire State Heavy Snow and Ice - Heavy, wet 29/1994 snow, sleet, and freezing rain occurred. 03/23- Northern and Central Heavy Snow And Ice - A late March 24/1994 Minnesota snowstorm deposited a band of heavy snow, up to 10 inches, as well as a mixture of freezing rain, sleet, and snow, causing extremely slippery road conditions. 11/12- All but Southeast Ice Storm and Snow - A wintry 13/1993 Minnesota mixture of precipitation in the form of freezing rain, sleet, and snow with significant accumulation of ice. Five inches of snow fell on top of the ice making travel hazardous. 01/20/1993 Northern Minnesota Ice Storm - Freezing rain developed with at least half of an inch of ice coating area roads. Source: NOAA NCDC – http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms
Probability of Occurrence As shown in the table above, Minnesota has experienced approximately 49 notable blizzards from 1940 to March 3, 2007 or a period of about 67 years. That would translate into less than one blizzard per year. However, since 1993 there were 51 separate days of blizzards recorded through 2007 (a period of 14 years) which translates into about 3.6 blizzards per year in that time period. The state has experienced 40 significant snow and ice storms since 1993, a period of fourteen years. This translates to a recurrence interval of about three events per year. Although it is impossible to predict probabilities for this type of event over short periods of time, it is anticipated that the long term trend will remain relatively stable, meaning that the State
118 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis can probably expect one ice and ice/snow storms every year on average and one major blizzard per year.
Sources of Information Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1997. Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment – A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy. http://www.fema.gov/fhm/dl_mhira.shtm National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration - NCDC. Storm Events. http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms Minnesota Climatology Working Group - http://climate.umn.edu/snow_fence/Components/SFF/MeanSF/aveannual197 1-2000.htm# http://climate.umn.edu/doc/historical/winter_storms.htm National Weather Service http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/windchill/index.shtml
119 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Landslide Nature of the Hazard Landslides are the downward and outward movement of slopes. The term refers to various kinds of events, including mudflows, mudslides, debris flows, rock falls, rockslides, debris avalanches, debris slides, and earth flows. Landslides may include any combination of natural rock, soil, or artificial fill, and are classified by the type of movement and the type of material. The types of movement are slides, flows, lateral spreads, and falls and topples (FEMA, 1997).
Below is a brief discussion of the various types of landslide movements. A combination of two or more landslide movements is referred to as a complex movement. • Slides are downward displacements along one or more failure surfaces of soil or rock. The material may be a single intact mass or a number of pieces. The sliding may be rotational (turning about a point) or translational (movement roughly parallel to the failure surface). • Flows are a form of rapid mass movement by loose soils, rocks, and organic matter, together with air and water that form slurry flowing rapidly downhill. Flows are distinguished from slides by high water content and velocities that resemble those of viscous liquids. • Lateral spreads are large movements of rock, fine-grained soils (i.e., quick clays), or granular soils, distributed laterally. Liquefaction may occur in loose, granular soils, and can occur spontaneously due to changes in pore-water pressure or due to earthquake vibrations. • Falls and topples are masses of rocks or material that detach from a steep slope or cliff that free-fall, roll, or bounce. Movements typically are rapid to extremely rapid. Earthquakes commonly trigger rock falls.
Almost any steep or rugged terrain is susceptible to landslides under the right conditions. The most hazardous areas are steep slopes on ridges, hill, and mountains; incised stream channels; and slopes excavated for buildings and roads. Slide potentials are enhanced where slopes are destabilized by construction or river erosion. Road cuts and other altered or excavated areas are particularly susceptible to landslides and debris flows. Rainfall and seismic shaking by earthquakes or blasting can trigger landslides.
Debris flows (also referred to as mudslides) generally occur during intense rainfall on water saturated soil. They usually start on steep hillsides as soil slumps or slides that liquefy and accelerate to speeds as great as 35 miles per hour. Multiple debris flows may merge, gain volume, and travel long distances from their source, making areas down slope particularly hazardous. Surface runoff channels along roadways and below culverts are common sites of debris flows and other landslides (USGS, 2000).
120 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Landslides often occur together with other major natural disasters, such as the following, thereby exacerbating relief and reconstruction efforts: • Floods and landslides are closely related and both involve precipitation, runoff, and ground saturation that may be the result of severe thunderstorms or tropical storms. • Earthquakes may cause landslides ranging from rock falls and topples, to massive slides and flows. • Landslides into a reservoir may indirectly compromise dam safety or a landslide may even affect the dam itself. • Wildfires may remove vegetation from hillsides, significantly increasing runoff and landslide potential.
Landslide History in Minnesota The slumping along the Red River and its tributaries in northwestern Minnesota, such as the 2003 incident at Crookston, is—according a report from the Minnesota Geological Survey—”a naturally reoccurring process related to river erosion and the presence of slump-prone clay deposits (11). These conditions are present throughout the Red River Valley from Lake Winnipeg to south of Fargo.” The text quoted below comes from “Riverbank Collapse in Northwestern Minnesota: An Overview of Vulnerable Earth Materials,” by the University of Minnesota, Minnesota Geological Survey, which can be accessed at http://www.geo.umn.edu/mgs/crookston_slump/Slump.pdf
Photo by: Ken Harris, MGS. Source: http://talc.geo.umn.edu/mgs/
Bank-failure problems are caused by gravity acting on earth materials resting on a slope. In the case of failure, gravitational forces exceed the forces holding the sediment together. Failures can take several forms depending on 121 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis sediment type, sediment layering, and moisture content. Red River Valley bank failures are typically the result of slumping in which a block of earth moves downward along a curved failure plane, commonly with a backward rotation of the slump block. The fundamental reason why deposits in this area rupture and sag is because they consist of clay rather than sand, silt, or gravel.
Clays are present in northwestern Minnesota because the Red River Valley is the floor of ancient glacial Lake Agassiz, a large lake that formed at the edge of a retreating ice-age glacier (Clayton and Moran, 1982; Fenton and others, 1983). Both glacial and lake sediments were deposited and these clays are exposed along the rivers of the Red River Valley. Riverbanks particularly vulnerable to slumping are those that consist of an upper, relatively competent layer of sediment called the Sherack Formation resting on more easily deformable clays of the Huot and Brenna Formations.
Some of the most recent landslides occurred with the flooding in August 2007 in southeastern Minnesota, where soils were saturated from the prolonged and heavy rains.
Probability of Occurrence Landslide probability is highly site-specific, and cannot be accurately characterized on a statewide basis, except in the most general sense. The qualitative probability is rated Medium in Table 26, although the rating is intended only for general comparison to other hazards that are being considered in this stage of the planning process. Conditions that allow slumping will remain in the Red River Valley. Severity of damage, however, can be lessened if more detailed geological maps are created and restrictions on development in hazard-prone areas are observed.
Sources of Information Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1997. Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment: A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy. Harris, K.L. 2003. “Riverbank Collapse in Northwest Minnesota, an Overview of Vulnerable Earth Materials.” University of Minnesota, Minnesota Geological Survey, http://www.geo.umn.edu/mgs/crookston_slump/Slump.pdf
122 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Sinkholes & Land Subsidence Nature of the Hazard There are three types of potential problems associated with the existence or formation of sinkholes: subsidence, flooding, and pollution. The term subsidence commonly involves a gradual sinking, but it also refers to an instantaneous or catastrophic collapse. In Minnesota, limestone and dolostone underlie the southeastern corner of the state which includes the Minneapolis- St. Paul Metropolitan Area. Similar rocks are also found deep beneath the surface in northwestern Minnesota. In southeastern Minnesota, carbonate rocks from the Cedar Valley Group down through the bottom of the Prairie du Chien Group, contain caves and other karst features. Because most of Minnesota is buried beneath a thick cover of glacial sediments, the karst landscape may not be apparent. In parts of southeastern Minnesota, erosion has removed most of this glacial cover and exposed the carbonate bedrock. Counties known for karst features include parts of Dakota, Rice, Dodge, and Mower, and most of Goodhue, Olmstead, Winona, Wabasha, Houston, and Fillmore. Fillmore County has more caves, sinkholes, and disappearing streams than all other Minnesota counties combined.
The change in the local environment affecting the soil mass causing subsidence and sinkholes collapse is called “triggering mechanism”. Water is the main factor affecting the local environment that causes subsidence. The main triggering mechanisms for subsidence are: • Water level decline • Changes in groundwater flow, Table 14: Water Level Decline • Increased loading, and • Deterioration (abandoned coalmines)
Water level decline can happen naturally or be human induced. Main factors in water decline are: • Pumping of water from wells, • Localized drainage from construction, • Dewatering, and • Drought
Source: Highway Department
Changes in the groundwater flow include an increase in the velocity of groundwater movement, increase in the frequency of water table fluctuations, and increased or reduced recharge.
123 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Increased loading causes pressure in the soil leading to failure of underground cavities and spaces. Vibrations caused by an earthquake, vibrating machinery and blasting, can cause structural collapse followed by surface settlement.
Sinkholes and subsidence are also common in those areas of the state underlain by old abandoned coal and iron mines. Pillows left for roof support in the mines generally deteriorate over time and eventually collapse, removing roof support. This is particularly a problem where mines underlie more recently developed residential areas and roads.
In Minnesota, the primary natural causes of land subsidence are karst landforms. Karst landforms develop on or in limestone, dolomite, or gypsum by dissolution and are characterized by the presence of features such as sinkholes, underground (or internal) drainage through solution-enlarged fractures (joints), and caves. Karst landforms can be hazardous because of the sinkholes that form there and for the ease with which pollutants can infiltrate into the water supply. Figure 14 illustrates the Karst areas in Minnesota.
Source: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Geological Survey
124 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Sinkhole and Land Subsidence History in Minnesota In northeastern Minnesota, sinkholes developed close to the town of Askov’s sewage treatment ponds. The sinkholes were discovered when the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency began the review process for upgrading the forty year old sewage treatment ponds.
Probability of Occurrence Sinkhole probability is highly site-specific, and cannot be accurately characterized on a statewide basis, except in the most general sense. The qualitative probability is rated Medium in Table 28 although the rating is intended only for general comparison to other hazards that are being considered in this stage of the planning process.
Sources of Information Minnesota Geological Survey, University of Minnesota - http://www.winona.edu/geology/MRW/MNglance/Mn_Karst.pdf University of Minnesota, Minnesota Geological Survey. http://www.geo.umn.edu/mgs/indx.html#toppg
125 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Earthquake Nature of the Hazard An earthquake is “…a sudden motion or trembling caused by an abrupt release of accumulated strain in the tectonic plates that comprise the earth’s crust.” These rigid plates, known as tectonic plates, are some 50 to 60 miles in thickness and move slowly and continuously over the earth’s interior. The plates meet along their edges, where they move away, past or under each other at rates varying from less than a fraction of an inch up to five inches per year. While this sounds small, at a rate of two inches per year, a distance of 30 miles would be covered in approximately one million years (FEMA, 1997).
The tectonic plates continually bump, slide, catch, and hold as they move past each other which causes stress to accumulate along faults. When this stress exceeds the elastic limit of the rock, an earthquake occurs, immediately causing sudden ground motion and seismic activity. Secondary hazards may also occur, such as surface faulting, sinkholes, and landslides. While the majority of earthquakes occur near the edges of the tectonic plates, earthquakes may also occur at the interior of plates.
The vibration or shaking of the ground during an earthquake is described by ground motion. The severity of ground motion generally increases with the amount of energy released and decreases with distance from the fault or epicenter of the earthquake. Ground motion causes waves in the earth’s interior, also known as seismic waves, and along the earth’s surface, known as surface waves. The following are the two kinds of seismic waves:
• P (primary) waves are longitudinal or compressional waves similar in character to sound waves that cause back-and-forth oscillation along the direction of travel (vertical motion), with particle motion in the same direction as wave travel. They move through the earth at approximately 15,000 mph. • S (secondary) waves, also known as shear waves, are slower than P waves and cause structures to vibrate from side-to-side (horizontal motion) due to particle motion at right-angles to the direction of wave travel. Unreinforced buildings are more easily damaged by S waves.
There are also two kinds of surface waves, Raleigh waves and Love waves. These waves travel more slowly and typically are significantly less damaging than seismic waves.
Seismic activity is commonly described in terms of magnitude and intensity. Magnitude (M) describes the total energy released and intensity (I) subjectively describes the effects at a particular location. Although an
126 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis earthquake has only one magnitude, its intensity varies by location. Magnitude is the measure of the amplitude of the seismic wave and is expressed by the Richter scale. The Richter scale is a logarithmic measurement, where an increase in the scale by one whole number represents a tenfold increase in measured amplitude of the earthquake. Intensity is a measure of the strength of the shock at a particular location and is expressed by the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale.
Another way of expressing an earthquake’s severity is to compare its acceleration to the normal acceleration due to gravity. If an object is dropped while standing on the surface of the earth (ignoring wind resistance), it will fall towards earth and accelerate faster and faster until reaching terminal velocity. The acceleration due to gravity is often called “g” and is equal to 9.8 meters per second squared (980 cm/sec/sec). This means that every second something falls towards earth, its velocity increases by 9.8 meters per second. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) measures the rate of change of motion relative to the rate of acceleration due to gravity. For example, acceleration of the ground surface of 244 cm/sec/sec equals a PGA of 25.0 percent.
It is possible to approximate the relationship between PGA, the Richter scale, and the MMI, as shown in Table 16. The relationships are, at best, approximate, and also depend upon such specifics as the distance from the epicenter and depth of the epicenter. An earthquake with 10.0 percent PGA would roughly correspond to an MMI intensity of V or VI, described as being felt by everyone, overturning unstable objects, or moving heavy furniture.
Table 15 Earthquake PGA, Magnitude and Intensity Comparison PGA Magnitude Intensity Description (MMI) (%g) (Richter) (MMI) <0.17 1.0 - 3.0 I I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions. 0.17 - 3.0 - 3.9 II – III II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, 1.4 especially on upper floors of buildings.
III. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated.
127 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 15 Earthquake PGA, Magnitude and Intensity Comparison PGA Magnitude Intensity Description (MMI) (%g) (Richter) (MMI) 1.4 - 4.0 - 4.9 IV – V IV. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few 9.2 during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rock noticeably.
V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. 9.2 - 5.0 - 5.9 VI – VII VI. Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy 34 furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight.
VII. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. 34 - 6.0 - 6.9 VII – IX VIII. Damage slight in specially designed 124 structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned.
IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.
128 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 15 Earthquake PGA, Magnitude and Intensity Comparison PGA Magnitude Intensity Description (MMI) (%g) (Richter) (MMI) >124 7.0 and VIII or X. Some well-built wooden structures higher higher destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent.
XI. Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly.
XII. Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown into the air. Source: Wald, Quitoriano, Heaton, and Kanamori, 1999.
Earthquake-related ground failure, due to liquefaction, is a common potential hazard from strong earthquakes in the central and eastern United States. Liquefaction occurs when seismic waves pass through saturated granular soil, distorting its granular structure, and causing some of the empty spaces between granules to collapse. Pore-water pressure may also increase sufficiently to cause the soil to behave like a fluid (rather than a soil) for a brief period and causing deformations. Liquefaction causes lateral spreads (horizontal movement commonly 10-15 feet, but up to 100 feet), flow failures (massive flows of soil, typically hundreds of feet, but up to 12 miles), and loss of bearing strength (soil deformations causing structures to settle or tip). Sands blows were common following major New Madrid earthquakes in the central United States.
Earthquake History in Minnesota Minnesota has one of the lowest occurrence levels of earthquakes in the United States, but a total of 19 small to moderate earthquakes have been documented since 1860. Minnesota earthquakes, like those elsewhere in the Midwest, are attributed to minor reactivation of ancient faults in response to modern stresses. Although the two earliest earthquakes may have had magnitudes of 4.7 to 5.0, the 1917 Staples and 1975 Morris earthquakes with magnitudes of 4.3 and 4.6 to 4.8, respectively, are the largest that are well documented. Table 17 shows the history of earthquakes in Minnesota. The strongest earthquake in recent record is a 4.7-magnitude quake that occurred near Morris, Minnesota in 1975.
129 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 16 Earthquake History of Minnesota Epicenter Month-Day-Year Maximum Magnitud (nearest town) Intensity e Rosholt 10-20-1995 N/¨ 3.7 Granite Falls 02-09-1994 V 3.1 Dumont 06-04-1993 V-VI 4.1 Walker 09-27-1982 II 2.0 Cottage Grove 04-24-1981 III-IV 3.6 Nisswa 07-26-1979 III 1.0 Rush City 05-14-1979 N/¨ 0.1 Evergreen 04-16-1979 N/¨ 3.1 Milaca 03-05-1979 N/¨ 1.0 Morris 07-09-1975 VI 4.7 Pipestone 09-28-1964 N/¨ 3.4 Alexandria 02-15-1950 V 3.6 Detroit Lakes 01-28-1939 IV 3.9 Bowstring 12-23-1928 IV 3.8 Staples 09-03-1917 VI-VII 4.3 Red Lake 02-06-1917 V 3.8 New Ulm 02-12-1881 VI 3.0-4.0 St. Vincent 12-28-1880 II-IV 3.6 New Prague 12-16-1860 VI 4.7 Long Prairie (Date unknown) VI-VII 5.0 1860-61 Source: USGS
On November 15, 1877, two earthquakes 45 minutes apart occurred in eastern Nebraska. The shocks caused damage at North Platte and Columbus, Nebraska and at Sioux City, Iowa. The felt zone encompassed an elliptical area roughly 600 by 300 miles, including the southwestern part of Minnesota.
A strong earthquake centered in Illinois occurred on May 26, 1909, affecting an area of approximately 500,000 square miles, including parts of Minnesota. Intensity VII effects were noted over a considerable area from Bloomington, Illinois to Platteville, Wisconsin. Many chimneys fell at Aurora, Illinois. Although details are lacking, this shock was probably felt at intensity IV or V in southeastern Minnesota.
On September 3, 1917, the shock was also felt at Brainerd, about 30 miles east of Staples. Several tremors located outside of Minnesota have been felt within the State's borders.
130 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis A strong earthquake on February 28, 1925, centered in the St. Lawrence River region near La Malbaie, Quebec, Canada, was felt widely in the Northeastern United States. The shock was lightly felt at Minneapolis.
Ten years later, on November 1, 1935, another strong earthquake occurred near Timiskaming, Canada and was felt over an area of the United States estimated at one million square miles. This tremor was also lightly felt at Minneapolis.
Although less dramatic than the Staples or Morris events, the 1993 Dumont earthquake and the 1994 Granite Falls earthquake are more typical of those that occur in Minnesota. The magnitude 4.1 Dumont earthquake was felt over 69,600 square kilometers (about 27,000 square miles), and was associated with intensity V-VI near the epicenter. The shaking near the epicenter was accompanied by a loud, explosive noise that alarmed many people, but no injuries or serious damage occurred. In contrast to the Dumont event, the much weaker Granite Falls earthquake (magnitude 3.1) was felt over only about 11,600 square kilometers (about 4,400 square miles), and although intensity V may have occurred locally near the epicenter, most reported intensities were III to IV.
Probability of Occurrence Probabilistic ground motion maps are typically used to assess the magnitude and frequency of seismic events. These maps measure the probability of exceeding a certain ground motion, expressed as peak ground acceleration (PGA), over a specified period of years. The magnitudes of earthquakes are generally measured using the Richter scale. The severity of earthquakes is site specific, and is influenced by proximity to the earthquake epicenter and soil type, among other factors.
According to the Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS), Minnesota has one of the lowest occurrence levels of earthquakes in the United States; only 19 small to moderate earthquakes have been documented since 1860. MGS further notes that although weak to moderate earthquakes do occur occasionally in Minnesota, a severe earthquake is very unlikely. Average recurrence rates for Minnesota earthquakes have been estimated by MGS (Mooney, 1979) as follows: Magnitude 4.0 - 10 years Magnitude 4.5 - 30 years Magnitude 5.0 - 89 years Magnitude 5.5 - 266 years
The absence of major earthquakes, together with the infrequency of earthquakes in general, implies a low risk level for Minnesota. (This statement, however, must be tempered in light of the brief span of historical 131 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis record.) An earthquake history for the state has significant implications for public policy.
For example, the location and design of nuclear power plants must be guided by an assessment of the probability for a damaging earthquake. Minnesota has two nuclear plants in operation, at Prairie Island (near Red Wing) and at Monticello. The Monticello plant lies within the probable felt areas of three Minnesota earthquakes. The Prairie Island plant probably lies within the felt area of one Minnesota earthquake, as well as within the felt areas of several earthquakes with epicenters outside of Minnesota.
Building construction codes present another aspect of public policy dependent upon earthquake history. Certain standards of construction must be met depending upon earthquake zoning classification. The Uniform Building Code of the International Conference of Building Officials assigns every location in the United States to a four-grade Seismic Risk Zone (0 = least risk; 3 = greatest risk); Minnesota rates in Seismic Risk Zone 0. Map 7 shows peak acceleration with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years.
Current data and knowledge indicates that, although weak to moderate earthquakes do occur occasionally in Minnesota, a severe earthquake is very unlikely. Although a zero probability of a damaging earthquake occurring in the time span of a human life cannot be assigned, the threat is very small compared to other natural hazards such as flooding and tornadoes. 132 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Sources of Information Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1997. Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment – A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy. http://www.fema.gov/fhm/dl_mhira.shtm Minnesota Public Safety, Homeland Security Emergency Management, 2003. Minnesota State All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. University of Memphis Center for Earthquake Information. Available from the World Wide Web at: http://www.ceri.memphis.edu/index.shtml USGS. Earthquake Hazards Program: Earthquake History of Minnesota. Available from the World Wide Web at: http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/states/minnesota/minnesota_history.html V.W. Chandler. 1994. Minnesota at a Glance: Earthquakes in Minnesota. University of Minnesota. Available from the World Wide Web at: http://www.winona.msus.edu/geology/MRW/MNglance/Mn_Earthquake.pdf Wald, David J., Vincent Quitoriano, Thomas H. Heaton, and Hiroo Kanamori. 1999. “Relationship between Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Motion, and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California” in Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 15, No. 3, 557-564. http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/shake/pubs/regress/regress.html
133 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Drought Nature of the Hazard Drought is a normal part of virtually every climate on the planet, including areas of both high and low normal rainfall. Drought is the result of a natural decline in the expected precipitation over an extended period of time, typically one or more seasons in length. The severity of drought can be aggravated by other climatic factors, such as prolonged high winds and low relative humidity (FEMA, 1997). Drought is a complex natural hazard which is reflected in the following four definitions commonly used to describe it: • Meteorological drought is defined solely on the degree of dryness, expressed as a departure of actual precipitation from an expected average or normal amount based on monthly, seasonal, or annual time scales. • Hydrological drought is related to the effects of precipitation shortfalls on streamflows and reservoir, lake, and groundwater levels. • Agricultural drought is defined principally in terms of soil moisture deficiencies relative to water demands of plant life, usually crops. • Socioeconomic drought associates the supply and demand of economic goods or services with elements of meteorological, hydrologic, and agricultural drought. Socioeconomic drought occurs when the demand for water exceeds the supply as a result of weather-related supply shortfall. They may also be called a water management drought.
A drought’s severity depends on numerous factors, including duration, intensity, and geographic extent as well as regional water supply demands by humans and vegetation. Due to its multi-dimensional nature, drought is difficult to define in exact terms and also poses difficulties in terms of comprehensive risk assessments.
Drought differs from other natural hazards in three ways. First, the onset and end of a drought are difficult to determine due to the slow accumulation and lingering of effects of an event after its apparent end. Second, the lack of an exact and universally accepted definition adds to the confusion of its existence and severity. Third, in contrast with other natural hazards, the impact of drought is less obvious and may be spread over a larger geographic area. These characteristics have hindered the preparation of drought contingency or mitigation plans by many governments. Droughts may cause a shortage of water for human and industrial consumption, hydroelectric power, recreation, and navigation. Water quality may also decline and the number and severity of wildfires may increase. Severe droughts may result in the loss of agricultural crops and forest products, undernourished wildlife and livestock, lower land values, and higher unemployment.
134 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Drought History in Minnesota During the 1987-1989 drought, a State Drought Task Force was convened by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), 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.
In addition to the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), Division of Waters uses actual precipitation, streamflow, lake level, ground water level, and water use data to assess the status of hydrologic conditions in Minnesota. On a weekly basis, the Division of Waters produces maps of stream flow, precipitation, and seasonal departures from normal. A map of normal annual precipitation for the State follows.
Table 17 Minnesota Drought History Month/ Location Remarks Year August 7, Aitkin, Anoka, Benton, Brown, USDA designated 24 counties 2007 Carlton, Cass, Cook, Crow as primary natural disaster Wing, Douglas, Hennepin, areas because of drought that Hubbard, Itasca, Kanabec, occurred from May 1, 2007 and Lake, Mille Lacs, Morrison, continuing. Pipestone, Pope, Sherburne, St. Louis, Swift, Todd, Wadena, Wright July 2006- Roseau, Lake of the Woods, Warmer than normal September Marshall, Polk, Mahnomen, temperatures and a lack of rain 2007 Becker, Beltrami, Clearwater, both contributed to a D2 Pennington, Red Lake, drought designation (per the Hubbard, Kittson, Norman, U.S. Drought Monitor) across Otter Tail, Koochiching, Itasca, portions of northwest and west Carlton, Cass, Clay, Cook, central Minnesota on July 18th. Crow Wing, Aitkin, Lake, Pine, By July 25th, the designation St. Louis, and Wadena was upgraded to a D3 (extreme Counties drought). The dry trend started in May, but became much worse by June and July. Drought conditions continue in the fall of 2007.
135 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 17 Minnesota Drought History Month/ Location Remarks Year Nov. 1999- Cottonwood, Jackson, Lincoln, Dry weather that began in April 2000 Lyon, Murray, Nobles, August 1999 continued through Pipestone and Rock Counties spring 2000. Water levels continued to fall slowly in wetlands, streams and lakes. Above normal temperatures contributed to further drying. One noticeable manifestation of the dry conditions was a number of grass fires. Dry surface and soil conditions remained pronounced. 1987-1989 Statewide Established new “average low precipitation” and “average high temperature” records. Farmers lost most, if not all, of the year’s crop. Drought also affected power production, the forest products industry, public water supplies and fish and wildlife dependent on adequate surface water. Mississippi River flow levels threatened to drop below the Minneapolis Water Works intake pipes. 1976-1977 Statewide Began in 1974 in parts of south-central and western MN. Most severely affected areas were the Otter Tail and Lac Qui Parle River basins. Dry conditions caused lower 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.
136 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 17 Minnesota Drought History Month/ Location Remarks Year 1954-1961 Extreme NE corner of state Intensity and duration differed locally 1936 Northwest Intensity and duration differed locally 1934 Northeast Intensity and duration differed locally 1931-1942 Statewide Intensity and duration differed locally 1911-1914 Statewide Intensity and duration differed locally
For a three-month period from mid-July through mid-October 2003, a persistent weather pattern resulted in extremely dry weather across Minnesota. Few widespread rain events moved through the state during the interval, and precipitation totals were less than six inches across much of Minnesota. During this three month period, 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.
137 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Probability of Occurrence The future incidence of drought is highly unpredictable, and may also be localized, making it difficult to determine probability with any accuracy. Interpreting what is “too dry” or what is “too long” is difficult. What we do know is that when a serious hydrologic imbalance occurs in Minnesota, soil moisture reserves, groundwater supplies, lake levels, and stream flows are negatively influenced. Water-dependent industries including agriculture, public utilities, forestry, and tourism are profoundly affected. Because long-term (months/years) climate variations are unpredictable, drought is largely unpredictable. The probability ranking for drought is High, and is ranked as having Low mitigation potential.
138 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Sources of Information Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1997. Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment – A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy. http://www.fema.gov/fhm/dl_mhira.shtm NOAA, National Climatic Data Center. Storm Events. Available from the World Wide Web at: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storm Academic Climatology - University of Minnesota. Available from the World Wide Web at: http://climate.umn.edu/climatology.htm Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Drought. Available from the World Wide Web at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/drought/index.html http://climate.umn.edu/doc/journal/drought_information_resources.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/ann/drought- summary.html
139 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis Wildfire Nature of the Hazard A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, exposing and possibly consuming structures. They often begin unnoticed, spread quickly, and are usually signaled by dense smoke that may fill the area for miles around. Wildfires can be human-caused through acts such as arson or campfires, or can be caused by natural events such as lightning. Wildfires can be categorized into three types: • Wildland fires are fueled primarily by natural vegetation in grasslands, brush lands and forests. Firestorms occur during extreme weather (e.g., high temperatures, low humidity, and high winds) with such intensity that fire suppression is virtually impossible. These events typically burn until the conditions change or the fuel is exhausted. • Interface or intermix fires occur in areas where both vegetation and structures provide fuel. These are also referred to as wildland/urban interface fires. • Firestorms occur during extreme weather (e.g., high temperatures, low humidity, and high winds) with such intensity that fire suppression is virtually impossible. These events typically burn until the conditions change or the fuel is exhausted. • Prescribed fires and prescribed natural fires are intentionally set or natural fires that are allowed to burn for beneficial purposes.
The following factors contribute significantly to wildfire behavior: • Topography: As slope increases, that is the divergence of the terrain from horizontal, the rate of wildfire spread increases. South facing slopes are also subject to greater solar radiation, making them drier and thereby intensifying wildfire behavior. However, ridgetops may mark the end of wildfire spread, since fire spreads more slowly or may even be unable to spread downhill. • Fuel: Size class, moisture content and volume are the methods of classifying fuel, with volume also referred to as fuel loading (measured in tons of vegetative material per acre). As fuel loading increases, fire intensity (energy released) and flame length increase, making fire suppression more difficult. Fuels with low moisture content ignite easier that wet fuels. The fuel’s continuity is also an important factor, both horizontally and vertically. • Weather: The most variable factor affecting wildfire behavior is weather. Important weather variables are temperature, humidity, wind, and lightning. Weather events ranging in scale from localized thunderstorms to large fronts can have major effects on wildfire occurrence and behavior. Extreme weather, such as high temperatures and low humidity, can lead to extreme wildfire activity. By contrast,
140 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis cooling and higher humidity often signals reduced wildfire occurrence and easier containment.
If not promptly controlled, wildfires may grow into an emergency or disaster. Even small fires can threaten lives, resources, and destroy improved properties. It is also important to note that in addition to affecting people, wildfires may severely affect livestock and pets. Such events may require the emergency watering/feeding, shelter, evacuation, and even burying of animals.
The indirect effects of wildfires can also be catastrophic. In addition to stripping the land of vegetation and destroying forest resources, large, intense fires can harm the soil and waterways. Soil exposed to intense heat may lose its capability to absorb moisture and support life. Exposed soils erode quickly and enhance siltation of rivers and streams thereby enhancing flood potential, harming aquatic life and degrading water quality. Lands stripped of vegetation are also subject to increased landslide hazards.
Wildfires can occur at any time of day and during any month of the year, , however, the greatest wildland fire activity usually occurs from snow melt in March or April, through green up in late May or early June.. Careless fire use, arson, equipment use and weather conditions such as wind, low humidity, and lack of precipitation are the chief factors determining the number of fires and acreage burned. Generally, fires are more likely when vegetation is dormant or after extended drought periods.
Wildland fires are capable of causing significant injury, death, and damage to property. A recent inventory showed that 46% of the state (16 million acres) is covered with forests. The potential for property damage from fire increases each year as more recreational properties are developed on wooded land and increased numbers of people use these areas. Fires can extensively impact the economy of an affected area, especially the logging, recreation and tourism industries, upon which many northern counties depend. There can be major direct costs associated with timber salvage and the restoration of the burned area. Burned woodlands and grasslands may need to be replanted quickly to prevent the possibility of widespread soil erosion, landslides, mudflows, and floods which could compound the damage.
It must be noted that in the residential setting the leading causes of wildland fires are debris burning, arson, and equipment use. However, as the urban- rural interface in Minnesota increases, the fire ignition sources become less clear. Urban fires can result from wildland fires in the wildland urban interface where wildland fires usually result from human rather than natural causes. Only two percent of the Minnesota wildfires are a result of lightning compared
141 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis to 85 percent that result from human causes. Nationally, lightning causes 16% of the wildland fires.
The potential for loss of human life in wildfires is a concern, especially in wildland urban interface zones. Between 1985 and 2005, 159 people have been injured and 8 people killed in wildland fires. Wildfires can also have a dramatic and sometimes permanent impact on wildlife in the area of the fire.
For outside and other fires, vulnerabilities are dependent upon fuel sources and availability. As for wildfire, one major example of property wildfire vulnerabilities is the area impacted by the July 4, 1999 massive windstorm. This windstorm raked northeastern Minnesota with straight-line winds exceeding 90 miles per hour. In less than 30 minutes, the storm cut an unbroken fuel pathway (10 - 12 miles long and 40 miles wide) through the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) in the Superior National Forest, along the Gunflint Trail outside Grand Marais, with an estimated 80 - 120 tons of fuel per acre on over 477,000 acres. Much of this land cannot be legally, cost-effectively, or safely salvaged or cleared. Downed trees and outbreaks of insects and disease previous to the blowdown storm of July 4, 1999 have significantly increased the fire risk in the area. The task of mitigating fire risk and managing any fires that may occur is complicated by: the remoteness and inaccessibility of the area; the number of government entities that have responsibility for land within the area; the extent of the area affected; constraints on the type of activity that can take place within the BWCAW; and the large number of permanent and seasonal residents and tourists that may be affected by a fire in the area. The size and severity of the “Ham Lake” and “Cavity Lake” fires (Table 19) can be attributed to the unique fuel conditions in that part of the state. Following the 1999 blowdown, several mitigation projects occurred in the affected area including: construction of helipads and safety zones, development of an evacuation plan for the Gunflint Trail, fuel reduction projects, development of the Northeastern Minnesota Wildfire Integrated Response Plan, Community Wildfire Protection Plans, Firewise programs, and defensible space and sprinkler projects around structures.
Wildfire History in Minnesota The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) annually responds to an average of 1,710 fires that burn 44,735 acres. The DNR is the lead state agency for wildland fire prevention and response. However, other agencies also respond to fires in designated protection areas including local fire departments and Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. Data referenced in this plan is based on DNR records spanning 1985 through 2005. During those years there were 34,213 fires totaling 894,699 acres. In those
142 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis fires 2,267 outbuildings were damaged and 661 outbuildings were destroyed, 70 residences were damaged and 92 residences were destroyed.
The following table has information on record fires in Minnesota from 1976- 2007.
Table 18 Single Fires of Record from 1976-2007 Year Event 2007 On the morning of May 5 a human caused wildfire started northwest of Ham Lake along the Gunflint Trail in northeastern Minnesota, about 49 miles northwest of Grand Marais. The “Ham Lake Fire,” which was in the U.S. Forest Service protection area, was contained to 36,443 acres on the United States side and claimed an additional 39,408 acres in Canada. Firefighting costs for the Superior National Forest’s portion of the fire were approximately $10 million. In Minnesota, a total of 140 structures were destroyed, including 15 year-round residences, 60 seasonal structures and several commercial businesses, valued at $ 10 million. Approximately 759 structures (valued at approximately $42 million) were protected through the efforts of firefighters, Firewise projects and past mitigation projects. Mitigation projects included creation of helipads and safety zones, fuel reduction projects, creating defensible space, and outdoor sprinkler systems for structures. (Since this fire was not in MN DNR protection areas, it was not included in the charts that follow.) 2006 Lightning caused a wildfire to breakout two miles south of Seagull Lake on the Gunflint Trail on U.S. Forest Service protected land in the Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW). The fire was eventually called the "Cavity Lake Fire" and at the time was the largest fire in the area in one hundred years. The fire spread quickly when 50 mph down drafts from a passing thunderstorm fanned the fire, eventually consumed 31,830 acres. Many entry points and portages in the BWCAW were closed while fire suppression efforts were made. (Since this fire was not in MN DNR protection areas, it was not included in the charts that follow.) 2003 A wildfire burned 300 acres of grassland and also burned some small sheds in Windom. The fire came close to five homesteads, burning to less than 20 yards from two of them. One home had smoke damage from the fire. Dry conditions and winds gusting to 40 mph allowed the fire to advance rapidly before it was brought under control.
143 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
Table 18 Single Fires of Record from 1976-2007 Year Event 2000 Carlos Edge fire burned 8,000 acres, destroyed over 4 structures, and endangered the towns of Linnwood, Stacy and Wyoming. 1980 Motley fire burned 6,800 acres, destroyed over 20 structures, and endangered the towns of Motley and Philbrook. 1977 Wildland fires destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres of forestland and millions of dollars in homes and improved property. Suppression costs that year totaled around $25 million. 1976 Badoura fire burned 23,000 acres and a dozen buildings in just six hours.
144 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
The following figure shows acres burned by wildfire from the period 1976 to 2006. 1977 has the highest number of acres burned at 180,000.
145 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis
146 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis The figure illustrates the total number of fires by year for the period 1976 to 2006. In 1976 there were almost 3,500 wildfires in Minnesota. From 1976- 2006 there was an average of over 1,500 wildfires per year.
The following figure shows the average wildfires by month from 1985-2005 and also for 2006. Most wildfires occur in April averaging over 800 wildfires, followed by May with about 350 wildfires
From 1987 to 2006, the average cause of wildfires in Minnesota, according to the Department of Natural Resources was as follows:
38% Debris 28% Arson 10% Miscellaneous 8% Equipment 5% Railroad 3% Children 3% Campfires 3% Smoking 2% Lightning
See http://www.usfa.fema.gov/nfdc/ for national trends and other general Minnesota information on this hazard.
147 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08
Fires on Federally protected lands and some fires suppressed by fire departments are not included in these statistics.
148 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Probability of Occurrence Like most weather-related phenomena, wildfire probability cannot be accurately predicted in the short-term. It is reasonable to assume that wildfire incidence will remain stable over the long-term, bearing in mind that weather patterns (in particular periods of drought and very low humidity); fuel load, insect infestations and human behavior can all greatly influence near-term probabilities. The qualitative probability is rated High in Section 5.4.1, although the rating is only intended for general comparison to other hazards that are being considered for this stage of the planning process.
Refer to http://www.dps.state.mn.us/fmarshal/firemfirs.html for current vulnerability and the current edition of Fire in Minnesota. Refer to the Wildfire Information Center at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/fire/ to obtain current data on wildfire conditions and burning restrictions throughout the state.
Sources of Information Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1997. Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment – A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy. http://www.fema.gov/fhm/dl_mhira.shtm. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Wildfire Information Center. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/fire/index.html National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration (NCDC). Storm Events. http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi- win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms Mitigation Case Studies: Sprinklers and Firewise: A Winning Combination; Ham Lake Fire, Gunflint Trail, Minnesota, May 2007 USFS Ham Lake Fact Sheet, June 26, 2007
149 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Extreme Temperatures (Heat) Nature of the Hazard Extreme summer heat is the combination of very high temperatures and exceptionally humid conditions. If such conditions persist for an extended period of time, it is called a heat wave (FEMA, 1997). Heat stress can be indexed by combining the effects of temperature and humidity, as shown in the following table. The index estimates the relationship between dry bulb temperatures (at different humidity) and the skin’s resistance to heat and moisture transfer. The higher the temperature or humidity, the higher the apparent temperature. The major human risks associated with extreme heat are as follows: • Heatstroke: Considered a medical emergency, heatstroke is often fatal. It occurs when the body’s responses to heat stress are insufficient to prevent a substantial rise in the body’s core temperature. While no standard diagnosis exists, a medical heatstroke condition is usually diagnosed when the body’s temperature exceeds 105°F due to environmental temperatures. Rapid cooling is necessary to prevent death, with an average fatality rate of 15 percent even with treatment. • Heat Exhaustion: While much less serious than heatstroke, heat exhaustion victims may complain of dizziness, weakness, or fatigue. Body temperatures may be normal or slightly to moderately elevated. The prognosis is usually good with fluid treatment. • Heat Syncope: This refers to sudden loss of consciousness and is typically associated with people exercising who are not acclimated to warm temperatures. Causes little or no harm to the individual. • Heat Cramps: May occur in people unaccustomed to exercising in the heat and generally ceases to be a problem after acclimatization.
In addition to affecting people, severe heat places significant stress on plants and animals. The effects of severe heat on agricultural products, such as cotton, may include reduced yields and even loss of crops (Brown and Zeiher, 1997). Similarly, cows may become overheated, leading to reduced milk production and other problems. (Garcia, September 2002).
150 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08
Table 19 Heat Index and Disorders Apparent Danger Heat Disorders Temperatures Category (°F) IV Extreme Heatstroke or sunstroke >130 Danger imminent. III Danger Sunstroke, heat cramps, or heat 105-130 exhaustion likely; heat stroke possible with prolonged exposure and physical activity. II Extreme Sunstroke, heat cramps, and 90-105 Caution heat exhaustion possible with prolonged exposure and physical activity. I Caution Fatigue possible with prolonged 89-90 exposure and physical activity. Source: FEMA, 1997; NWS, 1997.
Extreme Temperatures History in Minnesota Extreme temperature events (both heat and cold) have caused 19 deaths and $2.5 million in damages in Minnesota from 1995-2007. This section will focus on extreme heat as most of the deaths (15) and property damage in Minnesota have been attributable to extreme heat. In 1995, approximately $2 million in property damage and 2 deaths were reported from high temperatures. Dewpoints in the 70s to around 80 degrees combined with temperatures in the middle 90s to low 100s to produce heat indices in the 105 to 120 degree range. The following table shows extreme heat events in Minnesota.
151 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08
Table 20 Extreme Heat History in MN 1976-2007 Year Location Comment 2005 Hennepin High temperatures at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport remained at or above 90 degrees for 9 consecutive days between July 9th and 17th. This extended period of hot weather set a record for the 3rd longest streak of at or above 90 degree highs since 1891 in the Twin Cities. On July 12th, a laborer putting up a fence in Arden Hills in Ramsey County suffered severe heatstroke. He collapsed at the work site and was rushed to a local hospital. His body temperature reached 108.8 degrees, but miraculously he survived after receiving intensive medical attention 2001 St. Louis and Carlton Counties Five people died in a two-day heat wave, during which high temperatures of 91 degrees and heat indexes of 101 were reached. The victims, all in the Duluth area, included 4 males and 1 female, ranging in age from 47 to 73. All were found in rooms without air conditioning and with poor ventilation. The St. Louis County pathologist determined that the deaths were directly attributable to the heat.
152 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08
Table 20 Extreme Heat History in MN 1976-2007 Year Location Comment 2001 Anoka, Benton, Blue Earth, An extensive heat wave Brown, Carver, Chippewa, persisted for five days (August Chisago, Dakota, Douglas, 4-8) and resulted in five Faribault, Freeborn, Goodhue, fatalities in Minneapolis and its Hennepin, Isanti, Kanabec, suburbs. All deaths occurred in Kandiyohi, Lac Qui Parle, Le Hennepin County and were Sueur, Martin, McLeod, determined by the county Meeker, Mille Lacs, Morrison, medical examiner. Nicollet, Pope, Ramsey, Redwood, Renville, Rice, Scott, Sherburne, Sibley, Stearns, Steele, Stevens, Swift, Todd, Waseca, Washington, Watonwan, Wright, Yellow Medicine 2001 Anoka, Benton, Blue Earth, Excessive heat began on July Brown, Carver, Chippewa, 30 and ended the morning of Chisago, Dakota, Douglas, August 1 when showers and Faribault, Freeborn, Goodhue, thunderstorms swept through Hennepin, Isanti, Kanabec, the area, bringing lower Kandiyohi, Lac Qui Parle, Le temperatures and dewpoints. Sueur, Martin, McLeod, Until the storms arrived, Meeker, Mille Lacs, Morrison, dewpoints remained in the Nicollet, Pope, Ramsey, middle and upper 70s Redwood, Renville, Rice, overnight on July 31 into Scott, Sherburne, Sibley, August 1, resulting in nighttime Stearns, Steele, Stevens, heat index values that never Swift, Todd, Waseca, dropped below 80 in many Washington, Watonwan locales, including Minneapolis- St. Paul. One fatality.
153 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08
Table 20 Extreme Heat History in MN 1976-2007 Year Location Comment 1999 Anoka, Benton, Blue Earth, A massive upper ridge over the Brown, Carver, Chippewa, central and eastern U.S. Chisago, Dakota, Douglas, enabled heat to build into Faribault, Freeborn, Goodhue, Minnesota. Heat indices ranged Hennepin, Isanti, Kanabec, from 95 to 110 the afternoon Kandiyohi, Lac Qui Parle, Le of the 23rd, 90 to 105 on the Sueur, Martin, McLeod, 24th, and climaxed at 95 to Meeker, Mille Lacs, Morrison, 116 on the 25th before a cold Nicollet, Pope, Ramsey, front moved in. Indices only Redwood, Renville, Rice, dropped into the 70s the Scott, Sherburne, Sibley, mornings of the 24th and 25th. Stearns, Steele, Stevens, Dewpoints in the middle and Swift, Todd, Waseca, upper 70s were common, along Washington, Watonwan, with temperatures topping out Wright, Yellow Medicine in the lower and middle 90s. The highest indices noted, all on the 25th, were 116 in Lakeville, 113 in Appleton, and 110 in Faribault, Redwood Falls and Benson. 1 fatality. 1995 Anoka, Benton, Big Stone, Sweltering heat and humidity Blue Earth, Brown, Carver, climaxed on July 12 and July Chippewa, Chisago, 13. Dewpoints in the 70s to Cottonwood, Dakota, Dodge, around 80 degrees combined Faribault, Fillmore, Freeborn, with temperatures in the Goodhue, Hennepin, Houston, middle 90s to low 100s to Isanti, Jackson, Kandiyohi, Lac produce heat indices in the 105 Qui Parle, Le Sueur, Lincoln, to 120 degree range. Two died Lyon, Martin, McLeod, Meeker, from a combination of heat Mower, Murray, Nicollet, exhaustion and dehydration. 2 Nobles, Olmsted, Pipestone, fatalities. Pope, Ramsey, Redwood, Renville, Rice, Rock, Scott, Sherburne, Sibley, Stearns, Steele, Stevens, Swift, Wabasha, Waseca, Washington, Watonwan, Winona, Wright, Yellow Medicine Source: NOAA NCDC
154 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08
Probability of Occurrence The annual probability of extreme temperatures occurring is clearly quite high, although most year-to-year temperature extremes will be within normal statistical bounds.
Sources of Information Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1997. Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment – A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy. http://www.fema.gov/fhm/dl_mhira.shtm FEMA’s Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, 1997 Palecki, Michael A. and Changnon, Stanley A. The Nature and Impacts of the July 1999 Heat Wave in the Midwest. Mid-western Climate Center, Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, IL, August 23, 1999. National Weather Service (NWS) historical records and the National Climatic Data Center; information can be seen on the following web site: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms
155 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Lightning Nature of the Hazard Lightning typically occurs as a by-product of a thunderstorm. The action of rising and descending air in a thunderstorm separates positive and negative charges, with lightning the result of the buildup and discharge of energy between positive and negative charge areas. Water and ice particles may also affect the distribution of the electrical charge. In only a few millionths of a second, the air near a lightning strike is heated to 50,000°F, a temperature hotter than the surface of the sun. Thunder is the result of the very rapid heating and cooling of air near the lightning that causes a shock wave.
Formation of Lightning
The hazard posed by lightning is significantly underrated. High winds, rainfall, and a darkening cloud cover are the warning signs for possible cloud-to-ground lightning strikes. While many lightning casualties happen at the beginning of an approaching storm, more than half of lightning deaths occur after a thunderstorm has passed. The lightning threat diminishes after the last sound of thunder, but may persist for more than 30 minutes. When thunderstorms are in the area, but not overhead, the lightning threat can exist when skies are clear. Lightning has been known to strike more than 10 miles from the storm in an area with clear sky above.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an average of 20 million cloud-to-ground flashes has been detected every year in the continental United States. About half of all flashes have more than one ground strike point, so at least 30 million points on the ground are struck on the average each year. In addition, there are roughly 5 to 10 times as many cloud-to-cloud flashes as there are to cloud-to-ground flashes (NOAA, July 7, 2003).
156 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08
Lightning is the most dangerous and frequently encountered weather hazard that most people in the United States experience annually. Lightning is the second most frequent killer in the U.S., behind floods and flash floods, with nearly 100 deaths and 500 injuries annually. These numbers are likely to underestimate of the actual number of casualties because of the under reporting of suspected lightning deaths and injuries. Cloud-to-ground lightning can kill or injure people by either direct or indirect means. The lightning current can branch off to strike a person from a tree, fence, pole, or other tall object. It is not known if all people are killed who are directly struck by the flash itself. In addition, electrical current may be conducted through the ground to a person after lightning strikes a nearby tree, antenna, or other tall object. The current also may travel through power lines, telephone lines, or plumbing pipes to a person who is in contact with an electric appliance, telephone, or plumbing fixture. Lightning may use similar processes to damage property or cause fires.
Lightning History in Minnesota From 1/1/1990 to 4/30/2007, there were 169 lightning strikes in Minnesota with 7 fatalities and 64 injuries due to these lightning strikes, according to NOAA. Lightning caused over $12.28 million in property damages and $15K in crop damages.
During a measured period of years in Minnesota (1959-1992), 31% of lightning deaths occurred in open fields, ball parks and open spaces; 25% occurred under trees; 10% occurred during boating, fishing or other water related activities; 12% occurred near tractors and heavy road equipment; and 2% occurred on golf courses (4% occurred at telephones; and 17% occurred at various other and unknown locations).
During that same time period, 13% of lightning injuries occurred in open fields, ball parks and open spaces; 18% occurred under trees; 6% occurred during boating, fishing or other water related activities; 5% occurred near tractors and heavy road equipment; and 11% occurred on golf courses (10% occurred at telephones; and 36% occurred at various other and unknown locations).
Data through August 2006 are shown in Table 24. Lightning injuries in Minnesota have occurred during the same months, with the most injuries recorded May through August.
157 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Table 21 Lightning Injuries Reported in Minnesota 1993 - 2007 Location or County Date Injuries
1 Lafayette 8/14/1993 1
2 Owatonna 6/17/1994 1
3 Erskine 6/19/1994 1
4 Cook 7/16/1994 2 5 Stearns 9/13/1994 1
6 Newfound Lake 7/13/1995 1
7 Camp Ripley 8/11/1995 4
8 Minneapolis 8/11/1995 1
9 Forest Lake 8/11/1995 2
10 Oakdale 8/13/1995 1
11 Prior Lake 3/24/1996 1
12 Hopkins 6/6/1996 1
13 Marine On St. Croix 7/14/1996 2
14 Duluth 7/21/1996 1
15 Grand Marais 8/6/1996 1
16 Baxter 6/11/1998 1
17 Ely 7/20/1998 1
18 Carver 6/5/1999 1
19 Grand Rapids 6/26/1999 1
20 Sauk Centre 8/25/2000 1
21 Camp Ripley 7/17/2001 25
22 Duluth 10/20/2001 2
23 Vesta 6/21/2002 1
24 Perham 7/7/2002 1
25 Barrett 6/23/2003 1
26 Mora 9/13/2004 1
27 East Bethel 6/29/2005 1
28 Countywide 8/9/2005 1
29 Otsego 9/21/2005 2
30 Cottage Grove 10/4/2005 2
31 Claremont 6/6/2006 1 TOTALS: 64
158 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08
Table 22 Lightning Deaths Reported in Minnesota 1993-2007
Location or County Date Deaths
1 Erskine 6/19/1994 1
2 Newfound Lake 7/13/1995 1
3 Forest Lake 8/11/1995 1
4 Ely 6/28/1996 1
5 Grand Marais 8/6/1996 1
6 Meire Grove 6/26/1998 1
7 White Bear Lake 8/9/1998 1 TOTAL 7 Source: NOAA
Probability of Occurrence The probability of lightning occurring is high as indicated in Table 26. However, the site-specific incidence of lightning is considered low because of the localized nature of the hazard. The annual incidence of lightning across the State is presumed to remain stable, although year-to-year fluctuations are expected.
Sources of Information Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1997. Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment – A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy. http://www.fema.gov/fhm/dl_mhira.shtm Minnesota Public Safety, Homeland Security Emergency Management, 2003. Minnesota State All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. July 7, 2003. “Lightning.” Available from the World Wide Web at: http://www.noaa.gov/lightning.html University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). 2000. Formation of Lightning. Available from the World Wide Web at: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Atmosphere/tstorm/lig htning_formation.html. National Weather Service (NWS) historical records and the National Climatic Data Center; information can be seen on the following web site: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms
159 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Windstorms Nature of the Hazard Winds in excess of 58 miles per hour, excluding tornadoes, are windstorms. Windstorms are among the nation's most severe natural hazards in terms of both lives lost and property damaged. The NWS notes the following effects of various wind speeds.
Table 23 Effect s of Wind Speed Wind Effects Speed 25-31 mph Large branches in motion, whistling in telephone wires 32-38 mph Whole trees in motion 39-54 mph Twigs break off of trees, wind impedes walking 55-72 mph Damage to chimneys and TV antennas, pushes over shallow rooted trees 73-112 Peels surface off roofs, windows broken, trailer houses mph overturned 113+ mph Roofs torn off houses, weak buildings and trailer houses destroyed, large trees uprooted
Severe winds can damage and destroy roofs, toss manufactured homes off their pier foundations, and tear light-framed homes apart. There are several different types of windstorms. A “downburst” is a rather underrated thunderstorm threat defined as a strong downdraft with an out rush of damaging winds on or near the earth's surface. When people experience property damage from a downburst, they often do not believe that “just wind” could have caused the damage, and they assume that they were struck by a tornado. Downbursts may have wind gusts to nearly 130 mph and are capable of the same damage as a medium-sized tornado. A “gust front” is the leading edge of the thunderstorm downdraft air. It is most prominent near the rain- free cloud base and on the leading edge of an approaching thunderstorm and is usually marked by gusty, cool winds, and sometimes by blowing dust. The gust front often precedes the thunderstorm precipitation by several minutes. “Straight-line winds,” when associated with a thunderstorm, are most frequently found with the gust front. These winds originate as downdraft air reaches the ground and rapidly spreads out, becoming strong horizontal flow.
Windstorm History in Minnesota According to the National Climatic Data Center, there have been 3 deaths and more than 75 injuries directly related to windstorms
160 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 (58+mph winds or 50.4 knots) since 1975 in Minnesota. From 1994 to 2007, property damages averaged $65 million per year. Average annual crop losses are more than $1,179,000 per year (1994-2006). Table 25 outlines some of the severe storms in Minnesota history from 1975-2007.
Table 24 Windstorms in Minnesota (1975-2007) Month/Year Remarks Location
June 2006 Hennepin Co. Numerous trees down in the Lake Calhoun, Lake of the Isles, and Lake Harriet areas, with a few roads blocked. Several small sailboats were tipped over on Lake Calhoun. A large tree fell onto the roof of a home in the 2300 block of Humboldt Ave. South. Two people were injured at Cedar Lake when a tree fell on them. About 30,000 electric customers lost power in the western metro according to Xcel Energy. September Ramsey Co. A severe storm moved out of 2005 Anoka County and across northern Ramsey County, knocking down tens of thousands of trees. Numerous roads were blocked. One child was injured in New Brighton from a tree limb crashing down. One person died in Moundsview while clearing their property. Property damage report of $25 Million dollars.
161 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Table 24 Windstorms in Minnesota (1975-2007) Month/Year Remarks Location
September Hennepin Co. A large storm swept across most 2005 (countywide) of northern Hennepin County, accompanied by large hail and a brief tornado. The wind and hail were responsible for virtually all damage and a tornado was on the ground only briefly in Brooklyn Park. Tens of thousands of trees were downed and many roads were blocked. Some neighborhoods were without power for more than one week. Property damage report of 130 Million dollars. Perhaps the most severe damage occurred in Brooklyn Park with estimates of at least 10,000 trees downed. Over 90% of the city lost power. A 45 year old man in the north part of Minneapolis died after getting out of his car. He was heading for shelter when a large branch landed on him. July 2003 Isabella (Lake Co.) A large tree fell on the tent of a couple who were camping at Jackfish Bay of Basswood Lake. The woman was killed while her 42 year old fiancé was knocked unconscious.
162 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Table 24 Windstorms in Minnesota (1975-2007) Month/Year Remarks Location
June 2003 Cottonwood Strong winds caused widespread tree damage, including numerous trees blown down. Falling trees damaged roofs of houses and destroyed the topper of a pickup truck, and severely damaged another pickup. Power lines were blown down, resulting in power outages. A large storage shed was destroyed. The roof of a house was blown off, and other roof damage to structures was reported. Property damage was $1 million. April 2001 Blue Earth, Brown, A strong surface low pressure Dakota, Faribault, system moved out of the Freeborn, Goodhue, Le southwestern US and into north Sueur, Martin, central Minnesota by the early Nicollet, Redwood, afternoon on the 7th. This Rice, Scott, Sibley, system produced numerous Steele, Waseca, wind gusts in the 50 to 75 mph Washington, range across portions of Watonwan southern Minnesota. The highest measured wind to be reported was 79 mph at Fairmont (Martin County). Property damage was $8 million. August Outing A 51 year old male was killed 2000 when a tree fell on a tent he was in near Lake Washburn July 1999 Northern Minnesota “July 4th Blow down.” Straight- line winds exceeding 90 mph. Extensive areas of downed trees, shoreline erosion in Superior National Forest and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Disaster Declaration #1283.
163 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Table 24 Windstorms in Minnesota (1975-2007) Month/Year Remarks Location
May 1998 Burnsville 90+ mph winds blew in a brick wall at retail center. Indoor mall sustained $1 million damages. 2000 trees blown down. Federal/state disaster assistance obligation: $33.8 million. Disaster Declaration #1212. July 1997 Monticello Hurricane force straight-line winds. $20 million damages to 200 structures. Total federal/state disaster assistance obligation: $13.5 million. May 1996 Minneapolis-St. Paul Straight-line winds. Damages to public infrastructure estimated at $1.45 million. July 1995 Northern Minnesota “Great Windstorm of 1995.” Intensive and sustained straight-line winds (129 mph for 20-40 minutes). 6.5 million trees blown down, mostly in isolated areas. Federal/state disaster assistance: $6.8 million. Disaster Declaration #1064. April 1991 Freeborn County Thunderstorms. Empty tractor- trailer truck flipped over. One fatality. October Cass & Otter Tail Windstorms with 50 mph gusts. 1984 Counties Four drown in two separate lake accidents. June 1984 Hennepin, Blue Earth, Windstorm. One death and & Faribault Counties several injuries. April 1984 Southern Minnesota Snow with strong winds snapped power lines and poles. Extensive power outages, esp. in rural areas.
164 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Table 24 Windstorms in Minnesota (1975-2007) Month/Year Remarks Location
September West Central and Windstorm. One death and two 1983 Central Minnesota injuries. Extensive damage to a turkey farm in Kandiyohi County. July 1983 Minneapolis-St. Paul Downburst winds. One fatality. $20 million in property damages. July 1983 Douglas County, Winds. Power outages to Minneapolis-St. Paul 250,000 customers. Repair expenses to NSP: $2.5 million. 8 injuries. March – Houston, Freeborn, Windstorms. Two deaths, April 1982 and Martin Counties several injuries, and some property damage. July 1980 Minneapolis-St. Paul Downburst with 110 mph winds. One death. Extensive damage to homes and apartments. 100,000 homes without power. Property damages: $43 mil., crops: $1.1 mil. June 1980 SE Minnesota Windstorm. Extensive personal property damage est. at $1.4 million and crop damage est. at $4 million. Electric power interrupted for approximately 35,000. June 1979 Southern Minnesota Straight-line and downburst winds, occasionally exceeding 100 mph, resulted in severe damages estimated to be at least $35 million. November Lake Superior The ore carrier, “Edmund 1975 Fitzgerald,” went down as a result of hurricane force winds. Source: NOAA
165 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 The following map indicates that the northwest corner of Minnesota averages about 10 to 30 days of thunderstorms per year while the rest of the state averages about 30-50 days with thunderstorms per year, per 10,000 sq. miles.
Probability of Occurrence Windstorms can occur throughout the State of Minnesota, at any time of year. Most occur during the months of April through September. From 1994 to 2007, Minnesota averaged 270 windstorms each year (high wind over 50 knots), with the majority occurring in the western and southern portions of the State. This recurrence is expected to remain relatively stable, although there will be year-to-year fluctuations. Long-term changes in weather patterns may also influence the number of windstorms that occur. The qualitative rating for windstorms is High in Table 28.
Sources of Information USDA Risk Management Agency Minnesota Public Safety, Homeland Security Emergency Management, 2003. Minnesota State All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. National Weather Service (NWS) historical records and the National Climatic Data Center; information can be seen on the following web site: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms.
166 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Human Caused Hazards The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 encourages addressing other than natural hazards. The 2005 Minnesota All-Hazard Mitigation Plan started to address human caused hazards. Other events such as levee failures during Hurricane Katrina and the I-35 W bridge collapse in Minneapolis expanded the list for this update of the mitigation plan. Integrating Manmade Hazards Into Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-7) and the 2005 Minnesota State All Hazard Mitigation Plan were reviewed.
The following subjects have been identified for this assessment: Hazards 1. Terrorism 2. Infectious Disease Outbreak 3. Fires (Structure and Vehicles) Infrastructure 1. Dams 2. Nuclear Generating Plants 3. Transportation 4. Hazardous Material Facilities 5. Ground and Surface Water Supply
Terrorism Nature of Hazard To discuss terrorism in the proper context it needs to be defined. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) categorizes terrorism in the United States as one of two types, i.e., domestic terrorism or international terrorism. • Domestic terrorism involves groups or individuals whose terrorist activities are directed at elements of our government or population without foreign direction. • International terrorism involves groups or individuals whose terrorist activities are foreign-based and/or directed by countries or groups outside of the United States or whose activities transcend national boundaries.
The FBI divides terrorist-related activity into three categories: • A terrorist incident is a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof. • A suspect terrorist incident is a potential act of terrorism to which responsibility cannot be attributed at the time to known or suspected terrorist group or individual.
167 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 • Terrorism prevention is a documented instance in which a violent act by a known or suspected terrorist group or individual with the means and a proven propensity for violence is successfully interdicted through investigative activity.
History of Terrorism in Minnesota Domestic terrorism: Domestic terrorism is an area of concern within Minnesota. The Minneapolis Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2006 completed a Domestic Terrorism Threat Assessment for Minnesota and the Dakotas and defined domestic terrorist organizations into four (4) broad categories; special interest, rightwing, leftwing, and lone wolf. While the findings of this report are classified at the Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) level, it is important to note that this report does indicate that this is an area that warrants attention within Minnesota.
Recent national reporting indicates crime and gang related violence is an increasing trend nationwide, to which Minnesota is not immune (as examples a domestic terrorist militia group known as the Patriots which, in the mid-1990’s was responsible for manufacturing the deadly toxin ricin for use against federal employees and local law enforcement in addition Timothy McVey was in Minnesota conducting surveillance on the Whipple Federal Building before he decided to attack the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City). The communities of Ricori (2003) and Red Lake (2005) experienced school shootings which resulted in fatalities and casualties. Numerous nationwide documented cases of drug related thefts that directly impacted infrastructure (copper theft as an example) are also affecting Minnesota.
Minnesota is home to a very diverse national and international population that includes large migrant worker populations, large East African and South East Asian communities, as well as one of the largest settlements of Somalis outside Somalia. Minnesota, as a large agricultural state, draws from a large migrant work force population and there are numerous documented affiliations with this population sub-group and criminal/gang related activity. Crime and gang related activities are both well documented within the state. As recently as January, 2007, the American Nazi Party organized a book burning in Minneapolis and considers Minnesota as its home address.
International Terrorism: Incidents that meet the definition of terrorism have occurred within the state credited to international and domestic terrorist organizations. International terrorism is an area of concern within the state. Specific information related to the threat of
168 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 international terrorism in Minnesota is located within closed circles. However, there have been two notable cases regarding individuals linked to international terrorist organizations. Zacharius Moussaoui and other high profile international terrorists were arrested within the state. The local FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) is among the most active in the nation, addressing the issue of overseas financial transfers and groups such as Al Qaeda, Hizballah, Hamas, Al-Ittihad al-Islami and Islamic Jihad. These cases provide examples that the threat of terrorism warrants attention and consideration. A major contributing concern regarding international terrorism is the fact that Minnesota shares approximately 700 miles of international border with Canada, more than 150 miles of which is open water along the interior of Lake Superior.
Future Perspectives Acts of terrorism are random and cannot be predicted with any frequency or scale. Terrorists may see other parts of the country with higher population density and more commerce more attractive to meet their goals. However, Minnesota may not be overlooked since this state offers certain economic strategic value with financial centers, agri-business, transportation, and oil pipelines from Canada.
Integrating the hazard mitigation techniques and strategies found in FEMA 386-7 into the operation and design of facilities may be considered as a future action.
Sources of Information Counterterrorism-Definitions, Federal Bureau of Investigation. http://jackson.fbi.gov/cntrterr.htm Domestic Terrorism Threat Assessment for Minnesota and the Dakotas, The Minneapolis Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2006 (classified)
Infectious Disease Outbreak Nature of the Hazard Infectious diseases have the potential to affect any form of life. Some infectious diseases that were thought to have been eradicated have re- emerged. New strains of some infectious diseases, such as the flu, present seasonal threats to the populace and require continuous monitoring. Widespread epidemics are almost non-existent in the United States. An “epidemic” is defined as a disease that occurs suddenly in numbers clearly in excess of normal expectancy, especially infectious diseases, but is applied also to any disease, injury, or other
169 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 health-related event occurring in such outbreaks. If an epidemic event were to occur, deaths could be in the many hundreds of thousands across the nation. If the health of the general public is perceived to be threatened on a large scale, riots or states of lawlessness are a possibility.
In the years following World War II, life-threatening bacterial diseases such as tuberculosis and typhoid fever were cured by antibiotics. Dreaded diseases such as polio, whooping cough, and diphtheria could be conquered through vaccination. Thus, it became possible to imagine a world without infectious diseases. We now know that such optimism was premature. New strains of influenza have greater resistance to antibiotics. Many new infectious diseases, such as Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome [AIDS], are constantly emerging. In 1997, an avian strain of influenza (H5N1) that had never before attacked humans began to kill previously healthy people in Hong Kong. This crisis raised the specter of an influenza pandemic similar to the one that killed 20 million people in 1918. Although no cases of animal or human illness have been identified in the U.S., the avian H5N1 influenza virus is spreading rapidly in birds and animals in other parts of the world. Such examples remind us that we are barely one step ahead of the microbes and underscore our need for a strong and vigilant public health system.
Infectious Disease History in Minnesota Between the middle of 1918 and the middle of 1919, the worldwide Spanish Influenza pandemic killed at least 21 million human beings -- well over twice the number of combat deaths in World War I. The “Spanish'' flu had first appeared in America in spring 1918. All over the world, Spanish Influenza ravaged civilian populations. One-quarter of all Americans suffered bouts of influenza. More than 600,000 Americans died, 10,000 of them were Minnesotans. The city of St. Paul saw more than 1,000 deaths and Minneapolis more than 1,300. In recent years, the State of Minnesota has not had an infectious disease outbreak that reached epidemic proportion.
HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) is the virus that causes AIDS. HIV can spread from person to person during anal, vaginal, or less commonly, during oral sex. HIV can also be spread while sharing needles or reusing equipment to inject drugs, tattoo or body pierce. HIV can also be passed from an infected mother to her baby during pregnancy, childbirth or breastfeeding. Since MDH began tracking AIDS in 1982 and HIV in 1985, a total of 7,824 cases have been reported, including 2,772 that have died. MDH received a new
170 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 reported HIV case every 29 hours in 2005. There are an estimated 5,233 people who are aware of their HIV status and are currently living in Minnesota.
West Nile Encephalitis is a viral disease transmitted to people and horses through the bite of an infected mosquito. West Nile virus (WNV) is maintained in a transmission cycle involving one or more species of mosquitoes and birds. Current research is focusing on which mosquitoes and birds are most important in this cycle. WNV is usually found in Africa and southern Europe. The virus was first reported in North America during a 1999 outbreak of encephalitis in New York City.
Since 1999, WNV has moved rapidly to 48 states, the District of Columbia, 7 Canadian Provinces, 24 Mexican States, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Jamaica, and the Cayman Islands. WNV was first detected in Minnesota July 23rd, 2002. Since 1999, 19,651 (782 deaths) human WN cases were reported in the United States. There have been 275 (9 deaths) human WN cases in Minnesota residents since 2002. Figure 1 includes a map of reported West Nile Virus monitoring through October 25, 2006.
On December 23, 2003, a four-year-old Holstein cow in Washington State tested positive for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). This positive-BSE case is the first in the United States and the second in North America. As of July 12, 2006, Minnesota had tested 47,163 head of cattle (all negative). The increase is being done to reassure consumers, both foreign and domestic, that beef is safe and measures taken to prevent BSE in the U.S. have been and continue to be effective. The U.S. has found only one BSE case, a single dairy cow that was imported from Canada to Washington state that was confirmed as infected on December 23, 2003. The pre-emptive slaughter and destruction of nearly four and a half million asymptomatic cattle less than 30 months of age, has crippled the British livestock industry and affected industries which make bovine- derived products.
Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) is a severe, highly contagious viral disease that affects cloven-hooved animals, such as cattle, hogs, sheep, goats and deer. The disease is not a threat to human health. FMD is caused by a virus that survives in the lymph nodes and bone marrow of animals. The virus can live in contaminated fodder [dry hay and other forages] for up to one month. Although most animals don't die from FMD, a reason for concern is the high communicability of the
171 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 disease. If one animal on a farm contracts the disease, it is highly likely that other animals in the herd and animals in neighboring herds would contract the disease, rapidly spreading an outbreak. United States veterinarians do not vaccinate against FMD because of the dangers from its high communicability. The last known case of FMD occurred in the US in 1929.
Error! Objects cannot be created from editing field codes. Source: Minnesota Department of Health, 2007.
Future Perspectives With our abundant mosquito and bird populations, we expect that WNV will become established in Minnesota. Similar to other mosquito- transmitted diseases already established in this area (LaCrosse encephalitis, Western equine encephalitis, and Eastern equine encephalitis), WNV will likely cause sporadic illness in humans (especially elderly people) and horses. Most people who are infected with West Nile virus have no symptoms or have an infection similar to a mild flu with fever, headache, and fatigue. Most cases of West Nile are treated in humans before the humans develop encephalitis, a serious illness of the brain. The death rate for humans who develop encephalitis ranges from 3 to 15 percent.
According to the U.S. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, year end 2004, Minnesota has 4.3 AIDS cases per 100,000. The overall US rate is 15 cases per 100,000 people. People over 50 years of age and people with compromised immune systems have the highest risk of developing a severe illness from the virus.
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) occurrences are rare in the US. However, more than 183,000 cases of BSE were confirmed in the UK alone in more than 35,000 herds through the end of November 2003. The risk to human health from BSE in the US is regarded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as extremely low.
The US has been free of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) since 1929, when the last of nine U.S. outbreaks was eradicated. Since FMD spreads widely and rapidly and because it has grave economic as well as clinical consequences, FMD is one of the animal diseases that livestock owners dread most.
172 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Sources of Information Minnesota Board of Animal Health. http://www.bah.state.mn.us MN Department of Health, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Reports 2003 http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/diseases/hiv/hivsurvrpts.ht m Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Infectious Diseases. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease. Minnesota Department of Health, 2007. West Nile Virus Monitoring- 2007, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/diseases/westnile/wnvmap0 7.pdf Minnesota Public Safety, Homeland Security Emergency Management, 2005. Minnesota State All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1999. Preventing Emerging Infectious Diseases: A Strategy for the 21st Century. Atlanta, GA.
Fires (Structures and Vehicles) Hazard Profile This section addresses fires to property that is not considered a wildfire. The two types of property fires are classified as: 1. Structure Fires • Residential single family dwellings, apartments, manufactured homes, hotels, motels. • Public and Mercantile: stores, restaurants, grocery stores, institutions, churches, public facilities, education. • Industrial, Manufacturing, Other Buildings: basic industry, manufacturing, storage, residential garages, vacant buildings, unknown. 2. Vehicle Fires • Mobile Property: aircraft, automobiles, trucks, trains, buses, boats.
Fires have many causes: careless smoking, cooking, or campfires, arson, improper building wiring, industrial mishaps, and instances such as train derailments or transportation collisions.
Fire History in Minnesota In 2006 there was one fire reported every 30 minutes in Minnesota. One structure fire was reported every 1.3 hours. Rural structure fires occurred every 2.9 hours and metro structure fires occurred every 2.2 hours.
173 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Table 28 represents the total deaths, injuries, and property loss resulting from fires from 2001 to 2006. In the past 23 years, 1,353 people have died due to fires in Minnesota. In 2006, the per capita death rate due to fire was 1.4 deaths per 100,000 people while the rate for metro areas were 0.8 deaths per 100,000 people. Two counties in Minnesota have remained fatality free for 23 years: Norman and Traverse counties
Table 25 Civilian Deaths, Civilian Injuries, and Dollar Loss Due to Fire (2001–2006) Year Classification Civilian Civilian Dollar Loss Deaths Injuries (in millions) 2006 Residential 37 (80%) 121 (83%) $102.3 Structure Other 9 (20%) 24 (17%) $79.6 Total 46 145 $181.9 2005 Residential 29 (73%) 125 (84%) $96.3 Structure Other 11 (27%) 23 (16%) $63.9 Total 40 148 $160.2 2004 Residential 28 (65%) 90 (74%) $83.1 Structure Other 15 (35%) 30 (26%) $119.6 Total 43 121 $202.7 2003 Residential 35 (76%) 130 (81%) $92.8 Structure Other 11 (24%) 30 (19%) $61.6 Total 46 160 $154.4 2002 Residential 48 (75%) 135 (78%) $80.3 Structure Other 16 (25%) 39 (22%) $108.2 Total 64 174 $188.5 2001 Residential 41 (88%) 112 (74%) $72.1 Structure Other 6 (12%) 39 (26%) $102.2 Total 47 151 $174.3
Future Perspectives Funding for fire suppression and education for non-wildfire programs normally do not normally come through FEMA. However, there may be a situation in the future where a water system needs protected or a special education program will be needed.
174 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Sources of Information Minnesota Department of Public Safety, State Fire Marshal Office. Fire in Minnesota, 2006.
Infrastructure Dams A “dam” is an artificial barrier that has the ability to impound water, wastewater, or any liquid borne material for the purpose of storage or the control of water. Dams can fail for one or a combination of the following reasons: • Overtopping caused by floods that exceed the capacity of the dam. • Deliberate acts of sabotage • Structural failure of materials used in dam construction. • Movement and/or failure of the foundation supporting the dam. • Settlement and cracking of concrete of embankment dams. • Piping and internal erosion of soil in embankment dams. • Inadequate maintenance and upkeep. • The hazard classifications for dams are as follows: • High - any loss of life or serious hazard, or damage to health, main highways, high-value industrial or commercial properties, major public utilities, or serious direct or indirect, economic loss to the public; • Significant - possible health hazard or probable loss of high-value property, damage to secondary highways, railroads or other public utilities, or limited direct or indirect economic loss to the public other than that described in Class III; and • Low - property losses restricted mainly to rural buildings and local county and township roads which are an essential part of the rural transportation system serving the area involved.
The Minnesota Dam Safety Program is administered through the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Emergency Action Plans (EAP) are required for all High Hazard dams in the state. These plans should be implemented into the County Emergency Operations Plans. DNR is in the process of ensuring all EAPs are up to date.
175 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08
The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) maintains the lock and dam system on the Mississippi River and other dams used for flood control in the state. USACE also participates with local communities in all phases of flood control that includes dams, levees, or other means of flood control. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) mandates inspections of dams used for hydroelectric power generation. The dams that are not regulated by USACE or FERC are regulated by the Minnesota Dam Safety Program. The following statistics are for 2006: • Number of state-regulated high-hazard potential dams: 23 • Number of state-regulated significant hazard potential dams: 125 • Number of state-regulated high-hazard potential dams: 1005
Ownership of dams in Minnesota: • Private: 39% • State: 23% • Federal: 14%
176 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 • Local Government: 20% • Private Utility: 4%
Source: Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 2007
Hazard History The most notable event due to flood waters overtopping a dam was the 1997 flood in East Grand Forks (DR-1175). A much larger area was impacted throughout the state but the extensive damages were to water cresting over earthen levees. The Red River crested at 54.32 feet. The earthen levees in place were designed to protect to level of a 100-year flood plus three feet of freeboard, or, 52 feet. Three and one half million sandbags plus many cubic yards of clay and gravel were used during the flood fight. The river rise 1 inch per hour (two feet per day) overcame the reinforcement efforts.
The following table lists known incidents relating to dams since 1980. Problems that were identified and repaired that mitigated a failure are also cited along with failures.
Table 26 Notable Dam Incidents in Minnesota [1980 - 2007]
Date Location Remarks 2007 Windom Erosion failure of left abutment. Dam, Cottonwood County 2007 Talcot Lake Partial failure of gate. Dam, Cottonwood County 2006 Lake Overtopping failure of left embankment Breckenridg e, Wilkin County 2002 Wild Rice Complete failure due to overtopping of saddle dam. River, About two miles of channel was short circuited. The Norman primary dam and spillway were undamaged. County 2000 Byllesby New flash gates, which were installed the previous Dam, year, were secured by machine chain fence links.
177 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08
Table 26 Notable Dam Incidents in Minnesota [1980 - 2007]
Date Location Remarks Dakota Some links failed prematurely. County 2000 Lake Pool elevation restored to normal operating Bronson, conditions after new relief drains installed in channel Kittson bed. County Little Falls, Failure of canal. 1999 Morrison County 1999 Coon Bladder leaking air. It was deflated and a partial Rapids, cofferdam placed when the reservoir was lowered to Anoka apply the patch. County 1998 Little Very heavy rainfall, non-overflow area of dam Cannon overtopped. Moderate damage to State Highway 19 River, crossing pool. Significant damage to bridge Goodhue immediately downstream. Moderate damage to dam. County Park property damaged. Several private homes on pool flooded. 1997 East Grand The levee was overtopped by an event that was Forks determined to be greater than the 100-year flood. 1993 Splitrock Right abutment failure during a flood. Lake Dam, Pipestone County 1987 St. Anthony The powerhouse collapsed due to severe Falls Lower undermining caused by piping. The losses included a Dam, temporary draw down of the upper pool in the Hennepin Mississippi River and stranded commercial County navigation, a loss of a 10-mw hydro plant facility, construction of temporary cofferdams to raise river level to normal navigational elevations, and demolition of remainder of powerhouse. The hydro plant was 204 feet wide and operated at normal head of 20 feet. Plans are underway to reconstruct the failed hydro plant. 1985 Berning Mill A 50 to 60 foot section in the middle of the spillway Dam, collapsed without warning apparently due to severe Hennepin deterioration. The remainder of the dam was
178 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08
Table 26 Notable Dam Incidents in Minnesota [1980 - 2007]
Date Location Remarks and Wright completely removed from the river by DNR in 1988. Counties The dam was an old timber crib structure built in late 1880’s for milling purposes. The spillway was about 7 feet high and 200 feet wide. 1984 Lanesboro A portion of the earthen powerhouse canal dike Dam, washed out without warning. Work had been done on Fillmore the dike several months before. County 1984 Windom The 60-foot long left earthen embankment washed Dam, out during spring floods by floodwaters overtopping Cottonwood the embankment. The dam had an inadequate County spillway capacity. 1984 Hanover A 30-foot long portion of the dam’s concrete spillway Dam, collapsed without warning during normal flow Wright conditions apparently due to severe undermining and County deterioration. The remainder of the dam was completely removed from the river by DNR in 1987. This dam was an old milling dam built in early 1900’s. The structure was an overflow cemented timber crib spillway about 10 feet high and 250 feet wide. 1983 Odney Flat The earthen emergency spillway washed out during Dam, Polk flooding following a heavy rainstorm. This was a County newly constructed dam and an erosion resistant vegetative cover had not been established on the emergency spillway. The dam was later repaired and the emergency spillway relocated. 1983 St. Paul A portion of the earthen embankment completely Water washed out suddenly during normal pool conditions. Treatment The failure was due to unstable embankment Plant Lime conditions. Sludge Dam, Ramsey County 1983 Fishhook The cofferdam built to control water during River Dam, reconstruction of the main dam washed out due to Cofferdam, structural inadequacy causing damage to the Hubbard construction site and downstream areas.
179 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08
Table 26 Notable Dam Incidents in Minnesota [1980 - 2007]
Date Location Remarks County 1982 Beaver A five-foot high beaver dam, not considered to be an Dam, official “dam”, washed out in O’Brien State Park Washington resulting in 2 injuries and approximately two million County dollars in damage. 1981 Schweiger The dam reportedly failed when the owner was Dam, St. attempting to perform repairs on the spillway. Louis County 1980 Pickwick The right earthen embankment and a portion of the Dam, spillway washed out during a flash flood following a Winona severe rainstorm. County Source: Stanford, 2004 and Department of Natural Resources, 2007
Future Perspectives The 100 year flood leads to misunderstanding and is actually a “1% chance flood” in any given year. The 500 year flood works out to be a .2% chance flood. The chance of a dam failing during a flood is reduced by inspection. In regards to overtopping, the National Weather Service is constantly monitoring conditions to predict flood conditions. The public is protected by use of the Emergency Action Plans for the high risk and significant risk dams. Flood fights occasionally fail and may cause massive damage as seen in East Grand Forks in 1997.
The National Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act has been introduced into the 110th Congress as HR 1098. This program would provide $200 million over 4 years in federal grant funds to be cost-shared at 65 percent federal to 35 percent state/local for non-federal publicly owned dams. The Minnesota perspective is that it is estimated that the funds needed to repair the high risk dams is $40,255,610 while the proposed funding from HR 1098 is $2,417,144. HR 1098
Sources of Information Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 2007. Statistics-Minnesota Dam Safety Program. http://www.damsafety.org/map/state.aspx?s=23Schools
180 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Stanford, 2004. National Performance of Dams Program, Stanford University. 2004. Dam Incident Summary Department of Natural Resources, 2007. reports reported in Minnesota's component of the national computerized dam inventory NATDAM database. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1997. Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment – A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Grand Forks 1997 Flood Recovery. http://wwwlfema.gov/hazard/archive/grandformks/statistics.shtm Federal Emergency Management Agency, Minnesota Severe Storms/Flooding April 1997. http://wwwlfema.gov/media/fact_sheets/97mnflood.sthm Minnesota Public Safety, Homeland Security Emergency Management, 2005. Minnesota State All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. U.S. Corps of Army Engineers, 2004. State of Minnesota Regulated Dams Hazard Classification, 2004 U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2007. Flood Damage and Reduction, Projects and Studies. http.www.mvp.usace.army.mil/fl_damage_reduct/default.asp?pageid= 911
181 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Nuclear Generating Plant Description Nuclear generating plants use the heat from nuclear fission in a contained environment to convert water to steam, which powers generators to produce electricity. The design, construction, and operation of these facilities are closely monitored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In addition, the Minnesota Department of Health performs environmental monitoring as a way assessing and trending exposure to the public.
The potential danger from an accident at a nuclear generating plant is exposure to radiation. This exposure would most probably come from the release of radioactive material from the plant to the environment. The release may be characterized by a plume (cloud-like formation) of radioactive gasses and particles. The major hazards to the people in the vicinity of the plume are radiation exposure to the body from the cloud and particles deposited on the ground, inhalation of radioactive materials, and ingestion of radioactive materials.
The effects of radiation exposure depend on the intensity and length in time of exposure to radiation. Low exposure, comparable to chest x- rays, may slightly increase the risk of cancer. Much higher exposures can cause radiation exposure or death.
Nuclear generating plants do not explode like nuclear detonation devices since the fuel is of low enrichment. There is no risk of a nuclear explosion with the associated physical mass destruction.
Nuclear Generating Plant History in Minnesota The Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant located in Monticello, Minnesota, is owned by Xcel Energy Inc. It is a one-unit, boiling water reactor, rated at 553 megawatt capacity. The Monticello plant began commercial operation in June 1971. Xcel Energy is currently petitioning the NRC to store spend nuclear fuel on- site in dry casks to make more space available in the spent fuel pool. The dry casks will be shipped to a depository when one opens.
Prairie Island 1 & 2 Nuclear Generating Plants are located in Red Wing, Minnesota and are owned by Xcel Energy Inc. Both units are pressurized water reactors rated at 522 megawatts electric and began operation in 1974. Storage of spent nuclear fuel in dry casks began in 1995. Currently there are 24 casks of spent fuel being stored in the owner controlled area.
182 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08
Figure 4 Nuclear Facilities in Minnesota
Source: Radiological Emergency Preparedness
On December 7, 1979, following the March 1979 Three-Mile Island nuclear power plant accident in Pennsylvania, President Carter transferred the Federal lead role in off-site radiological emergency planning and preparedness activities from the NRC to Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]. FEMA established the Radiological Emergency Preparedness [REP] Program to [1] ensure that the public health and safety of citizens living around commercial nuclear power plants would be adequately protected in the event of a nuclear power station accident and [2] inform and educate the public about radiological emergency preparedness. FEMA’s REP Program responsibilities encompass only “off-site” activities, that is State and local government emergency preparedness activities that take place beyond the nuclear power plant boundaries. Onsite activities continue to be the responsibility of the NRC.
Annual exercises are held so the NRC and FEMA may evaluate the utility, local, and state response organization. In addition, FEMA evaluates the local and state plans and preparation activities annually and issues a letter of certification if the planning for a response to an incident provides reasonable assuredness of safety to the public.
183 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Future Perspectives Local and state off-site response organizations have not been activated due to an actual incident at one of the nuclear generating plants since the program’s inception in 1981. No General Emergency activations which would start evacuation of the public have ever occurred in the state. The last General Emergency activation in the nation was during the Three Mile Island Accident in 1979.
The NRC has provided increased regulation and oversight to make nuclear reactors safer since 1979. Power plants also have robust security programs mandated by the NRC to deter and repel terrorists.
There are three state critical facilities in the Emergency Planning Zones for each plant. They are: • Bureau of Corrections: Minnesota Correctional Facility-Red Wing with a replacement cost of $25,688,000. • Department of Transportation: Truck Station-Monticello with a replacement cost of $871,920. • Department of Transportation: Truck Station-Red Wing with a replacement cost of $574,200.
Sources of Information Minnesota Public Safety, Homeland Security Emergency Management, 2005. Minnesota State All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Minnesota Public Safety, Homeland Security Emergency Management, 2007. Minnesota State Emergency Operations Plan, revised July 2007. Nuclear Energy Institute, Key Issues - Emergency Preparedness, 2007. http://www.nei.org/keyissues/safetyandsecurity/emergencypreparedn ess/ Nuclear Energy Institute, Key Issues – Operational Safety, 2007. http://www.nei.org/keyissues/safetyandsecurity/operationalsafety Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Emergency Preparedness and Response, 2007 http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness.html Radiological Emergency Preparedness, Emergency Worker Handbook, 2006. Minnesota Public Safety, Homeland Security Emergency Management http://www.dps.state.mn.us/dhsem/uploadedfile/Radiological%20Han dbook.pdf
184 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Hazardous Material (HAZMAT) Facilities Description Approximately 6,000 facilities in Minnesota report their storage of hazardous chemicals to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s EPCRA Program and their local fire department. Facilities meeting the reporting criteria submit this information annually as required under Section 312 of the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right- to-Know Act (EPCRA). The information is used by emergency planners and responders to plan for and respond to hazardous chemical emergencies.
Over 400 facilities in Minnesota report their routine chemical emissions and on and off-site chemical management activities to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s EPCRA Program and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Facilities meeting the reporting criteria submit this information annually as required under Section 313 of the federal EPCRA and is known as the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). TRI data can be used to prioritize environmental regulatory efforts and promote pollution prevention and waste reduction.
Nearly 600 facilities in Minnesota submit Risk Management Plans (RMP’s) to EPA summarizing procedures they have implemented to prevent accidental releases of certain chemicals into the air. Facilities meeting the reporting criteria submit this information every five years as required under Section 112r of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The information is used by emergency planners and responders to plan for and respond to hazardous chemical emergencies.
The State Fire Marshal, Pipeline Safety Team (SFMPST) oversees pipeline operations throughout the state since 1987. The main office is located in St. Paul, with field offices located in Grand Rapids, Detroit Lakes, and Mankato. SFMPST is affiliated with the State Fire Marshal Division in the Department of Public Safety
Profile of Pipeline Operators in Minnesota 93 Pipeline operators. Nearly 1.5 million gas meters. Over 65,000 miles of pipeline. 900 to 1000 inspection days annually.
Hazard History Hazardous material releases may occur from any of the following:
185 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 • Fixed site facilities (e.g., refineries, chemical plants, storage facilities, manufacturing, warehouses, wastewater treatment plants, swimming pools, dry cleaners, automotive sales/repair, gas stations); • Highway and rail transportation (e.g., tanker trucks, chemical trucks, railroad tankers); • Marine transportation (e.g., bulk liquefied gas carriers, oil tankers, tank barges); • Air transportation (e.g., cargo packages); and • Pipeline transportation (liquid petroleum, natural gas, other chemicals).
Ten significant pipeline incidents/accidents occurred in 2007 for both Hazardous Liquid and Natural Gas pipeline facilities. The State Fire Marshal, Pipeline Safety Team found 250 non-compliance issues of the state damage prevention laws, conducted 178 accident investigations involving pipeline operators and 80 accident investigation cases involving non-pipeline operators.
Table 27 Minnesota Hazardous Materials Incidents by Mode for 2006 Total Major Minor Mode Deaths Damages incidents Injuries Injuries Highway 373 0 0 1 $446,157 Rail 5 0 0 0 $454,033 Air 16 0 0 0 $0 Water 0 0 0 0 $0 Total 394 0 0 1 $900,190 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2006
Future Perspectives Accidental human-caused hazardous material events, such as an unintended release from a pressure valve or a transportation accident, natural hazards may cause the release of hazardous materials and complicate response activities. The impact of earthquakes on fixed facilities may be particularly bad due to the impairment of the physical integrity or even failure of containment facilities. The threat of any hazardous material event may be magnified due to restricted access, reduced fire suppression and spill containment, and even complete cut-off of response personnel and equipment. In addition, the risk of terrorism involving hazardous materials is considered a major threat due to the location of hazardous material facilities and transport routes
186 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 throughout communities and the oftentimes limited anti-terrorism security at these facilities.
Sources of Information Environmental Protection Agency, National Response Center, Incident Summaries (2002 – 2006) http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/insum.html Minnesota Public Safety, Homeland Security Emergency Management, 2005. Minnesota State All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. North Star Mapper, Land Management Information Center, Minnesota Department of Administration. http://geoserver.state.mn.us/northmap/viewer.htm Office of Hazardous Materials Safety Research and Special Programs Administration U.S. Department of Transportation. Hazardous Materials Shipments. http://hazmat.dot.gov/pubs/inc/data/2006/2006frm.htm Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2002. Minnesota Transportation Profile. http://www.bts.gov/publications/state_transportation_profiles/minnes ota/ Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2006. State Transportation Statistics 2006, http://www.bts.gov/publications/state_transportation_statistics/state_ transportation_statistics_2006/index.html
187 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Transportation Description The areas transportation discussed in this section are: • Highways • Railroads • Commercial Waterways • Aeronautics
Highways The primary mode of transportation in Minnesota is highways. Minnesota has the fifth largest highway system in the United States. Minnesota has nearly 132,000 miles of streets and highways and 19,600 bridges. The Minnesota Department of Minnesota (MnDOT) is directly responsible for the trunk highway system and its bridges. The trunk highway system is comprised of 4,668 bridges and the roads are characterized as: Principal Arterials 5,150 miles Minor Arterials 5,565 miles Collectors 1,205 miles Local 13 miles Total 11,933 miles
Even though state highways and interstates only make up about nine percent of the total statewide system mileage, they carry about 61 percent of the annual vehicle miles of travel. The remaining roads are under the jurisdiction of local governments.
MnDOT also has jurisdiction over all signs within trunk highway rights- of-way, all billboards along the trunk highways, and all ramp-metering devices in the metro area.
In 2007 there were 503 traffic related fatalities. Twelve of the thirteen fatalities due to the collapse of the I-35 Bridge are included
188 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Hazard History
Table 28 Minnesota Traffic Fatalities, 1961 – 2006
Vehicle Miles Traveled (Billions) and Fatality Rates (Per 100 Million VMT)
Year Fatalities Miles Rate Year Fatalities Miles Rate Year Fatalities Miles Rate 1961 724 14.5 4.99 1978 980 28.8 3.40 1995 597 44.1 1.35 1962 692 15.1 4.58 1979 881 29.0 3.04 1996 576 45.9 1.26 1963 798 15.3 5.22 1980 863 28.5 3.03 1997 600 46.9 1.28 1964 841 16.2 5.19 1981 763 28.6 2.67 1998 650 48.5 1.34 1965 875 16.8 5.21 1982 581 29.2 1.98 1999 626 50.7 1.24 1966 977 17.7 5.52 1983 558 30.5 1.83 2000 625 52.4 1.19 1967 965 18.7 5.16 1984 584 32.2 1.81 2001 568 53.2 1.07 1968 1,060 19.9 5.33 1985 610 33.1 1.84 2002 657 54.4 1.21 1969 988 20.8 4.75 1986 572 34.2 1.67 2003 655 55.4 1.18 1970 987 22.4 4.41 1987 530 35.1 1.51 2004 567 56.5 1.00 1971 1,024 23.4 4.38 1988 615 36.4 1.69 2005 559 56.5 0.99 1972 1,031 24.9 4.14 1989 605 37.6 1.61 2006 494 56.6 0.87 1973 1,024 25.2 4.06 1990 568 38.8 1.47 1974 852 24.6 3.46 1991 531 39.3 1.35 1975 777 25.6 3.04 1992 581 41.3 1.41 1976 809 27.0 3.00 1993 538 42.3 1.27 1977 856 28.1 3.05 1994 644 43.4 1.48
Source: Department of Public Safety, 2006
I-35W Bridge Unfortunately, the Interstate 35W Bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed on August 1, 2007 at approximately 6:05 p.m. at the peak of rush hour. There were thirteen fatalities and approximately one hundred casualties. The fatalities and casualties were minimized by heroic actions by citizens and the fast response and coordination of law enforcement, fire and rescue squads, and emergency medical services. Traffic was also restricted on the bridge due to repairs which may have caused fewer vehicles to be on the bridge at the time of the collapse.
The collapse of the bridge also stopped or curtailed commerce that relied on a barge channel and a railway located under the bridge.
189 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Companies started to truck raw materials or temporarily shutdown operations until delivery service could be restored. Three high electric power distribution lines also were carried by the bridge. The utility redistributed power so that vital services to the University of Minnesota were not interrupted.
The bridge construction started in 1964 and opened to traffic in 1967. Total cost for the bridge was just over $5 million. The bridge was rated as “structurally deficient” but was not under any restrictions when it collapsed. At the time of the collapse, there were 1,097 bridges in Minnesota that were considered structurally deficient. This bridge was scheduled for reconstruction in 2020-25. The average life span of this type of bridge is about 50 years. In September of 2007, bids of over $233 million were received by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to rebuild the bridge.
The report from the National Transportation Safety Board that will reveal the cause for the collapse of the I-35W Bridge is yet to be published. The reasons for the bridge collapse are speculative at best at this point. The crack in the beam found on the Lafayette Bridge in 1975 may be characterized as a “near miss”. The increased bridge inspection and maintenance together adherence to posted load limits should prevent future catastrophic collapse of state owned bridges
190 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08
Lafayette (US 52) Bridge There is no history of a bridge collapse in Minnesota the scale of I-35W bridge. The nearest incident was the discovery in 1975 of a fracture in a large girder over main river span of the Lafayette Bridge that spans the Mississippi River in St. Paul that is part of Trunk Highway U.S. 52. This bridge is "fracture-critical," meaning that if one part fails the whole bridge could fall. It is also a major artery to St. Paul and feeds into I-94. The damaged component reinforced with bolted plates.
Figure 5 Trunk Highways in Minnesota
Source: North Star Mapper http://www.dot.state.mn.us/maps/cadd/highway_system/mnthsys.pdf
Bridge Inspections
191 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 A comprehensive bridge inspection program of 3,875 state owned bridges was initiated to be completed in 2007 (Figure 6). Critical findings were found on a combination of fifteen highway bridges, pedestrian bridges, or timber truss bridges. As a result of the findings four bridges were repaired, five bridges had various restriction posted, five were closed, and one bridge was awaiting analysis for a new load rating. A bridge inspection program to inspect these bridges every year is being formulated by MnDOT.
Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation, November 2007
Railroads There are currently 4,711 miles of railway in Minnesota whose use is divided between freight, passenger, and light rail commuter services. Plans for commuter trains and more light rail are in various phases of implementation.
192 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08
Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Rail System
Goods between Chicago and ports in the northwest are hauled through Minnesota on railroads. Grain and lumber are also transported between the midwest and the rest of the nation. A growing line of commodities to be hauled by rail are bio fuels. Iron ore and coal are raw mateials transported through Minnesota to other parts of the
193 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 country and the world via rail. Minnesota is sixth in the nation in total tons of commodities originating in the state and eleventh in total tons of commodities terminating in the state.
Rail transportatin is subject to the elements and may slow service. An example from DR1717 in 2007 is that several rail bridges were demolished by flood and were rebuilt. Other natural hazards have effects but damage by flood is the most reported. Transportation of hazardous materials is discussed in that section.
Table 29 Motor Vehicle/Train Crash Summary, 1997 – 2006 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 107 108 84 79 70 77 NA 72 52 51 Crashes Fatal 6 9 8 3 5 6 5 12 5 8 Crashes Persons 6 11 10 4 6 9 8 13 6 9 Killed
Injury 36 47 32 32 22 27 NA 21 22 10 Crashes Persons 46 64 50 43 28 37 NA 27 29 33 Injured Source: Department of Public Safety, 2006
Commercial Waterways Minnesota has two principle commercial waterways, the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway system and the Mississippi River (including its tributaries, the Minnesota and St. Croix Rivers). Minnesota’s river port annual tonnage was 12,920,019 tons in 2006. Great Lakes tonnage for 2006 was 67,434,676 tons. Five public ports are in Duluth, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Red Wing, and Winona. Private ports/terminals are found on the Minnesota, Mississippi, and St. Croix Rivers and on Lake Superior.
Minnesota’s agricultural and mining economies depend heavily on these waterways. Over three-fourths of the total grain shipments from the state travel by barge, large vessed, or satl water ship. MnDOT is directly involved with the development of commercial navigation policy and planning concerning water transportaion, legislation and planning concerning water transportation, legislation and rehabilitation of commercial freight facilities.
194 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 MnDOT devlops statewide railroad and waterway plans that guide investment and policy decisions. It helps to deliver infrastructure improvements, develop agreements, and provide loans and grants to public port authorities, regional railroad authorities, railroads, and shippers. It also works to facilitate greater incorporation of frieght issues and needs into statewide, modal, and district plans.
Aeronautics Ten Minnesota airports, including Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport, provided commercial airline services to over 33.5 million passnegers in 2001. MSP serves as a hub for Northwest Airlines and is the 13th busiest airport in the world in terms of passengers served. Twenty four airports in Minnesota show measurable cargo activity. In 1999 there were approximately 295,000 tons of air cargo handled by all Minnesota airports. By 2020, the annual cargo activity is expected to grow to 1.3 million tons.
The Minnesota Aviation System Plan has publicly owned airports and seaplane bases as well as privately owned airports. The MnDOT Office of Aeronautics provides technical and financial assistance to publicly owned airports for responsibilities such as airport mater planning and land acquisition. The office also works to enhance aviation safety through various programs such as flight safety seminars and flight schools, and aviation weather on public television. The figure above shows Publicly Accessible Airports in Minnesota
195 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08
Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Aeronautics.
196 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Aircarft, airports, and support systems such as radar stations and aircraft landing systems are vulnerable to natural hazards. Aircraft sustain damage from high winds if not tied down or in a shleter. Hail damage to an aircraft may render the aircraft not fit for air worthiness unless repaired. Airports may be susceptable to flooding if located in a floodplain. One case is St. Paul’s Holman Field. The last flood in 2001 shutdown the airport for several months. Holman Field is primarily used by business jet owners and at that time used by the Minnesota National Guard as the state helicopter base. There was a proposal in 2006 to build a $42 million levee funded in part by the Federal Aviation Administration. The proposal was vetoed due to concerns about increased noise pollution due to new development at the airport after the levee was built.
Future Perspectives The transportation infrastructure is vulnerable to damage from natural disasters. The best mitigation efforts are in the design, inspection, and maintenance of these systems.
Sources of Information Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Minnesota Motor Vehicle Crash Facts, 2006 http://www.dps.state.mn.us/OTS/crashdata/crash_facts.asp Minnesota Department of Transportation, August 2007. MnDOT Interstate 35W Mississippi River Bridge, Minneapolis, Fact Sheet Minnesota Department of Transportation, August 13, 2007. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridge/facts.html Minnesota Department of Transportation, November 2007. Chart Produced by Office of Transportation Data and Analysis; Inspection Data provided by Bridge Office, November 28, 2007. Minnesota Department of Transportation, June 2006. Fracture Critical Bridge Inspection-Annual Report-Bridge #9800 (Lafayette Bridge)-TH 52 over the Mississippi River in St. Paul, MN, June 2006 Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2003. Minnesota Statewide Transportation Plan (Twenty Year Plan). http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us/StatePlan/index.html Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Aeronautics. Publicly Accessible Airports in Minnesota, 2006 http://www.dot.state.mn.us/aero/avoffice/pdf/PublicAccessAirports.pdf Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Rail System, June 2006. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/ofrw/maps/RailLines20070806_1.pdf Minnesota Public Radio, April 5, 2006. Airport Flood Project Stirs Waters in St. Paul,
197 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/04/05_stpaulairpo rt/ North Star Mapper, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/maps/cadd/highway_system/mnthsys.pdf
Ground and Surface Water Supply Infrastructure Description Water is prized resource in Minnesota for many reasons. The “Land of 10,000 Lakes” is a motto that reflects the pride of residing in an area with an abundance of pristine natural water resources. Water resources are also the basis for robust agri-business and a diverse recreational industry. Last but not least to mention is that an ample supply of clean water is cherished in a world where water supply issues are blocking economic development and becoming issues in the international community.
The hazards come in the form of contamination current industry and EPA Superfund projects, runoff with oil and other chemicals from paved surfaces, traces pharmaceuticals found in waterways, topsoil washed from farm fields and construction sites, and wastewater that was not thoroughly treated.
198 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Figure 6 Vulnerable Aquifers in Minnesota
Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2007c.
History The federal Clean Water Act requires states to: • Assess all waters of the state to identify and list impairments • Conduct Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies in order to set pollutant reduction goals • Implement corrective measures to meet TMDLs pollutant reduction goals and restore waters to standards.
The Minnesota 2006 Clean Water Legacy Act launched the state on an accelerated path toward addressing impaired waters. Minnesota is currently the only state to make this commitment to water quality. Nearly $25 million was appropriated in the state budget to increase monitoring and assessment, and start a number of new TMDL studies and restoration and protection projects. Minnesota currently has 2,250 listed impairments on 1,300 lakes and streams. Many more listing are expected in the years ahead since only a small percentage of the state’s waters have been assessed. More TMDLs and restoration projects lay ahead (Clean Water Legacy Act, 2007). The Board of Water and Soil Resources is responsible for implementing non-point
199 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 pollution reduction activities through the Minnesota Clean Water Legacy Act.
Table 30 Clean Water Legacy Funding FY 2007 Legacy Funding: Outcomes $24.95 million Monitoring and Assessment: $2.14 Expands milestone sites, citizen million lake monitoring, remote sensing, mercury in fish tissue monitoring, flow monitoring. TMDL Studies: $3.17 million 10 additional TMDL studies funded. Nonpoint Source Restoration & • 51 projects funded ($8 million) Protection: – 31 restoration and 20 $11.23 million protection (181 proposals received for (44 million). • Increased forest stewardship plans on private riparian lands, acquisition of quality riparian lands. Point source Restoration & • Phosphorus reduction grants: Protection: 2.3 million available for an $8.4 million estimated 5 projects (47 projects applied needing (An additional $55.8 million in $18.2M). bonding for the State Revolving • TMDL grants: $5 million Fund and Wastewater available for an estimated 14 Infrastructure Fund for municipal projects (26 projects applied loans/grants is also available for needing $16M). restoration and protection-related • Small community wastewater projects, with priority given to treatment: TMDL implementation projects.) $1 million available for an estimated 3 unsewered communities. • $100,000 available for grants to small unsewered communities for technical assistance from UM Extension.
*Much of the funding for these activities may be matched with federal and local funds.
200 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 Non-point source pollutants in public groundwater and/or surface water supplies are being more accurately identified and trended. More water treatment may be needed in the future to emerging characterization of pollution in groundwater and aquifers. An assumption based on the above examples is that water treatment is a growing area of public investment. A fact about flooding is that water treatment and storm sewers are damaged by the rush of flood waters. One of the notable impacts to East Grand Forks was that 8 wells/water treatment plants were affected. No potable water was available for 13 days and drinking water was not available for 23 days. Another example is damage estimates to water treatment facilities and storm sewers as seen in DR-1717 flooding.
Table 31 Initial Claims Related to Water Treatment Submitted to HSEM for Flood Damage in Southeast Minnesota, 2007 (DR-1717)
City Population Water Storm Sewer Water (2000 Treatment Damages Meters Census) Damages (Dollars) (Dollars) (Dollars) Rushford 1,696 1,261,069 60,972 124,142 Elgin 836 66,036 - - Dover- 4,987 38,946 19,503 - Eyota- St. Charles Stockton 682 35078 - - Byron 3500 26,254 - - La 4,923 21,338 30,958 - Crescent Hokah 614 8,234 13,531 - Chatfield 2,394 3,039 - - Goodview 3,373 2,047 - - Winona 27,069 - 13,121 - Subtotal 50,074 1,462,041 138,085 124,142 Total $1,724,288 Sources: Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 2007. Minnesota State Demographic Center
201 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08
Table 32 Community Water Supply Systems in Minnesota Public Water System Type Number of Systems Municipal 713 Nonmunicipal 241 TOTAL 954 *Does not include wells used for drinking water. Source: Minnesota Department of Health, 2007b.
Storm drains are susceptible to damage during floods. The hydraulic forces on a system may cause damage. If flow is inadequate buildings in the area may be flooded.
Table 33 Storm Drainage Failures in Minnesota Date/Location: Type of Failure Summary of Impacts: July1999, Storm Water Along highway I-35W in Minneapolis Overflow Minneapolis water shot up to heights exceeding 30 feet. A large diameter manhole cover was displaced by the pent-up head of the backed-up storm water in the storm drain. September Storm Water Five residences were flooded 2007, Overflow when storm drains overflowed St. Paul during a rain storm. The city is determining if this was caused by designed restrictions.
Future Perspectives As the commitment to clean water grows the investment in treatment facilities and monitoring will also grow. Wastewater treatment plants, storm sewers, water supply/purification/distribution systems, runoff holding ponds and other pollution control devices are susceptible to damage during natural disasters. These systems may also be source of damage during flooding. An example is storm sewers that do not have the capacity to move water in sufficient quantities thus cause flooding of neighborhoods.
One of the problems encountered during the development of this analysis was that it is difficult to get GIS on the facilities mentioned above. This may be a project to be considered since it is difficult to analyze determine any type of risk if the location of the facility is not
202 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Four: Hazard Analysis 1/30/08 available without doing a lot of research. This is of concern since there is a perception that there may be many treatment plants that are in floodplains due to the nature of proximity close to a discharge point on a river.
Sources of Information Clean Water Legacy Act, 2007. Clean Water Legacy Act: Restoring and Protecting Minnesota’s Waters, Case Studies and Examples; board of Water and Soil Resources, February 2007 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Grand Forks 1997 Flood Recovery and Minnesota Severe Storms/Flooding April 1997 Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 2007. Preliminary Estimates Received for Public Assistance by December 1, 2007 at HSEM. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2007a. Minnesota’s Ground Water Condition, A Statewide View, September 2007. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2007b. Minnesota Stormwater Manual, Chapter 2: General Stormwater Background and the Minnesota Perspective http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/stormwater/stormwater- manual.html Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2007b. Vulnerable Aquifers, http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/groundwater/gwmap/gw- conditionmonitoring.html Minnesota Department of Health, 2007a. Safe Drinking Water in Minnesota: A Reliable Tradition. June 2007. http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/com/dwar/report06.htm l Minnesota Department of Health, 2007b. Community Water Supply Systems in Minnesota. http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/com/index.htm Minnesota Public Safety Homeland Security Emergency Management, 2005. Minnesota All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Minnesota State Demographic Center. 2000 Census SF1 and SF3: Report and Mapping Menu, Summary Report, County at a Glance, or City at a Glance http://www.lmic.state.mn.us/datanetweb/php/census2000/c2000_me nu.php
203 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment SECTION FIVE: RISK ASSESSMENT All of the 20 hazards outlined in previous sections pose some risk to Minnesotans. Although the Interim Final Rule (IFR) requires that all natural hazards affecting the State be included in a detailed overview, it is not practical or desirable to perform detailed risk assessments on all of these hazards because many of them have little probability of affecting the State and/or it is difficult to mitigate their effects. It is also important to prioritize the highest risk hazards in order to maximize resources for mitigation efforts. Because of this, the State Hazard Mitigation Team (SHMT) and HSEM determined that it would be desirable to reduce the initial list of 20 hazards to those that:
• Have the highest probability of affecting the State • Have the greatest potential for mitigation
It is important to note that a more in-depth analysis of local risk assessments will become available through the completion of local mitigation plans. The state hazard mitigation planner will continue to work closely with the development of these local plans and incorporate the findings into the state mitigation plan. As of the writing of this plan, approximately thirty county plans, two city plans and three tribal plans were complete. Fourteen county plans were FEMA approved pending local adoption.
This section provides detailed risk assessments for the four most significant hazards in the State, as identified through a process described previously. The process used to identify these most significant hazards was reviewed and approved by the State Hazard Mitigation Team. This qualitative rating is included at the end of each hazard discussed in the present section, as a way to address the issue of probability without undertaking detailed studies for all of the hazards.
Methodology for Identifying Hazards To accomplish this, HSEM and the SHMT used a qualitative ranking system that rated each of the 20 hazards by its probability and potential for mitigation. This ranking is not intended to supplant detailed risk assessment, but rather to allow time and technical resources to be focused on the most significant hazards.
HSEM and SHMT used the following general guidelines in Tables 26 and 27 to determine the high, medium or low rankings for probability and mitigation potential. Each of the ranking levels has several
204 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment criteria. These criteria were used as general guidelines so in some cases the rankings were weighted toward one or two of the criteria rather than all of them.
Table 34 Probability Ranking and Criteria for Hazard Identification and Disposition Ranking Criteria High • The hazard has impacted the State annually, or more frequently • The hazard is widespread, generally affecting regions or multiple counties in each event • There is a reliable methodology for identifying events and locations Medium • The hazard impacts the State occasionally, but not annually • The hazard is somewhat localized, affecting only relatively small or isolated areas when it occurs • The methodology for identifying events is not well- established, or is not applied across the entire State Low • The hazard occurs only very infrequently, generally less than every five years on a large scale, although localized events may be more frequent • The hazard is generally very localized and on a small scale (i.e. sub-county level) • A methodology for identifying event occurrences and/or severities is poorly established in the State, or is available only on a local basis.
Table 35 Mitigation Potential Ranking and Criteria for Hazard Identification and Disposition Ranking Criteria High Methods for reducing risk from the hazard are technically reliable • The State or Counties have experience in implementing mitigation measures • Mitigation measures are eligible under Federal grant programs • There are multiple possible mitigation measures for the hazard
205 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment • The mitigation measure(s) are known to be cost- effective • The mitigation measures protect lives and property for a long period of time, or are permanent risk reduction solutions Medium • Mitigation methods are established • The State or Counties have limited experience with the kinds of measures that may be appropriate to mitigate the hazard • Some mitigation measures are eligible for Federal grants • There is a limited range of effective mitigation measures for the hazard • Mitigation measures are cost-effective only in limited circumstances • Mitigation measures are effective for a reasonable period of time Low • Methods for reducing risk from the hazard are not well-established, are not proven reliable, or are experimental • The State or Counties have little or no experience in implementing mitigation measures, and/or no technical knowledge of them • Mitigation measures are ineligible under Federal grant programs • There is a very limited range of mitigation measures for the hazard, usually only one feasible alternative • The mitigation measure(s) have not been proven cost effective and are likely to be very expensive compared to the magnitude of the hazard • The long-term effectiveness of the measure is not known, or is known to be relatively poor.
For each of the 20 initial hazards Table 39 the name of the hazard, data sources used in assessing it, the relative rankings for probability and mitigation potential, and the disposition of the hazard in this risk assessment. Disposition means how the hazard was addressed, either by performing a basic profile as required by the IFR, or through a more comprehensive risk assessment that provides projections of future losses due from the selected hazards impacting the State and its citizens. Guidance provided by FEMA in the document served as the basis for selecting the natural hazards profiled in the report.
206 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 36 Hazard Identification and Disposition Hazard Data Sources Probability Mitigation Disposition Potential General profile. Risk Assessment FEMA at County HSEM level. Flooding High High MN DNR Risk NOAA Assessment for State- owned and – operated facilities. General profile. Risk Assessment NOAA at County FEMA level. Tornadoes High High HSEM Risk Assessment for State- owned and – operated facilities. General profile. Risk Assessment at County NOAA Straight Line level. FEMA High High Winds Risk HSEM Assessment for State- owned and – operated facilities.
207 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 36 Hazard Identification and Disposition Hazard Data Sources Probability Mitigation Disposition Potential General profile. Risk Assessment FEMA at County HSEM level. Wildfire High High MN DNR Risk Assessment for State- owned and – operated facilities. NOAA Hail General FEMA High Medium profile. HSEM USGS Coastal US ACE General High Medium Erosion FEMA profile. HSEM FEMA General Dam Failure HSEM Medium Medium profile. MN DNR FEMA General Drought High Low HSEM profile. FEMA University of Memphis Center for General Earthquakes Low Low Earthquake profile. Information HSEM USGS FEMA General Extreme Heat High Low HSEM profile. FEMA General Landslides USGS Medium Low profile. HSEM
208 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 36 Hazard Identification and Disposition Hazard Data Sources Probability Mitigation Disposition Potential Sinkholes & FEMA General Land USGS Medium Low profile. Subsidence HSEM FEMA CDC NOAA NWS General Lightning University High Low profile. Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) FEMA HSEM General Winter Storms Department of High Low profile. Military Affairs NOAA Twenty-three DNR high hazard HSEM potential FEMA dams USACE identified. Association of Dams Medium Medium Some Dam Safety mitigation Officials measures are National available for Performance of federal Dams Program grants. Fire DPS State Fire General (Structure Medium Low Marshal Office profile. and Vehicle)
209 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 36 Hazard Identification and Disposition Hazard Data Sources Probability Mitigation Disposition Potential HSEM Methodology Board of Water is not applied and Soil across the Resources state. Ground and State Some Surface Water Medium Medium Demographic mitigation Supply Center measures are PCA available for MDH federal FEMA grants. HSEM LMIC US DOT Hazardous General MN DOT Medium Low Materials profile. Bureau of Transportation Statistics HSEM Nuclear NRC General Generating Low Low Nuclear Energy profile. Plants Institute MDH Infectious BAH General Disease Low Low HSEM profile. Outbreak CDC MnDOT General Transportation Minnesota Low Low profile. Public Radio MHIRA indicates that Not profiled tropical due to low Tropical cyclones have probability Low Low Cyclones a very low and chance of mitigation occurrence in potential. Minnesota
210 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 36 Hazard Identification and Disposition Hazard Data Sources Probability Mitigation Disposition Potential MHIRA indicates that Not profiled snow due to low Snow avalanches probability Low Low Avalanches have a very and low chance of mitigation occurrence in potential. Minnesota MHIRA Not profiled indicates that due to low expansive soils Expansive probability have a very Low Low Soils and low chance of mitigation occurrence in potential. Minnesota MHIRA Not profiled indicates that due to low tsunamis have probability Tsunami a very low Low Low and chance of mitigation occurrence in potential. Minnesota MHIRA Not profiled indicates that due to low volcanoes have probability Volcanoes a very low Low Low and chance of mitigation occurrence in potential. Minnesota
As expected, the classification process provided a clear stratification of the hazards based on these criteria. The SHMT identified floods, tornadoes, straight-line winds and wildfire as the hazards that present highest risk to the State and the most potential for mitigation based on this limited assessment. In the sections that follow, these hazards are afforded detailed risk assessments in order to identify the areas of the State that are most at risk, and this information is in turn used as the basis for determining appropriate actions to reduce the risks.
211 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment As discussed earlier, this ranking system is not intended to supersede more detailed and focused risk assessment procedures. As the State occasionally re-evaluates and updates its plans, it may be appropriate to revisit this ranking methodology and perform full risk assessments for additional hazards.
Because it forms the basis of the State Hazard Mitigation Plan, the state-level risk assessment should be as comprehensive as possible. As discussed elsewhere in this risk assessment, the initial list of 20 hazards was reduced to four for the more detailed vulnerability assessment provided in this section. The hazards included in this section are: 1. Flood 2. Tornado 3. Windstorms (thunderstorms & straight-line winds) 4. Wildfire
Section Four provided an explanation of the method used to identify these most significant hazards. This section includes state-wide vulnerability assessments at two levels for each of the four hazards identified earlier. Section Four also provides vulnerability assessments for the four most significant hazards at the county level. Section Four also provides vulnerability assessments for state-owned and operated facilities for the four most significant hazards.
First, it is important to understand the meanings of several terms that appear in both the Federal hazard mitigation planning rules and this Plan. The terms risk, probability and vulnerability appear many times in both places, and those terms and others are defined below and given some context in terms of this plan.
Probability is the likelihood that events of particular severities will occur. The ability to calculate probability varies considerably depending on the hazard in question. In many areas of the country, flood studies of various kinds can provide reasonably accurate estimates of how often water will reach particular places and elevations. On the other hand, tornadoes are notoriously difficult to predict, although general areas of impact can be determined (it is also possible to predict the seasons of the year that are most likely to produce tornadoes.) Probability is a key element of risk because it determines how often the events are likely to happen.
It is important to note that risk is cumulative. This means that although natural hazards may not affect a place in any particular year,
212 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment the probability of one or more events (in some places multiple events) occurring “adds up” over time. Risk calculations incorporate all expected future events – usually with some limit on the time horizon that is considered – in order to account for both repetitive events and for the probabilities that accumulate over time. So, over time the possibility of the hazard event happening increases.
Severity is the measure of “how bad” a hazard event is. The severity of different hazards is measured in different ways, although most hazards are fairly straightforward to categorize. For example, floods can be measured in terms of depth, velocity, duration, contamination potential, debris flow, and so forth. Tornadoes are measured primarily in terms of wind speed, although their duration on the ground can also be an important factor in their destructiveness.
Vulnerability is the extent to which something is damaged by a hazard. Value is how much something is worth. Although the concept may generate disagreement, it is possible to assign a value to many community “assets” including physical components such as buildings and infrastructure, functional ones such as government or business operations, and even injuries and casualties.
Risk is often expressed in dollars of future expected losses. It is calculated in this way so that different kinds of losses can be adequately compared. For example, without a common basis for comparison, it would be virtually impossible to determine if the risk of injury from future tornadoes is greater than damage to vehicles in future floods. When the expected losses are converted to and expressed in dollars, the damages can be compared and prioritized. In combination with the concepts discussed above, almost any kind of hazard can be quantified and its risk expressed. The exceptions to this idea are infrequent or highly unpredictable events such as meteors impacting the earth, or manmade hazards such as terrorism. In these cases, the element of probability is virtually impossible to characterize, and the risk calculus cannot be accurate without it.
Risk calculations often start with an annualized (yearly) loss figure, which is then projected into the future for some pre-determined period of time, then discounted to today’s value using a discount rate. This is a standard economic methodology that is required by the Federal government for analyses of many of its programs, including FEMA’s mitigation initiatives.
213 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment The risk calculation techniques that were used as the basis for this plan are carefully described in the sections that follow, and conform to standard methodologies that FEMA and other Federal agencies have been using for many years. A discount rate of 7% and a time horizon of 30 years are used in all calculations unless otherwise specified. The 7% discount rate was the OMB-mandated rate at the time this plan was developed, and the 30-year horizon is a medium-term figure that blends the expected life of a variety of potential mitigation actions. The sections in the Plan that deal with specific mitigation activities use other time horizons as indicated, but the discount rate always remains at 7%.
214 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Vulnerability Assessment by Jurisdiction The HSEM office is currently working with the Critical Infrastructure Planner to develop a data management plan for the vast amount of data that is being compiled statewide by the local planning projects. This plan will encourage the proper use and documentation of metadata, and will provide a database structure that will allow the secure and accurate distribution of information.
The state has continually provided guidance and technical support to the local mitigation plans and has encouraged the sharing of information both between local planning projects and with the state. The state has brought this information directly to the local planning efforts via statewide workshops and planning forums. Additional technical assistance will be provided in the future and will include: • Providing GIS maps, tables and text necessary to assess risks • Compiling statewide dataset of critical facilities
Once local planning data and information is compiled and analyzed in a comprehensive manner, a greater understanding of where the highest risks are across the state will be obtained; with this, the state will be better prepared to decide where and how mitigation resources can be most effective.
Floods Floods affect a great portion of the State of Minnesota. Since 1989, all but one county (Renville) in Minnesota has been included in a Presidential Disaster Declaration for flooding. Riverine flooding comprises most of the flood damage found in the state. The information contained in this section also includes agricultural loss data that is not always associated with what most people associate as “flood damage” but rather extreme rainfall events (flash flooding or localized flooding of agricultural areas) or just too much rain in a short period of time (or sometimes spread out over a longer period of time) resulting in crop damage or destruction.
The state of Minnesota has been granted Presidential Disaster Declarations 40 times between 1965 and 2007 (42 years). Of those declarations, 33 involved flooding. Those numbers translate into approximately a 78% chance of a major flood annually somewhere in the State.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Waters notes that one river has flooded consistently nearly every
215 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment other or every third year; the Red River of the North. Twenty one counties cover the 17,730 sq. mile area in Red River of the North basin in Minnesota. Twelve counties are entirely located within the Red River basin. The DNR delineated 17 major watersheds to represent the 17,730 square miles (11,347,300 acres) portion of the Red River of the North basin in Minnesota. Drainage plays a key role in the agricultural productivity. In order to dry out the soil at the growing season most of the poorly drained areas are artificially drained.
Drainage ditches, dikes, dams and other construction in the basin has modified the natural hydrology significantly. Poor soil, internal drainage plus the flat topography contributes to the spring flooding in the Red River basin. The basin has very poor drainage near the Red River Valley and in the northeast part of the basin. Drainage in the southeastern part of the basin is better, due to soil type.
Repeated flooding at this location is due primarily to two factors: (1) The river flows north, often into areas that have not yet thawed, hence the water backs up; (2) Flat terrain around the river allows flooding above the banks to go on for miles (much further than most rivers in Minnesota). Counties located along this river have some of the highest numbers of disaster declarations from 1989-2007 and include Clay County (11), Kittson (9), Marshall (9), Norman (10), and Polk (9).
The counties of Lyon, Mower, Olmsted, St. Louis, Stearns, and Winona have experienced the greatest number of flash flood events, averaging at least one every 5 years. Olmsted County has experienced the greatest number of events (eight) and averages one flash flood every 3.1 years.
Significant agricultural crop losses due to flooding have occurred throughout the years. According to indemnity figures maintained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, average annual agricultural crop losses due to flooding in Minnesota are $67,640,000 from 1994 to 2006 ($811,749,092 total).
The counties of Marshall, Polk, Kittson, and Roseau in the north/northwest part of the state have suffered the greatest agricultural losses during this time. Even though most of these counties are also the ones included in the disaster declarations for flooding, agricultural damages do not always coincide with damage to other property as illustrated by the numbers in Table 40. Most of the damage in that table is directly caused by flooding while the
216 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment agricultural damage may be crop damage from untimely heavy rains during the growing season or flash flooding which may not damage other property in the area. Conversely, early spring flooding may cause substantial damage to property such as homes, public infrastructure, etc. but occurs early enough in the season (prior to spring planting) so that crop damage is minimal.
217 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 37 Agricultural Losses from Water-Related Insurance Claims from 1994-2006 County Indemnity County Indemnity St Louis $40,775 Stearns $3,739,610 Carlton $61,000 Lac Qui Parle $3,834,855 Itasca $61,334 Yellow Medicine $3,839,421 Crow Wing $154,164 Beltrami $3,889,306 Cass $168,724 Meeker $3,892,658 Anoka $191,640 Nicollet $4,073,643 Hennepin $430,849 Brown $4,566,361 Winona $468,561 Nobles $4,947,162 Wadena $477,363 Chippewa $5,118,112 Aitkin $534,782 Jackson $5,212,386 Washington $585,044 Steele $5,259,761 Pine $667,275 Waseca $5,380,605 Houston $684,974 Benton $5,417,388 Kanabec $936,215 Morrison $5,418,613 Koochiching $959,122 Murray $5,460,682 Mille Lacs $1,056,170 Redwood $5,907,400 Isanti $1,144,916 Mcleod $7,306,644 Hubbard $1,179,004 Lake Of The Woods $7,596,700 Chisago $1,313,084 Martin $7,664,496 Rock $1,493,317 Blue Earth $7,780,055 Olmsted $1,571,514 Big Stone $8,397,652 Scott $1,605,646 Swift $8,623,778 Wabasha $1,629,336 Sibley $9,075,183 Sherburne $1,764,502 Stevens $9,473,646 Dakota $1,796,402 Mower $9,957,038 Lyon $1,801,273 Otter Tail $10,114,911 Rice $1,863,115 Mahnomen $10,961,498 Carver $2,141,235 Freeborn $12,009,919 Douglas $2,167,061 Renville $12,705,377 Watonwan $2,195,421 Faribault $14,551,763 Cottonwood $2,282,093 Red Lake $15,143,204 Pope $2,292,713 Traverse $16,613,409 Goodhue $2,350,194 Becker $16,903,284 Wright $2,402,822 Grant $17,433,199 Pipestone $2,478,519 Wilkin $19,319,514 Lincoln $2,649,059 Clay $33,893,847 Fillmore $2,835,757 Pennington $40,363,091 Dodge $2,845,179 Norman $55,005,743 Clearwater $3,080,625 Roseau $60,552,590 Le Sueur $3,269,943 Kittson $70,885,448 Kandiyohi $3,275,335 Polk $73,118,217
218 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 37 Agricultural Losses from Water-Related Insurance Claims from 1994-2006 County Indemnity County Indemnity Todd $3,576,287 Marshall $115,858,579 Source: USDA Risk Management Agency
The numbers from the table above are illustrated in the figure below.
Source: USDA Risk Management Agency
The information from the USDA includes indemnities for those crops that are insured. The numbers do not include the deductible amount that the farmer pays, which on average is 30% or damage to crops that were not insured. For instance, in Minnesota approximately 62% of all acres planted in Barley are insured. That leaves 37% of all acres (40,000+ acres) uninsured and unaccounted for in terms of damage to crops.
The following table includes major disaster payments to counties by disaster for Public Assistance. This table has information from some
219 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment disasters that are still open so as new information becomes available, the results may change somewhat. It gives a clear indication of those counties that are most vulnerable to the listed disaster, most of which are flooding or flood-related. The fact that they are on this list is an indication that they are all vulnerable as these are all federally declared disasters. Some of the counties with the highest public assistance damages paid from flooding are in the Red River Valley (Clay, Marshall, Wilkin, Polk, Roseau, and Norman) again show high amounts of damage indicating higher levels of vulnerability to flood risk. This corresponds to the USDA water-related agricultural damage payments made to the Red River Valley counties. Dakota County in the metropolitan area also had high damage amounts for flooding in the past.
220 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 38 1989-2006 Disaster Payments for Public Assistance for Flooding*
Disaster # County Federal Share State Share Applicant Share Sub-total Admin $ Total Approved 824 FLOODING 824 Pennington County $27,175.00 $5,435.00 $3,623.00 $36,233.00 $1,087.00 $37,320.00 824 Kittson County $39,072.00 $7,814.00 $5,210.00 $52,096.00 $1,563.00 $53,659.00 824 Clay County $170,207.00 $34,041.00 $22,694.00 $226,942.00 $6,687.00 $233,629.00 824 Traverse County $196,013.00 $39,202.00 $26,134.00 $261,349.00 $6,248.00 $267,597.00 824 Marshall County $227,882.00 $45,576.00 $30,385.00 $303,843.00 $8,144.00 $311,987.00 824 Wilkin County $427,623.60 $79,242.00 $63,299.20 $570,164.80 $14,415.00 $584,579.80 824 Norman County $668,199.00 $133,639.00 $98,747.00 $900,585.00 $20,750.00 $921,335.00 824 Polk County $1,715,049.01 $340,700.00 $230,982.34 $2,286,731.35 $39,130.00 $2,325,861.35 946 FLOODING, SEVERE STORMS, TORNADOES 946 Nobles County $5,926.00 $1,184.00 $791.00 $7,901.00 $237.00 $8,138.00 946 Lyon County $15,218.00 $3,043.00 $2,028.00 $20,289.00 $609.00 $20,898.00 946 Redwood County $22,209.00 $4,440.00 $2,963.00 $29,612.00 $889.00 $30,501.00 946 Chippewa County $26,576.00 $5,309.00 $3,545.00 $35,430.00 $1,063.00 $36,493.00 946 McLeod County $44,840.00 $8,966.00 $5,980.00 $59,786.00 $1,794.00 $61,580.00 946 Lac Qui Parle Co $190,225.00 $37,967.00 $24,986.00 $253,178.00 $7,607.00 $260,785.00 946 Kandiyohi County $230,165.00 $46,029.00 $30,691.00 $306,885.00 $7,978.00 $314,863.00 946 Yellow Medicine Co $381,912.00 $76,380.00 $50,922.00 $509,214.00 $12,693.00 $521,907.00 946 Wright County $791,725.00 $158,342.00 $105,564.00 $1,055,631.00 $23,515.00 $1,079,146.00 946 Murray County $797,858.00 $159,562.00 $106,385.00 $1,063,805.00 $25,527.00 $1,089,332.00 993 FLOODING, SEVERE STORMS, TORNADOES 993 Mahnomen County $48,014.00 $2,664.00 $2,670.00 $53,348.00 $1,599.00 $54,947.00 993 Marshall County $51,586.00 $2,865.00 $2,867.00 $57,318.00 $1,720.00 $59,038.00 993 Aitkin County $62,979.00 $3,498.00 $3,500.00 $69,977.00 $2,099.00 $72,076.00 993 Houston County $76,206.00 $4,229.00 $4,238.00 $84,673.00 $2,541.00 $87,214.00 993 Waseca County $82,075.00 $4,558.00 $4,560.00 $91,193.00 $2,735.00 $93,928.00 993 Roseau County $85,232.00 $4,730.00 $4,739.00 $94,701.00 $2,841.00 $97,542.00
221 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
993 Fillmore County $92,108.00 $5,116.00 $5,118.00 $102,342.00 $3,070.00 $105,412.00 993 Norman County $102,525.00 $5,692.00 $5,697.00 $113,914.00 $3,418.00 $117,332.00 993 Swift County $116,188.00 $6,452.00 $6,458.00 $129,098.00 $3,873.00 $132,971.00 993 Traverse County $124,167.00 $6,898.00 $6,899.00 $137,964.00 $3,759.00 $141,723.00 993 Meeker County $145,784.00 $8,097.00 $8,102.00 $161,983.00 $4,859.00 $166,842.00 993 Watonwan County $164,107.00 $9,111.00 $9,122.00 $182,340.00 $5,472.00 $187,812.00 993 Dodge County $172,186.00 $9,564.00 $9,567.00 $191,317.00 $5,740.00 $197,057.00 993 Kandiyohi County $173,708.00 $9,646.00 $9,654.00 $193,008.00 $5,790.00 $198,798.00 993 Grant County $181,218.00 $10,064.00 $10,072.00 $201,354.00 $5,755.00 $207,109.00 993 Wright County $186,519.00 $10,357.00 $10,366.00 $207,242.00 $6,217.00 $213,459.00 993 Stevens County $192,169.00 $10,667.00 $10,681.00 $213,517.00 $6,406.00 $219,923.00 993 Steele County $202,649.00 $11,254.00 $11,261.00 $225,164.00 $6,473.00 $231,637.00 993 Big Stone County $205,076.00 $11,388.00 $11,394.00 $227,858.00 $6,834.00 $234,692.00 993 McLeod County $219,886.00 $12,211.00 $12,219.00 $244,316.00 $7,329.00 $251,645.00 993 Winona County $235,382.00 $13,075.00 $13,079.00 $261,536.00 $6,915.00 $268,451.00 993 Freeborn County $259,282.00 $14,397.00 $14,409.00 $288,088.00 $8,642.00 $296,730.00 993 Polk County $263,924.00 $14,660.00 $14,664.00 $293,248.00 $7,055.00 $300,303.00 993 Pope County $295,114.00 $16,390.00 $16,399.00 $327,903.00 $8,546.00 $336,449.00 993 Rice County $306,849.00 $17,041.00 $17,053.00 $340,943.00 $10,170.00 $351,113.00 993 Yellow Medicine Co $309,597.00 $17,194.00 $17,204.00 $343,995.00 $10,227.00 $354,222.00 993 Chippewa County $317,515.00 $17,633.00 $17,645.00 $352,793.00 $9,709.00 $362,502.00 993 Lac Qui Parle Co $330,206.00 $18,342.00 $18,348.00 $366,896.00 $8,929.00 $375,825.00 993 Wabasha County $340,427.00 $18,908.00 $18,916.00 $378,251.00 $9,463.00 $387,714.00 993 Goodhue County $354,551.00 $19,690.00 $19,701.00 $393,942.00 $11,617.00 $405,559.00 993 Becker County $385,633.00 $20,479.00 $20,501.00 $426,613.00 $12,743.00 $439,356.00 993 Scott County $406,430.00 $22,578.00 $22,579.00 $451,587.00 $10,032.00 $461,619.00 993 Murray County $448,065.00 $24,889.00 $24,893.00 $497,847.00 $11,328.00 $509,175.00 993 Martin County $462,571.00 $25,687.00 $25,707.00 $513,965.00 $14,707.00 $528,672.00 993 Faribault County $464,809.00 $25,810.00 $25,828.00 $516,447.00 $14,760.00 $531,207.00 993 Brown County $470,105.00 $26,103.00 $26,123.00 $522,331.00 $15,329.00 $537,660.00 993 Cottonwood County $578,616.00 $34,896.00 $34,918.00 $648,430.00 $18,226.00 $666,656.00 993 Washington County $608,882.00 $33,824.00 $33,831.00 $676,537.00 $16,592.00 $693,129.00 993 Sibley County $627,842.00 $34,873.00 $34,885.00 $697,600.00 $17,690.00 $715,290.00
222 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
993 Jackson County $646,003.00 $35,880.00 $35,895.00 $717,778.00 $20,314.00 $738,092.00 993 Ramsey County $673,698.00 $37,427.00 $37,429.00 $748,554.00 $16,373.00 $764,927.00 993 Pipestone County $758,683.00 $42,143.00 $42,153.00 $842,979.00 $21,144.00 $864,123.00 993 Lincoln County $769,904.00 $42,759.00 $42,783.00 $855,446.00 $22,603.00 $878,049.00 993 Dakota County $796,950.00 $44,266.00 $44,279.00 $885,495.00 $23,434.00 $908,929.00 993 Redwood County $800,719.00 $44,466.00 $44,499.00 $889,684.00 $24,586.00 $914,270.00 993 LeSueur County $808,768.00 $44,927.00 $44,934.00 $898,629.00 $22,002.00 $920,631.00 993 Mower County $809,182.00 $44,947.00 $44,961.00 $899,090.00 $24,338.00 $923,428.00 993 Clay County $840,809.00 $47,703.00 $46,716.00 $935,228.00 $22,939.00 $958,167.00 993 Nobles County $839,118.00 $46,604.00 $46,625.00 $932,347.00 $27,004.00 $959,351.00 993 Carver County $862,169.00 $47,891.00 $47,904.00 $957,964.00 $22,739.00 $980,703.00 993 Nicollet County $918,472.00 $51,021.00 $51,029.00 $1,020,522.00 $25,224.00 $1,045,746.00 993 Lyon County $1,037,168.00 $57,606.00 $57,630.00 $1,152,404.00 $29,396.00 $1,181,800.00 993 Rock County $1,352,454.00 $75,123.00 $75,147.00 $1,502,724.00 $39,763.00 $1,542,487.00 993 Blue Earth County $2,144,625.00 $119,134.00 $119,152.00 $2,382,911.00 $47,074.00 $2,429,985.00 1064 SEVERE STORM, THUNDERSTORM, HIGH WINDS, FLOODING, TORNADOES, HEAT 1064 Wilkin County $1,706.00 $341.00 $228.00 $2,275.00 $68.00 $2,343.00 1064 Wadena County $4,809.00 $961.00 $641.00 $6,411.00 $192.00 $6,603.00 1064 Aitkin County $9,115.00 $1,821.00 $1,217.00 $12,153.00 $365.00 $12,518.00 1064 Otter Tail County $28,721.00 $5,742.00 $3,831.00 $38,294.00 $1,149.00 $39,443.00 1064 Cass County $30,743.00 $6,145.00 $4,102.00 $40,990.00 $1,229.00 $42,219.00 1064 St. Louis County $145,701.00 $29,135.00 $19,428.00 $194,264.00 $5,828.00 $200,092.00 1064 Itasca County $335,294.00 $67,052.00 $44,709.00 $447,055.00 $11,764.00 $458,819.00 1116 FLOODING 1116 Waseca County $26,095.00 $5,216.00 $3,481.00 $34,792.00 $1,044.00 $35,836.00 1116 Clearwater County $32,178.00 $6,432.00 $4,293.00 $42,903.00 $1,286.00 $44,189.00 1116 Steele County $37,610.00 $7,521.00 $5,016.00 $50,147.00 $1,505.00 $51,652.00 1116 Clay County $45,088.00 $9,014.00 $6,014.00 $60,116.00 $1,803.00 $61,919.00 1116 Washington County $81,480.00 $16,306.00 $10,854.00 $108,640.00 $3,259.00 $111,899.00 1116 Lake of the Woods $86,898.00 $17,378.00 $11,587.00 $115,863.00 $3,476.00 $119,339.00 1116 Faribault County $88,308.00 $17,656.00 $11,777.00 $117,741.00 $3,533.00 $121,274.00 1116 Wabasha County $92,675.00 $18,532.00 $12,358.00 $123,565.00 $3,707.00 $127,272.00 1116 Chisago County $102,436.00 $20,483.00 $13,659.00 $136,578.00 $4,097.00 $140,675.00
223 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
1116 Traverse County $106,503.00 $21,298.00 $14,203.00 $142,004.00 $3,840.00 $145,844.00 1116 Red Lake County $148,196.00 $29,631.00 $19,765.00 $197,592.00 $5,926.00 $203,518.00 1116 Beltrami County $157,992.00 $31,589.00 $21,071.00 $210,652.00 $6,138.00 $216,790.00 1116 Aitkin County $177,660.00 $39,012.00 $0.00 $216,672.00 $5,333.00 $222,005.00 1116 Pennington County $191,991.00 $38,396.00 $25,601.00 $255,988.00 $6,501.00 $262,489.00 1116 Dakota County $223,864.00 $44,771.00 $29,849.00 $298,484.00 $922.00 $299,406.00 1116 Blue Earth County $234,109.00 $46,818.00 $31,216.00 $312,143.00 $8,835.00 $320,978.00 1116 Pope County $313,127.00 $62,624.00 $41,750.00 $417,501.00 $9,350.00 $426,851.00 1116 Big Stone County $318,671.00 $63,723.00 $42,495.00 $424,889.00 $10,966.00 $435,855.00 1116 Norman County $453,007.00 $90,598.00 $60,404.00 $604,009.00 $15,080.00 $619,089.00 1116 Kittson County $454,107.00 $90,819.00 $60,546.00 $605,472.00 $14,109.00 $619,581.00 1116 Nicollet County $568,402.00 $113,679.00 $75,788.00 $757,869.00 $17,876.00 $775,745.00 1116 Polk County $997,247.00 $199,423.00 $132,978.00 $1,329,648.00 $35,124.00 $1,364,772.00 1116 Marshall County $1,217,117.00 $243,417.00 $162,282.00 $1,622,816.00 $36,439.00 $1,659,255.00 1116 Roseau County $1,217,890.00 $243,558.00 $162,398.00 $1,623,846.00 $41,557.00 $1,665,403.00 1175 SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING 1175 Kandiyohi County $1,714.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,714.00 $51.00 $1,765.00 1175 Houston County $2,092.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,092.00 $63.00 $2,155.00 1175 Benton County $5,878.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,878.00 $176.00 $6,054.00 1175 Hubbard County $6,591.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,591.00 $198.00 $6,789.00 1175 St. Louis County $12,548.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,548.00 $377.00 $12,925.00 1175 Stearns County $24,743.00 $0.00 $0.00 $24,743.00 $742.00 $25,485.00 1175 Clearwater County $27,804.00 $9,267.00 $0.00 $37,071.00 $1,112.00 $38,183.00 1175 Beltrami County $37,173.00 $0.00 $0.00 $37,173.00 $1,115.00 $38,288.00 1175 Sherburne County $37,342.00 $0.00 $0.00 $37,342.00 $1,120.00 $38,462.00 1175 Murray County $29,013.00 $9,671.00 $0.00 $38,684.00 $1,161.00 $39,845.00 1175 Wright County $48,849.00 $0.00 $0.00 $48,849.00 $1,466.00 $50,315.00 1175 Douglas County $42,240.00 $12,998.00 $0.00 $55,238.00 $1,657.00 $56,895.00 1175 Wadena County $48,604.00 $15,102.00 $0.00 $63,706.00 $1,912.00 $65,618.00 1175 LeSueur County $59,180.00 $11,835.00 $0.00 $71,015.00 $2,367.00 $73,382.00 1175 Todd County $58,412.00 $17,078.00 $0.00 $75,490.00 $2,265.00 $77,755.00 1175 Lake of the Woods $77,504.00 $19,917.00 $0.00 $97,421.00 $2,923.00 $100,344.00 1175 Pope County $75,057.00 $25,015.00 $0.00 $100,072.00 $3,003.00 $103,075.00
224 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
1175 Scott County $111,124.00 $1,651.00 $0.00 $112,775.00 $3,256.00 $116,031.00 1175 Cass County $91,732.00 $27,993.00 $0.00 $119,725.00 $3,592.00 $123,317.00 1175 Anoka County $133,922.00 $0.00 $0.00 $133,922.00 $4,019.00 $137,941.00 1175 McLeod County $117,985.00 $31,343.00 $0.00 $149,328.00 $4,197.00 $153,525.00 1175 Blue Earth County $124,529.00 $27,712.00 $0.00 $152,241.00 $4,431.00 $156,672.00 1175 Red Lake County $151,513.00 $9,988.00 $0.00 $161,501.00 $4,844.00 $166,345.00 1175 Wabasha County $131,316.00 $36,183.00 $0.00 $167,499.00 $4,815.00 $172,314.00 1175 Hennepin County $170,761.00 $0.00 $0.00 $170,761.00 $5,123.00 $175,884.00 1175 Morrison County $135,163.00 $44,650.00 $0.00 $179,813.00 $4,596.00 $184,409.00 1175 Mahnomen County $162,220.00 $21,756.00 $0.00 $183,976.00 $5,495.00 $189,471.00 1175 Carver County $236,105.00 $38,520.00 $0.00 $274,625.00 $6,493.00 $281,118.00 1175 Otter Tail County $207,052.00 $69,014.00 $0.00 $276,066.00 $8,198.00 $284,264.00 1175 Winona County $231,465.00 $49,785.00 $0.00 $281,250.00 $6,649.00 $287,899.00 1175 Lyon County $223,666.00 $64,877.00 $0.00 $288,543.00 $7,868.00 $296,411.00 1175 Becker County $264,200.00 $86,191.00 $0.00 $350,391.00 $9,185.00 $359,576.00 1175 Roseau County $289,020.00 $68,299.00 $0.00 $357,319.00 $10,357.00 $367,676.00 1175 Grant County $292,585.00 $71,060.00 $0.00 $363,645.00 $8,601.00 $372,246.00 1175 Goodhue County $328,201.00 $84,112.00 $0.00 $412,313.00 $9,358.00 $421,671.00 1175 Lincoln County $324,870.00 $97,650.00 $0.00 $422,520.00 $12,253.00 $434,773.00 1175 Brown County $441,337.00 $36,270.00 $0.00 $477,607.00 $11,114.00 $488,721.00 1175 Pennington County $465,164.00 $28,196.00 $0.00 $493,360.00 $10,867.00 $504,227.00 1175 Sibley County $409,486.00 $130,958.00 $0.00 $540,444.00 $13,878.00 $554,322.00 1175 Stevens County $443,672.00 $137,602.00 $0.00 $581,274.00 $13,729.00 $595,003.00 1175 Swift County $485,484.00 $110,553.00 $0.00 $596,037.00 $14,262.00 $610,299.00 1175 Washington County $675,219.00 $36,077.00 $0.00 $711,296.00 $18,233.00 $729,529.00 1175 Traverse County $572,357.00 $170,294.00 $0.00 $742,651.00 $16,338.00 $758,989.00 1175 Redwood County $588,275.00 $163,981.00 $0.00 $752,256.00 $17,800.00 $770,056.00 1175 Nicollet County $604,974.00 $175,796.00 $0.00 $780,770.00 $17,052.00 $797,822.00 1175 Chippewa County $984,284.00 $67,489.00 $0.00 $1,051,773.00 $21,518.00 $1,073,291.00 1175 Lac Qui Parle Co. $1,026,669.00 $209,408.00 $0.00 $1,236,077.00 $29,721.00 $1,265,798.00 1175 Kittson County $1,451,948.00 $110,983.00 $0.00 $1,562,931.00 $32,568.00 $1,595,499.00 1175 Yellow Medicine Co $1,789,355.00 $366,753.00 $0.00 $2,156,108.00 $52,962.00 $2,209,070.00 1175 Dakota County $2,002,335.00 $261,822.00 $0.00 $2,264,157.00 $40,942.00 $2,305,099.00
225 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
1175 Big Stone County $2,465,711.00 $389,233.00 $0.00 $2,854,944.00 $50,549.00 $2,905,493.00 1175 Clay County $2,901,273.00 $168,513.00 $0.00 $3,069,786.00 $64,828.00 $3,134,614.00 1175 Marshall County $4,067,616.00 $287,790.00 $0.00 $4,355,406.00 $84,888.00 $4,440,294.00 1175 Wilkin County $9,082,292.00 $746,994.00 $0.00 $9,829,286.00 $142,293.00 $9,971,579.00 1175 Norman County $42,476,680.00 $4,254,063.00 $0.00 $46,730,743.00 $365,617.00 $47,096,360.00 1175 Polk County $57,271,455.00 $4,777,182.00 $0.00 $62,048,637.00 $556,494.00 $62,605,131.00 1187 FLOODING 1187 Kandiyohi County $82,971.00 $16,592.00 $11,064.00 $110,627.00 $3,320.00 $113,947.00 1187 Isanti County $142,763.00 $28,551.00 $19,035.00 $190,349.00 $4,974.00 $195,323.00 1187 Sherburne County $195,518.00 $39,101.00 $26,071.00 $260,690.00 $7,297.00 $267,987.00 1187 Wright County $564,379.00 $112,866.00 $75,252.00 $752,497.00 $20,184.00 $772,681.00 1187 Ramsey County $693,639.00 $138,725.00 $92,480.00 $924,844.00 $20,842.00 $945,686.00 1187 Anoka County $1,264,777.00 $252,946.00 $168,639.00 $1,686,362.00 $41,401.00 $1,727,763.00 1187 Hennepin County $2,232,852.00 $446,386.00 $297,889.00 $2,977,127.00 $60,352.00 $3,037,479.00 1283 SEVERE STORMS, WINDS AND FLOODING 1283 Clay County $75,579.32 $15,115.00 $10,078.10 $100,772.42 $3,023.17 $103,795.59 1283 Hubbard County $241,086.70 $48,212.00 $32,150.22 $321,448.92 $8,194.27 $329,643.19 1283 Lake County $298,708.44 $59,734.00 $39,835.46 $398,277.90 $10,904.61 $409,182.51 1283 Beltrami County $305,769.75 $61,145.35 $40,777.90 $407,693.00 $12,230.79 $419,923.79 1283 Cass County $654,172.10 $130,827.85 $87,229.52 $872,229.47 $20,669.22 $892,898.69 1283 Cook County $824,292.04 $164,854.00 $109,909.40 $1,099,055.44 $23,776.93 $1,122,832.37 1283 Itasca County $845,009.75 $168,534.00 $113,135.78 $1,126,679.53 $28,809.31 $1,155,488.84 1283 St. Louis County $3,010,660.38 $601,862.66 $401,788.21 $4,014,311.25 $88,136.20 $4,102,447.45 1288 SEVERE ICE STORMS, FLOODING AND HEAVY RAIN 1288 Red Lake County $74,886.12 $14,975.00 $9,987.03 $99,848.15 $2,995.45 $102,843.60 1288 Pennington County $138,929.01 $27,783.00 $18,526.66 $185,238.67 $5,512.54 $190,751.21 1288 Polk County $390,786.46 $78,142.00 $52,120.11 $521,048.57 $15,564.31 $536,612.88 1288 Kittson County $428,323.53 $85,657.00 $57,117.51 $571,098.04 $16,500.42 $587,598.46 1288 Marshall County $692,527.39 $138,487.00 $91,857.62 $922,872.01 $24,404.42 $947,276.43 1288 Roseau County $4,942,802.19 $988,546.00 $659,054.60 $6,590,402.79 $77,342.23 $6,667,745.02 1333 SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING AND TORNADOES 1333 Clearwater County $34,428.89 $7,036.00 $4,593.29 $46,058.18 $1,377.16 $47,435.34 1333 Faribault County $71,567.82 $14,306.00 $9,549.91 $95,423.73 $2,862.72 $98,286.45
226 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
1333 Dodge County $104,887.16 $20,971.00 $13,991.37 $139,849.53 $4,195.48 $144,045.01 1333 Winona County $115,884.59 $23,170.00 $15,458.16 $154,512.75 $4,635.39 $159,148.14 1333 Mahnomen County $151,703.07 $30,331.00 $20,236.67 $202,270.74 $5,862.17 $208,132.91 1333 Roseau County $203,456.22 $40,680.00 $28,902.71 $273,038.93 $7,828.88 $280,867.81 1333 Norman County $312,505.51 $62,488.00 $40,192.22 $415,185.73 $10,596.58 $425,782.31 1333 Freeborn County $333,438.59 $66,677.40 $44,468.77 $444,584.76 $12,144.24 $456,729.00 1333 Houston County $345,255.28 $69,040.00 $46,045.00 $460,340.28 $13,568.96 $473,909.24 1333 Becker County $470,350.29 $94,059.86 $62,723.48 $627,133.63 $15,689.79 $642,823.42 1333 Clay County $812,407.31 $162,469.00 $108,333.41 $1,083,209.72 $26,279.92 $1,109,489.64 1333 Ramsey County $886,650.12 $177,320.00 $118,230.00 $1,182,200.12 $29,525.70 $1,211,725.82 1333 Fillmore County $1,045,721.60 $209,125.00 $139,448.81 $1,394,295.41 $38,066.83 $1,432,362.24 1333 Mower County $1,095,746.54 $219,137.64 $146,111.14 $1,460,995.32 $38,405.69 $1,499,401.01 1333 Yellow Medicine County $2,809,262.64 $289,963.00 $193,315.26 $1,933,113.09 $31,644.74 $1,964,757.83 1333 Dakota County $2,175,942.34 $435,180.08 $290,133.94 $2,901,256.36 $62,678.40 $2,963,934.76 1370 FLOODING 1370 Red Lake County $13,764.00 $2,751.00 $1,836.99 $18,351.99 $550.56 $18,902.55 1370 Lake County $34,253.76 $6,849.00 $4,568.92 $45,671.68 $1,370.15 $47,041.83 1370 Carlton County $43,852.24 $8,769.00 $5,848.40 $58,469.64 $1,754.09 $60,223.73 1370 Goodhue County $58,549.07 $11,707.86 $7,808.50 $78,065.42 $2,341.96 $80,407.38 1370 Chisago County $63,921.63 $12,781.00 $8,526.22 $85,228.84 $2,556.87 $85,740.71 1370 Nicollet County $83,813.63 $16,759.00 $11,178.88 $111,751.50 $3,352.55 $115,104.05 1370 Scott County $85,403.57 $17,078.30 $11,389.55 $113,871.42 $3,416.14 $117,287.56 1370 Winona County $92,195.59 $18,437.36 $12,294.50 $122,927.45 $3,458.55 $126,386.00 1370 Carver County $106,018.38 $21,201.18 $14,138.30 $141,357.85 $4,240.74 $145,598.59 1370 Dodge County $114,301.70 $22,856.00 $15,244.55 $144,893.36 $4,572.08 $149,465.44 1370 Sibley County $110,857.65 $22,167.89 $14,784.66 $147,810.20 $4,434.31 $152,244.51 1370 Stearns County $133,325.83 $26,655.00 $17,786.95 $177,767.78 $5,007.12 $182,774.90 1370 LeSueur County $159,981.30 $31,993.10 $21,334.00 $213,308.40 $5,926.59 $219,234.99 1370 Isanti County $168,315.11 $33,660.00 $22,445.04 $224,420.14 $6,731.50 $231,151.64 1370 Wabasha County $188,154.36 $37,627.90 $25,090.19 $250,872.45 $6,921.61 $257,794.06 1370 Lake of Woods Co $196,245.86 $39,247.00 $26,168.29 $261,661.15 $6,233.22 $267,894.37 1370 McLeod County $195,949.50 $39,183.00 $26,132.50 $261,266.00 $7,516.75 $268,782.75 1370 Grant County $197,015.16 $39,302.90 $25,801.10 $262,119.16 $7,863.57 $269,982.73
227 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
1370 Traverse County $228,154.72 $40,835.05 $35,216.51 $304,206.28 $7,504.34 $311,710.62 1370 Kandiyohi County $250,331.70 $50,061.66 $33,382.23 $333,775.59 $9,187.10 $342,962.69 1370 Wright County $256,687.95 $51,337.05 $34,225.60 $342,250.60 $10,267.51 $352,518.11 1370 Douglas County $264,891.41 $52,966.00 $35,371.10 $353,228.51 $10,596.87 $363,825.38 1370 Houston County $274,779.95 $54,954.39 $36,638.92 $366,373.25 $9,048.24 $375,421.49 1370 Brown County $283,738.44 $56,741.00 $37,838.47 $378,317.91 $10,014.18 $388,332.09 1370 Yellow Medicine Co $306,411.94 $61,277.49 $40,859.80 $408,549.23 $11,756.48 $420,305.71 1370 Pope County $304,074.63 $60,799.65 $40,557.63 $405,431.91 $16,190.62 $421,622.53 1370 Redwood County $332,790.76 $66,552.68 $44,377.57 $443,721.00 $12,228.54 $455,949.54 1370 Mille Lacs County $344,733.05 $68,938.20 $45,972.81 $459,644.06 $13,149.74 $472,793.80 1370 Benton County $351,286.41 $70,246.44 $46,849.02 $468,381.87 $11,942.68 $480,324.55 1370 Kanabec County $370,624.64 $74,118.83 $49,422.69 $494,166.16 $13,621.81 $507,787.97 1370 Marshall County $374,349.56 $74,859.50 $49,923.66 $499,132.72 $13,267.64 $512,400.36 1370 Lac Qui Parle Co. $415,660.27 $83,120.22 $55,433.16 $534,043.65 $14,236.25 $548,279.90 1370 Aitkin County $405,950.83 $81,130.00 $54,186.93 $542,050.60 $16,238.05 $558,288.65 1370 Kittson County $407,462.38 $81,477.00 $54,163.79 $543,283.17 $15,316.82 $558,599.99 1370 Mower County $409,779.29 $81,943.00 $54,650.06 $546,372.35 $15,127.17 $561,499.52 1370 Roseau County $417,325.44 $83,420.35 $55,688.12 $556,433.91 $16,118.65 $572,552.56 1370 Nobles County $419,777.87 $83,942.00 $55,983.93 $559,703.80 $16,791.14 $576,494.94 1370 Pine County $449,680.20 $89,918.00 $59,975.39 $599,715.18 $17,537.16 $617,252.34 1370 Stevens County $454,477.03 $90,886.12 $60,606.18 $605,969.32 $16,809.79 $622,779.11 1370 Morrison County $469,407.48 $93,591.48 $61,045.22 $624,044.18 $17,436.38 $641,480.56 1370 Otter Tail County $484,293.47 $96,837.00 $64,594.12 $635,396.44 $22,190.08 $657,586.52 1370 Todd County $500,959.54 $100,172.36 $66,814.14 $668,384.75 $19,542.06 $687,926.81 1370 Crow Wing County $514,762.26 $102,945.69 $68,641.63 $686,349.68 $17,141.46 $703,491.14 1370 St. Louis County $521,815.78 $96,535.00 $78,235.57 $701,304.35 $18,275.60 $704,803.22 1370 Swift County $536,831.11 $107,354.00 $71,591.67 $715,782.78 $19,714.85 $735,497.63 1370 Big Stone County $584,749.09 $116,942.11 $77,974.11 $779,665.31 $20,223.40 $799,888.71 1370 Clay County $577,405.53 $115,471.88 $76,996.60 $769,874.01 $87,027.36 $856,901.37 1370 Clearwater County $634,203.01 $126,831.00 $84,569.98 $845,603.98 $20,757.60 $866,361.58 1370 Chippewa County $681,431.25 $136,283.21 $90,860.48 $908,574.94 $21,645.08 $930,220.02 1370 Wilkin County $884,355.24 $176,866.15 $117,918.88 $1,179,140.27 $25,790.28 $1,204,930.55 1370 Washington County $1,008,165.48 $201,626.00 $134,429.12 $1,344,220.60 $33,423.55 $1,377,644.15
228 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
1370 Polk County $1,127,196.15 $225,408.55 $150,323.42 $1,502,928.12 $38,148.70 $1,513,621.90 1370 Ramsey County $1,310,084.51 $262,011.40 $165,679.44 $1,746,775.35 $30,746.36 $1,777,521.71 1370 Meeker County $1,497,114.05 $299,404.00 $199,633.97 $1,996,152.02 $38,783.86 $2,034,935.88 1370 Norman County $1,943,370.12 $388,649.47 $259,140.42 $2,591,160.01 $59,035.93 $2,650,195.94 1370 Dakota County $3,948,090.75 $789,615.35 $526,414.89 $5,264,120.99 $73,060.23 $5,337,181.22 1419 SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING 1419 Koochiching County $29,057.92 $9,685.95 $0.00 $38,743.87 $654.05 $39,397.92 1419 McLeod County $46,704.77 $15,426.95 $0.00 $62,131.72 $1,850.55 $63,982.27 1419 Pennington County $49,687.15 $16,562.35 $0.00 $66,249.50 $1,987.49 $68,236.99 1419 Beltrami County $90,518.90 $30,172.97 $0.00 $120,691.87 $3,517.79 $124,209.66 1419 Red Lake County $116,693.98 $38,898.12 $0.00 $155,592.10 $4,667.76 $160,259.86 1419 Marshall County $199,569.96 $65,528.15 $0.00 $265,098.11 $7,972.73 $273,070.84 1419 Goodhue County $214,603.52 $71,534.50 $286,138.02 $8,584.15 $294,722.17 1419 Hubbard County $248,133.00 $82,711.00 $0.00 $330,844.00 $9,925.32 $340,769.32 1419 Becker County $250,166.36 $0.00 $83,388.74 $333,555.10 $9,978.08 $343,533.18 1419 Clearwater County $346,922.75 $115,640.86 $0.00 $462,563.61 $12,988.98 $475,552.59 1419 Itasca County $372,568.92 $124,189.61 $496,758.53 $13,541.73 $510,300.26 1419 Kittson County $384,027.97 $128,009.27 $0.00 $512,037.24 $14,053.28 $526,090.52 1419 Mahnomen County $708,969.49 $236,323.11 $0.00 $945,292.60 $23,021.83 $968,314.43 1419 Polk County $743,027.56 $247,665.67 $0.00 $990,693.23 $25,502.72 $1,016,195.95 1419 Clay County $1,091,574.15 $363,857.99 $0.00 $1,455,432.14 $34,781.65 $1,490,213.79 1419 Wright County $1,339,942.03 $142,878.98 $0.00 $1,482,821.01 $49,112.80 $1,531,933.81 1419 Lake of the Woods $1,614,422.27 $538,140.70 $0.00 $2,152,562.97 $35,833.64 $2,188,396.61 1419 Norman County $2,198,825.99 $732,027.77 $0.00 $2,930,853.76 $59,687.02 $2,990,540.78 1419 Roseau County $13,351,247.32 $4,450,415.23 $0.00 $17,801,662.55 $207,587.68 $18,009,250.23 1569 SEVERE STORMS AND FLOODING 1569 Steele County $284,483.42 $56,891.00 $37,936.77 $379,311.19 $10,747.45 $390,058.64 1569 Dodge County $326,156.52 $65,222.00 $43,496.79 $434,875.31 $12,672.98 $447,548.29 1569 Martin County $380,802.63 $50,780.18 $76,154.00 $507,736.81 $12,615.69 $520,352.50 1569 Faribault County $410,958.98 $82,172.00 $57,814.26 $550,945.24 $15,743.10 $566,688.34 1569 Freeborn County $718,713.65 $141,973.00 $95,853.07 $956,539.72 $17,842.92 $974,382.64 1569 Mower County $1,457,925.69 $291,563.00 $194,412.14 $1,943,900.83 $43,052.23 $1,986,953.06 1648 FLOODING
229 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
1648 Red Lake County $27,680.10 $5,534.00 $3,692.69 $36,906.79 $1,107.21 $38,014.00 1648 Becker County $132,300.03 $26,451.00 $17,648.97 $176,400.00 $5,292.01 $181,692.01 1648 Wilkin County $265,953.30 $53,188.00 $35,463.06 $354,604.36 $8,302.46 $362,906.82 1648 Clay County $433,243.24 $86,630.00 $57,781.55 $577,654.79 $15,690.75 $593,345.54 1648 Polk County $452,863.49 $90,576.00 $60,408.44 $603,847.93 $18,061.12 $621,909.05 1648 Norman County $746,263.14 $149,238.00 $99,516.28 $995,017.42 $23,363.82 $1,018,381.24 1648 Marshall County $863,199.06 $172,621.00 $114,269.25 $1,150,089.31 $31,669.72 $1,181,759.03 1648 Roseau County $913,757.78 $182,725.00 $121,860.75 $1,218,343.53 $31,225.84 $1,249,569.37 1648 Kittson County $936,726.25 $189,598.43 $126,421.74 $1,252,746.42 $29,281.01 $1,282,027.43 Source: HSEM Public Assistance *DR#’s 1370, 1419, 1569, 1622, and 1648 are still open so totals will change.
230 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Jurisdictions Most Vulnerable to Flooding in Minnesota The following table is a summary of the counties that received agricultural payments from water-related insurance claims from 1994 to 2006. The counties of Marshall, Polk, Kittson, and Roseau in the north/northwest part of the state have suffered the greatest agricultural losses during this time and are considered most vulnerable to crop damages. The same counties in the north/northwest have received the most Public Assistance due to flooding.
Table 39 Summary of Public Assistance Payments to Counties
County PA $ Polk $70,284,407 Norman $55,839,016 Roseau $28,910,605 Wilkin $12,126,339 Dakota $11,814,549 Marshall $9,385,080 Clay $8,542,074 Yellow Medicine $5,470,262 Kittson $5,223,055 St. Louis $5,020,267 Mower $4,971,281 Ramsey $4,699,860 Big Stone $4,375,928 Wright $4,000,052 Hennepin $3,213,363 Washington $2,912,201
These are payments including state, local and federal money from major disaster declarations.
Tornadoes It is difficult to predict with any accuracy where a tornado will strike. From May to July, over 75 percent of all tornadoes occur in Minnesota. Minnesota experienced 832 tornadoes during the period 1950 to 1994, an average of slightly more than 33 per year. However, during the period 1997 to 2007, 526 tornadoes hit the state for an average of 53 per year. If you use an average of 53 tornadoes per year with 75% of
231 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment them occurring during a three-month timeframe, the state can expect approximately 13 tornadoes per month during the months of May, June and July.
Although site-specific tornado probability is impossible to determine, given the relatively long reporting period used in this calculation, it is reasonable to assume that the average annual number will remain relatively constant in the future. It is worth noting, however, the numbers of deaths and injuries can fluctuate drastically depending on the severity of the tornadoes and the locations that they impact.
Table following table shows tornado damage from 1950-2007 for each county. Using the total number of tornadoes and property damage
232 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment amounts, an average damage figure per event was arrived at. Using this same information, the annual probability was also arrived at.
Table 40 Tornado Damage from 1950-2007 # of Total Avg. Annual County Tornadoes Damages damage/event Probability Cook 2 $0 $0 .0351 Lac qui Parle 8 $38,000 $4,750 .1404 Todd 15 $43,000 $2866 .2631 Pine 9 $50,000 $5,555 .1579 Lake 4 $53,000 $13,250 .0701 Itasca 7 $80,000 $11,428 .1228 Mahnomen 12 $110,000 $9,166 .2105 Lake of the Woods 11 $155,000 $14,090 .1930 Hubbard 8 $253,000 $31,625 .1404 Beltrami 23 $278,000 $12,086 .4035 Clearwater 13 $288,000 $22,154 .2281 Scott 13 $300,000 $23,076 .2281 Koochiching 6 $300,000 $50,000 .1053 Chisago 12 $303,000 $25,250 .2105 Dodge 13 $325,000 $25,000 .2281 Kanabec 10 $325,000 $32,500 .1754 Carlton 6 $330,000 $55,000 .1053 Martin 16 $358,000 $22,375 .2807 Marshall 13 $400,000 $30,769 .2280 Wabasha 6 $500,000 $83,333 .1053 Meeker 18 $525,000 $29,166 .3158 Rock 11 $533,000 $48,454 .1930 Mille Lacs 13 $603,000 $46,384 .2281 Wilkin 17 $630,000 $37,058 .2982 Lincoln 16 $730,000 $45,625 .2807 Benton 6 $800,000 $133,333 .1053 Pope 15 $835,000 $55,666 .2632 $1.2 Faribault 20 million $60,000 .3509 $1.53 Big Stone 6 million $255,000 .1053 $1.54 Polk 49 million $31,428 .8596
233 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 40 Tornado Damage from 1950-2007 # of Total Avg. Annual County Tornadoes Damages damage/event Probability $1.74 Clay 29 million $60,000 .5088 $1.95 Isanti 11 million $177,272 .1930 $2.03 Wadena 10 million $203,000 .1754 $2.20 Wright 19 million $115,789 .3333 $2.53 Sherburne 9 million $281,111 .1579 $2.55 Morrison 20 million $127,500 .3509 $2.55 Pennington 6 million $425,000 .1053 $2.58 Red Lake 15 million $172,000 .2632 $2.63 Houston 7 million $375,714 .1228 $2.83 Douglas 15 million $188,666 .2632 $2.92 Becker 27 million $108,148 .4737 $3.6 Aitkin 14 million $257,142 .2456 $3.84 Kittson 29 million $132,413 .5088 $4.2 Jackson 17 million $247,058 .2982 $4.38 Kandiyohi 39 million $112,307 .6842 $5.02 Mower 26 million $193,076 .4561 $5.03 Chippewa 10 million $503,000 .1754 $5.03 Traverse 8 million $628,750 .1404 $5.33 Washington 12 million $444,166 .2105 Grant 14 $5.53 $395,000 .2456
234 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 40 Tornado Damage from 1950-2007 # of Total Avg. Annual County Tornadoes Damages damage/event Probability million $5.53 Lyon 22 million $251,363 .3860 $5.58 Stevens 11 million $507,272 .1930 $6.03 Redwood 23 million $262,173 .4035 $6.08 Watonwan 15 million $405,333 .2631 $6.47 Saint Louis 33 million $196,060 .5789 $6.58 Goodhue 17 million $387,058 .2982 $7.55 Winona 12 million $629,166 .2105 $7.58 Fillmore 10 million $758,000 .1754 $8.03 Pipestone 10 million $803,000 .1754 $8.13 Dakota 19 million $427,894 .3333 $8.3 McLeod 14 million $592,857 .2456 $10.13 Cass 18 million $562,777 .3158 $10.52 Otter Tail 44 million $239,090 .7719 $10.9 Crow Wing 22 million $495,454 .3860 $11.18 Blue Earth 28 million $399,285 .4912 $12.63 Swift 28 million $451,071 .4912 $16.5 Renville 23 million $717,391 .4035 $21.11 Roseau 29 million $727,931 .5088 $25.05 Norman 11 million $2,277,273 .1930
235 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 40 Tornado Damage from 1950-2007 # of Total Avg. Annual County Tornadoes Damages damage/event Probability $30.05 Nobles 30 million $1,001,666 .5263 $32.05 Rice 18 million $1,780,555 .3158 $33.83 Olmsted 28 million $1,208,214 .4912 $34.58 Stearns 38 million $910,000 .6666 $35.38 Cottonwood 12 million $2,948,333 .2105 $43.89 Le Sueur 17 million $2,581,764 .2982 Yellow $45.6 Medicine 19 million $2,400,000 .3333 $48.28 Brown 18 million $2,682,222 .3158 $51.35 Sibley 25 million $2,054,000 .4386 $53.30 Steele 16 million $3,331,250 .2807 $55.65 Murray 20 million $2,782,500 .3509 $63.9 Anoka 17 million $3,760,000 .2982 $78.81 Waseca 17 million $4,635,882 .2982 $80.06 Carver 15 million $5,337,333 .2632 $126.53 Nicollet 17 million $7,442,941 .2982 $150.84 Freeborn 37 million $4,076,756 .6491 $190.55 Hennepin 24 million $7,939,583 .4210 $225.25 Ramsey 5 million $45,050,000 .0877 Source: NOAA Storm Data Center (October 2007)
236 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment The table below adds to the data in the above table and also includes dollar figures for injuries and deaths due to tornadoes and adds this to the property damage for an overall damage figure by County.
Table 41 Tornado Damages including Property, Injuries and Deaths from 1950-2007
# # Injuries # # Deaths x Total Total Injuries x $7,500 Deaths $3,000,000 Property Damages (1950- (1950- Damage County 2007) 2007) Cook 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 Lac qui $0 $0 $38,000 Parle 0 0 $38,000 Pine 0 $0 0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 Todd 1 $7,500 0 $0 $43,000 $50,500 Lake 0 $0 0 $0 $53,000 $53,000 Itasca 0 $0 0 $0 $80,000 $80,000 Mahnomen 0 $0 0 $0 $110,000 $110,000 Lake of the Woods 1 $7,500 $0 $155,000 $162,500 Hubbard 1 $7,500 0 $0 $253,000 $260,500 Beltrami 0 $0 0 $0 $278,000 $278,000 Clearwater 0 $0 0 $0 $288,000 $288,000 Scott 0 $0 0 $0 $300,000 $300,000 Chisago 2 $15,000 0 $0 $303,000 $318,000 Dodge 0 $0 0 $0 $325,000 $325,000 Carlton 2 $15,000 0 $0 $330,000 $345,000 Martin 0 $0 0 $0 $358,000 $358,000 Marshall 4 $30,000 0 $0 $400,000 $430,000 Wabasha 0 $0 0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 Meeker 0 $0 0 $0 $525,000 $525,000 Rock 7 $52,500 0 $0 $533,000 $585,500 Wilkin 7 $52,500 0 $0 $630,000 $682,500 Lincoln 1 $7,500 0 $0 $730,000 $737,500 Benton 1 $7,500 0 $0 $800,000 $807,500 Pope 13 $97,500 0 $0 $835,000 $932,500 Faribault 2 $15,000 0 $0 $1,200,000 $1,215,000 Big Stone 0 $0 0 $0 $1,530,000 $1,530,000 Clay 3 $22,500 0 $0 $1,740,000 $1,762,500 Isanti 4 $30,000 0 $0 $1,950,000 $1,980,000
237 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 41 Tornado Damages including Property, Injuries and Deaths from 1950-2007
# # Injuries # # Deaths x Total Total Injuries x $7,500 Deaths $3,000,000 Property Damages (1950- (1950- Damage County 2007) 2007) Wadena 5 $37,500 0 $0 $2,030,000 $2,067,500 Wright 9 $67,500 0 $0 $2,200,000 $2,267,500 Pennington 0 $0 0 $0 $2,550,000 $2,550,000 Red Lake 0 $0 0 $0 $2,580,000 $2,580,000 Houston 0 $0 0 $0 $2,630,000 $2,630,000 Douglas 11 $82,500 0 $0 $2,830,000 $2,912,500 Becker 4 $30,000 0 $0 $2,920,000 $2,950,000 Kanabec 2 $15,000 1 $3,000,000 $325,000 $3,340,000 Mille Lacs 2 $15,000 1 $3,000,000 $603,000 $3,618,000 Kittson 8 $60,000 0 $0 $3,840,000 $3,900,000 Jackson 4 $30,000 0 $0 $4,200,000 $4,230,000 Kandiyohi 4 $30,000 0 $0 $4,380,000 $4,410,000 Chippewa 0 $0 0 $0 $5,030,000 $5,030,000 Traverse 0 $0 0 $0 $5,030,000 $5,030,000 Mower 9 $67,500 0 $0 $5,020,000 $5,087,500 Washington 7 $52,500 0 $0 $5,330,000 $5,382,500 Grant 0 $0 0 $0 $5,530,000 $5,530,000 Morrison 1 $7,500 1 $3,000,000 $2,550,000 $5,557,500 Stevens 0 $0 0 $0 $5,580,000 $5,580,000 Sherburne 12 $90,000 1 $3,000,000 $2,530,000 $5,620,000 Watonwan 0 $0 0 $0 $6,080,000 $6,080,000 Koochiching 5 $37,500 2 $6,000,000 $300,000 $6,337,500 Goodhue 0 $0 0 $0 $6,580,000 $6,580,000 Aitkin 3 $22,500 1 $3,000,000 $3,600,000 $6,622,500 Winona 7 $52,500 0 $0 $7,550,000 $7,602,500 Pipestone 0 $0 0 $0 $8,030,000 $8,030,000 McLeod 11 $82,500 0 $0 $8,300,000 $8,382,500 Redwood 3 $22,500 1 $3,000,000 $6,030,000 $9,052,500 Polk 19 $142,500 3 $9,000,000 $1,540,000 $10,682,500 Fillmore 22 $165,000 1 $3,000,000 $7,580,000 $10,745,000 Crow Wing 16 $120,000 0 $0 $10,900,000 $11,020,000 Dakota 15 $112,500 1 $3,000,000 $8,130,000 $11,242,500 Swift 7 $52,500 0 $0 $12,630,000 $12,682,500 Otter Tail 33 $247,500 1 $3,000,000 $10,520,000 $13,767,500
238 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 41 Tornado Damages including Property, Injuries and Deaths from 1950-2007
# # Injuries # # Deaths x Total Total Injuries x $7,500 Deaths $3,000,000 Property Damages (1950- (1950- Damage County 2007) 2007) Blue Earth 9 $67,500 1 $3,000,000 $11,180,000 $14,247,500 St. Louis 37 $277,500 3 $9,000,000 $6,470,000 $15,747,500 Renville 5 $37,500 0 $0 $16,500,000 $16,537,500 Roseau 2 $15,000 0 $0 $21,110,000 $21,125,000 Nobles 2 $15,000 0 $0 $30,050,000 $30,065,000 Rice 3 $22,500 0 $0 $32,050,000 $32,072,500 Norman 35 $262,500 3 $9,000,000 $25,050,000 $34,312,500 Cottonwood 6 $45,000 0 $0 $35,380,000 $35,425,000 Lyon 169 $1,267,500 10 $30,000,000 $5,530,000 $36,797,500 Olmsted 45 $337,500 1 $3,000,000 $33,830,000 $37,167,500 Stearns 58 $435,000 3 $9,000,000 $34,580,000 $44,015,000 Le Sueur 55 $412,500 1 $3,000,000 $43,890,000 $47,302,500 Yellow $157,500 $3,000,000 $48,757,500 Medicine 21 1 $45,600,000 Cass 75 $562,500 13 $39,000,000 $10,130,000 $49,692,500 Brown 23 $172,500 1 $3,000,000 $48,280,000 $51,452,500 Steele 0 $0 0 $0 $53,300,000 $53,300,000 Sibley 75 $562,500 1 $3,000,000 $51,350,000 $54,912,500 Murray 40 $300,000 1 $3,000,000 $55,650,000 $58,950,000 Anoka 203 $1,522,500 4 $12,000,000 $63,900,000 $77,422,500 Carver 187 $1,402,500 3 $9,000,000 $80,060,000 $90,462,500 Waseca 24 $180,000 6 $18,000,000 $78,810,000 $96,990,000 Nicollet 10 $75,000 1 $3,000,000 $126,530,000 $129,605,000 Freeborn 78 $585,000 13 $39,000,000 $150,840,000 $190,425,000 Ramsey 168 $1,260,000 1 $3,000,000 $225,250,000 $229,510,000 Hennepin 259 $1,942,500 13 $39,000,000 $190,550,000 $231,492,500 Source: NOAA Storm Data Center (October 2007)
Jurisdictions Most Vulnerable to Tornadoes in Minnesota The counties with the highest number of tornadoes, Polk (52) and Otter Tail (46) have a 91% and 80% chance of a tornado per year, respectively. (These figures vary slightly from Table 44 as the data is from the National Weather Service office and is slightly more up-to- date.)
239 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment By sorting Table 43 by annual probability, Polk and Otter Tail County have the highest probability for a tornado of some magnitude occurring in the County. Due to the large physical size of those counties and the lower population density, actual damages are not as high as the more populated counties. By sorting total damages, the results indicate the counties with higher population density have a higher vulnerability to damage, even though they have a lower probability of a tornado actually occurring.
240 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
241 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment The top ten counties with the highest vulnerability based on property damages are: Ramsey Hennepin Freeborn Nicollet Carver Waseca Anoka Murray Steele Sibley
Table 44 includes dollar damage amounts for injury, death and property damage amounts. The results for the top ten counties are almost the same as from Table 43 except that the order changed slightly. A bigger difference was seen in some of the smaller populated counties where injury and/or death statistics were high, thus greatly increasing their damage totals. The counties with the highest vulnerability based on overall (death, injury and property) damages are: Hennepin Ramsey Freeborn Nicollet Waseca Carver Anoka Murray Sibley Steele
The most vulnerable counties coincide with the highest population densities.
Table 42 Tornado related insurance claims 1994-2006 County Indemnity Le Sueur $219,903 Morrison $40,094 Meeker $28,578 Sibley $16,001 Nicollet $13,469
Olmsted $12,345
Roseau $7,160
Faribault $1,633
East Otter Tail $1,630
Le Sueur $1,313 Jackson $1,240 Sibley $1,082 Rice $214 Total $344,662
242 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Data Limitations The combined dollar amounts for injury, death and property damage change the vulnerability somewhat but mostly for smaller populated counties where death and injury damages can change the total damage figures quite drastically. With better and more warning signals and radios, injury and death numbers should continue to decrease. Thus, the combined numbers (death, injury and property damage) may skew the vulnerability somewhat. Years ago, this might have been the most accurate method of figuring vulnerability but today and especially in the future, the property damage amounts may be a better indicator of vulnerability.
Windstorms Severe winds/windstorms can be as destructive as tornadoes. Straight line winds, thunderstorms, extreme cold/wind chill have caused large amounts of wind related damages, in terms of crop, property damages, death and injury, and disruption of public services. Nearly 7000 thunderstorm and high wind events have been recorded by the NOAA in the past 57 years. The following table only takes into account damages from windstorm events not related to tornadoes.
Table 43 Windstorm Damages from 1950-2007 # of Wind Total Avg. Annual County Events Damages damage/event Probability Aitkin 37 $0 $0 .65 Big Stone 40 $0 $0 .70 Carlton 22 $0 $0 .38 Cass 67 $0 $0 1.18 Cook 6 $0 $0 .10 Douglas 86 $0 $0 1.51 Itasca 76 $0 $0 1.33 Kanabec 30 $0 $0 .53 Koochiching 31 $0 $0 .54 Traverse 32 $0 $0 .56 Morrison 62 $11,000 $177 1.09 Stevens 48 $60,000 $1,250 .84 Saint Louis 161 $86,000 $534 2.82 Pennington 17 $100,000 $5,882 .30 Lake 21 $100,000 $4,762 .37 Lake of the Woods 20 $100,000 $5,000 .35
243 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 43 Windstorm Damages from 1950-2007 # of Wind Total Avg. Annual County Events Damages damage/event Probability Red Lake 9 $100,000 $11,111 .16 Kittson 44 $100,000 $2,273 .77 Pope 49 $100,000 $2,041 .86 Isanti 40 $105,000 $2,625 .70 Polk 58 $107,000 $1,845 1.02 Norman 38 $118,000 $3,105 .67 Roseau 37 $120,000 $3,243 .65 Grant 36 $125,000 $3,472 .63 Mille Lacs 33 $135,000 $4,091 .58 Marshall 40 $175,000 $4,375 .70 Pine 36 $200,000 $5,555 .63 Chippewa 43 $250,000 $5,814 .75 McLeod 121 $280,000 $2,314 2.12 Benton 31 $382,000 $12,322 .54 Pipestone 34 $482,000 $14,176 .60 Swift 45 $500,000 $11,111 .79 Chisago 35 $560,000 $16,000 .61 Yellow Medicine 48 $750,000 $15,625 .84 Lincoln 38 $807,000 $21,236 .67 Houston 29 $812,000 $28,000 .51 Murray 43 $874,000 $20,326 .75 Jackson 57 $930,000 $16,315 1 Fillmore 65 $1,020,000 $15,692 1.14 Lyon 48 $1,020,000 $21250 .84 Stearns 85 $1,080,000 $12,705 1.49 Crow Wing 68 $1,220,000 $17,941 1.19 Lac qui Parle 51 $1,420,000 $27,843 .89 Winona 61 $1,990,000 $32,623 1.07 Rock 48 $2,600,000 $54,167 .84 Olmsted 164 $2,780,000 $16,951 2.88 Sherburne 58 $3,160,000 $54,482 1.02 Cottonwood 54 $3,230,000 $59,814 .95 Nobles 73 $3,490,000 $47,808 1.28 Renville 63 $6,000,000 $95,238 1.1 Mower 67 $7,670,000 $114,477 1.17
244 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 43 Windstorm Damages from 1950-2007 # of Wind Total Avg. Annual County Events Damages damage/event Probability Le Sueur 41 $8,000,000 $195,121 .72 Freeborn 58 $8,010,000 $138,103 1.02 Redwood 86 $8,040,000 $93,488 1.5 Sibley 54 $8,100,000 $150,000 .95 Watonwan 44 $8,130,000 $184,772 .77 Rice 55 $8,180,000 $148,727 .96 Goodhue 66 $9,210,000 $139,545 1.16 Dodge 38 $9,500,000 $250,000 .67 Martin 73 $9,600,000 $131,507 1.28 Meeker 59 $10,610,000 $179,830 1.04 Waseca 51 $12,050,000 $236,274 .89 Nicollet 59 $12,500,000 $211,864 1.04 Steele 36 $13,010,000 $361,388 .63 Wabasha 57 $13,740,000 $241,052 1 Carver 88 $14,240,000 $161,818 1.54 Wadena 31 $15,000,000 $483,870 .54 Brown 54 $15,060,000 $278,888 .95 Beltrami 31 $15,110,000 $487,419 .54 Todd 44 $15,110,000 $343,409 .77 Clearwater 19 $15,120,000 $795,789 .33 Kandiyohi 71 $15,130,000 $213,098 1.25 Mahnomen 23 $15,130,000 $657,826 .40 Clay 34 $15,140,000 $445,294 .59 Becker 34 $15,150,000 $445,588 .60 Wilkin 42 $15,180,000 $361,428 .74 Hubbard 25 $15,210,000 $608,400 .44 Faribault 50 $19,530,000 $390,600 .88 Otter Tail 109 $20,150,000 $184,862 1.91 Wright 102 $22,230,000 $217,941 1.79 Ramsey 70 $25,330,000 $361,857 1.23 Blue Earth 69 $28,000,000 $405,797 1.21 Washington 64 $31,800,000 $496,875 1.12 Anoka 76 $85,800,000 $1,128,947 1.33 Hennepin 180 $138,090,000 $767,166 3.16 Dakota 88 $187,730,000 $2,133,295 1.54 Scott 80 $195,700,000 $2,450,000 1.4
245 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 44: Windstorm Damages to Property and Life # INJURIES (X # DEATHS (X $ 3 TOTAL PROPERTY TOTAL COUNTY $7,500) MIL) DAMAGES DAMAGES Aitkin 0 $0 $ - Big Stone 0 $0 $ - Carlton 0 $0 $ - Cook 0 $0 $ - Koochiching 0 $0 $ - Traverse 0 $0 $ - Itasca 1 $0 $7,500 Kanabec 1 $0 $7,500 Morrison 0 $11,000 $11,000 Douglas 3 $0 $22,500 Stevens 2 $60,000 $75,000 Kittson 0 $100,000 $100,000 Lake of the 0 $100,000 $100,000 Woods Pennington 0 $100,000 $100,000 Red Lake 0 $100,000 $100,000 Saint Louis 2 $86,000 $101,000 Isanti 0 $105,000 $105,000 Polk 0 $107,000 $107,000 Norman 0 $118,000 $118,000
246 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Roseau 0 $120,000 $120,000 Grant 0 $125,000 $125,000 Pope 4 $100,000 $130,000 Mille Lacs 0 $135,000 $135,000 Marshall 0 $175,000 $175,000 Pine 0 $200,000 $200,000 Chippewa 2 $250,000 $265,000 McLeod 2 $280,000 $295,000 Benton 2 $382,000 $397,000 Pipestone 0 $482,000 $482,000 Swift 2 $500,000 $515,000 Chisago 0 $560,000 $560,000 Yellow Medicine 2 $750,000 $765,000 Lincoln 0 $807,000 $807,000 Houston 1 $812,000 $819,500 Murray 1 $874,000 $881,500 Jackson 1 $930,000 $937,500 Fillmore 1 $1,020,000 $1,027,500 Lyon 1 $1,020,000 $1,027,500 Stearns 2 $1,080,000 $1,095,000 Crow Wing 3 $1,220,000 $1,242,500 Lac qui Parle 3 $1,420,000 $1,442,500 Winona 1 $1,990,000 $1,997,500 Rock 1 $2,600,000 $2,607,500 Olmsted 1 $2,780,000 $2,787,500
247 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Cass 0 1 $0 $3,000,000 Lake 1 1 $100,000 $3,107,500 Sherburne 1 $3,160,000 $3,167,500 Cottonwood 1 $3,230,000 $3,237,500 Nobles 1 $3,490,000 $3,497,500 Renville 3 $6,000,000 $6,022,500 Mower 2 $7,670,000 $7,685,000 Le Sueur 3 $8,000,000 $8,022,500 Freeborn 4 $8,010,000 $8,040,000 Redwood 2 $8,040,000 $8,055,000 Sibley 0 $8,100,000 $8,100,000 Watonwan 2 $8,130,000 $8,145,000 Rice 0 $8,180,000 $8,180,000 Goodhue 1 $9,210,000 $9,217,500 Dodge 1 $9,500,000 $9,507,500 Martin 2 $9,600,000 $9,615,000 Meeker 3 $10,610,000 $10,632,500 Waseca 2 $12,050,000 $12,065,000 Nicollet 2 $12,500,000 $12,515,000 Steele 2 $13,010,000 $13,025,000 Wabasha 1 $13,740,000 $13,747,500 Carver 3 $14,240,000 $14,262,500 Wadena 7 $15,000,000 $15,052,500 Brown 4 $15,060,000 $15,090,000 Kandiyohi 3 $15,130,000 $15,152,500
248 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Beltrami 6 $15,110,000 $15,155,000 Todd 6 $15,110,000 $15,155,000 Clearwater 6 $15,120,000 $15,165,000 Mahnomen 6 $15,130,000 $15,175,000 Clay 6 $15,140,000 $15,185,000 Becker 6 $15,150,000 $15,195,000 Wilkin 6 $15,180,000 $15,225,000 Hubbard 6 $15,210,000 $15,255,000 Faribault 2 $19,530,000 $19,545,000 Otter Tail 7 $20,150,000 $20,202,500 Wright 1 $22,230,000 $22,237,500 Ramsey 1 $25,330,000 $25,337,500 Blue Earth 3 $28,000,000 $28,022,500 Washington 1 $31,800,000 $31,807,500 Anoka 2 $85,800,000 $85,815,000 Hennepin 6 1 $138,090,000 $141,135,000 Dakota 19 $187,730,000 $187,872,500 Scott 0 $195,700,000 $195,700,000
249 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Additional wind indemnity data indicates from 1994 through 2006 total amount claimed for wind/excess wind was $13,786,670 for the following top ten counties.
Table 45 Wind/Excess Wind Indemnity (Top Ten Counties) 1994-2006 County Indemnity Nobles $1,176,463 Jackson $742,513 Lyon $618,040 Clay $612,419 Rock $610,336 Brown $563,313 Cottonwood $552,116 Pope $494,190 Sibley $449,811 Polk $449,447 Le Sueur $442,362
Jurisdictions Most Vulnerable to Windstorms in Minnesota All jurisdictions are vulnerable to windstorms in Minnesota. Again, the estimated potential loss figures are based on past occurrences, thus the information is only as good as the reporting in each County.
As in the section on tornadoes, windstorm vulnerability does not always coincide with the annual probability of the event. The more populated counties in the south have the highest vulnerability based on actual damages. Anoka, Hennepin, Dakota and Scott Counties have the highest total damage and thus highest vulnerability to straight-line winds. Hennepin and Anoka are also the most vulnerable to tornadoes because they have had the most deaths and injuries in past occurrences.
250 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
251 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Wildfire The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) annually responds to an average of 1,580 fires that burn 37,320 acres. The DNR is the lead state agency for wildland fire prevention and response. However, other agencies also respond to fires in designated protection areas including local fire departments and Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. As noted in the risk assessment, the U.S. Fire Administration maintains records of the average numbers of acres burned each year in wildfires, by State.
Fire near Gunflint Trail in summer of 2007
In the following figure indicates location of City and Township Communities at Risk. A community at risk is defined as any aggregate of dwellings or commercial/industrial developments with adjacent continuous wildland fuels that could pose a threat. In most cases, even though a specific municipality will be identified as 'at risk', only a portion of it such as a specific subdivision may actually be subject to
252 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment the hazard. The map includes those communities determined to be at risk by fire professionals in their respective jurisdictions (federal or state) using information and knowledge from local fire personnel.
The identification of the Communities at Risk considered the following information during the assessment: • Fire Occurrence • Hazards • Values to be protected • Protection Capabilities of Local Resources
A copy of the complete listing of communities at risk by County and City can be found in Appendix 4.
253 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Additional fire indemnity data indicates from 1994 through 2006 total amount claimed is $262,699 for the following counties.
Table 46: All Fire Indemnity Claims 1994-2006 County Indemnity Polk $142,863 Norman $29,513 Sibley $26,840 Lake of the Woods $26,286 Kittson $22,176 Jackson $5,929 Roseau $4,857 Wabasha $1,440 Pipestone $1,369 Murray $1,071 Stevens $255 Redwood $100 Total $262,699
DNR reported the value of property loss from fires as $7,801,801 from 1997 to 2007.
Residences destroyed 91 Outbuildings destroyed 608 Residences damaged 64 Outbuildings damaged 2,250 Residences threatened 10,419 Outbuildings threatened 35,208
Data from DNR indicates the value of personal property loss from 1997 through 2006 totaled $8,209,625. The number of residences damaged was 67, and 99 residences were destroyed. Data provided on outbuildings damaged and destroyed is; 2,269 and 652 respectively. Over 10,500 residences and over 35,000 outbuildings were at risk to wildfire during the period.
254 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment The top ten counties with personal property loss during 1997-2007 are: Crow Wing $ 1,097,455 Hubbard $ 1,049,950 Itasca $ 645,120 Roseau $ 628,050 Anoka $ 621,425 Sherburne $ 539,120 Pine $4 54,600 Aitkin $ 407,824 St. Louis $ 304,020 Carver $ 300,000
255 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
The following table includes information from the DNR on reported wildfires for each County from 1997 to 2007. Some counties did not have any wildfires reported during that time.
Table 47 Wildfires from 1997-2007 Avg. Acres Avg. # COUNTY Burned/Year Fires/Year Brown 0.03 0.2 Freeborn 0.05 0.1 Le Sueur 0.20 0.2 Waseca 0.44 0.5 Rice 0.60 0.3 Murray 1.00 0.1 Olmstead 2.78 0.5 Ramsey 3.35 0.4 Norman 3.60 0.3 Mower 3.68 0.5 Goodhue 7.00 1.1 Clay 7.40 0.3 Lac qui Parle 8.25 0.2 Swift 8.50 0.1 Washington 8.96 3.0 Renville 10.30 0.2 Hennepin 14.00 2.5 Wright 14.18 1.1 Jackson 15.20 0.1 Nicollet 16.20 0.3 Meeker 17.51 0.3 Scott 17.86 0.5 Lyon 20.00 0.1 Fillmore 23.00 5.1 Carver 25.00 0.2 Winona 64.73 2.3 Grant 31.00 0.6 Lake 32.00 3.0 Stevens 34.70 0.4 Wabasha 46.00 2.6 Kandiyohi 46.87 0.9 Houston 48.00 3.8 Cook 62.30 3.8
256 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 47 Wildfires from 1997-2007 Avg. Acres Avg. # COUNTY Burned/Year Fires/Year Chisago 72.00 5.4 Stearns 88.53 2.3 Douglas 91 5.2 Hubbard 92 9.1 Carlton 104 14.2 Koochiching 114 17.8 Isanti 119 19.9 Dakota 120 1.5 Sherburne 177 24.6 Pope 137 1.6 Benton 170 28.7 Itasca 219 34.3 Ottertail 260 35.1 Kanabec 261 36.3 Wadena 272 34.6 Mille Lacs 285 33.6 Wilkin 286 0.1 Blue Earth 304 1.7 Todd 312 29.4 Lake of the Woods 315 31.6 Chippewa 326 0.5 Cass 336 29.1 Crow Wing 410 36.5 Clearwater 605 36.3 Pennington 628 3.0 Polk 664 2.7 Big Stone 737 0.3 St. Louis 781 57.2 Pine 950 66.0 Aitkin 1,051 60.0 Becker 1,092 80.5 Mahnomen 1,123 75.9 Anoka 1,180 69.8 Morrison 1,985 75.5 Beltrami 2,383 84.5 Marshall 2,687 87.2
257 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 47 Wildfires from 1997-2007 Avg. Acres Avg. # COUNTY Burned/Year Fires/Year Kittson 6,774 89.8 Roseau 9,296 64.2 Total Average 37,320 acres 1,580 fires Source: Minnesota DNR, Interagency Fire Center
Jurisdictions Most Vulnerable to Wildfires in Minnesota The following counties have an average of over 1,000 acres burned per year and would be considered most vulnerable: Roseau, Kittson, Marshall, Beltrami, Morrison, Anoka, Mahnomen, Becker and Aitkin. However damage totals to personal property identify Crow Wing, Hubbard, Itasca, Anoka, Sherburne, Pine, Aitkin, St. Louis, and Carver counties as the most vulnerable to wildfire. Taking both rankings jointly the most vulnerable counties to both highest amount of acres burned and damage to personal property from wildfires are: Aitkin, Anoka and Roseau.
258 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
259 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Vulnerability Assessment for State Facilities 44 CFR 201.4(c)(2)(iii) – The risk assessment shall include an overview and analysis of the State’s vulnerability to the hazards described in this paragraph (c)(2), based on estimates provided in the State risk assessment. State owned or operated critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas shall also be addressed.
A state owned facility assessment been initiated. At this time only data for the general number of facilities and replacement values are available. This data overlaid with the top four hazards are presented in this section. Estimating vulnerability of state facilities is ongoing and will be completed in the 2011 Plan update.
State owned and operated facilities are important centers that link the government of the State of Minnesota to the public it serves. These facilities range from the State Capitol building in St. Paul to storage buildings for transportation centers throughout the state. These facilities are hubs for everything from administrative activities to public safety functions and every conceivable role in between. Should these facilities be rendered inoperable by an incident, the public would lose a vital link between them and their government and the services provided.
Critical state owned facilities were identified as those facilities that housed “essential” government services or high profile, culturally significant facilities. Essential services are defined as those services that provide for the immediate health and safety of the public.
The State Architects Office maintains an inventory of state-owned buildings used for official state business. The inventory identifies a total of 5,061 structures along with the replacement value for each structure. This inventory became the database used to identify facilities potentially at risk for the Risk Assessment of this plan. In identifying critical facilities the list was reduced to 520 facilities, including State Patrol, Department of Transportation, Corrections, Human Services, and State Capitol Complex facilities. Total replacement value for all critical facilities is just over 2.5 billion dollars.
Maps of the top hazard risks for Minnesota were produced and overlaid with numbers of state facility per county, and replacement value per county. GIS databases were used for wind storms and tornados; however these events are documented at longitude and latitude, not
260 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment by county. Additional methods to analyze events per county will be utilized in the 2011 update of the plan. It is anticipated that GIS will be used extensively in the development of the Risk Assessment for Critical Facilities in the 2011 edition of this plan.
Table 48 State Owned Facilities by County Replacement Value over $10 Million County Replacement value Ramsey $ 1,112,447,851 Rice $ 200,520,314 Washington $ 173,682,434 Nicollet $ 122,134,779 Anoka $ 112,369,852 Crow Wing $ 110,059,702 Hennepin $ 100,917,237 Stearns $ 96,596,347 Carlton $ 90,256,063 Chisago $ 56,057,256 Otter Tail $ 49,608,603 Scott $ 46,604,336 Saint Louis $ 38,046,496 Goodhue $ 32,005,503 Dakota $ 31,962,561 Cass $ 30,705,548 Becker $ 15,666,200 Olmsted $ 14,149,410 Beltrami $ 12,078,350 Rock $ 10,979,556 Isanti $ 10,227,686
The above listed counties have state owned facilities valued at more than $10 million. There is $3,209,320 worth of radio towers and truck stops not attributed to specific counties. Big Stone, Red Lake and Redwood counties have no state owned facilities that match the criteria as described previously. Appendix 5 has the list of state owned facilities, including the agency, facility, building, address, gross square footage, building type and replacement value.
The following maps indicate the number of state owned facilities in each county, and indicate replacement values of state owned facilities.
261 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
262 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
263 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
264 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction 44 CFR 201.4(c)(2)(iii) – The risk assessment shall include an overview and analysis of potential losses to identified vulnerable structures, based on estimates provided in local risk assessments.
For each of the top four hazards that impact Minnesota, estimated annual potential losses were calculated based on past occurrences. As more data becomes available from the local county plans, this data will be incorporated into the state Plan.
This section of the risk assessment provides projected future damages (risk) for counties across Minnesota. The methods used to determine risk are discussed in the individual hazard subsections and in some cases, are provided in the Appendices, as noted in the text.
Reduction of damages due to flooding is a high priority for mitigation in the state of Minnesota, specifically mitigating residential structures that have received severe repetitive losses and are substantially damaged within the 100 year floodplain.
Floods The state purchased updated HAZUS and the required Arc-View software necessary to use in assessing risk. HSEM is planning on completing a Level 1 risk assessment for flooding within the next year. This information will be refined and used in the 2011 update of the Plan.
The 2005 plan included three methods of determining risk. The following were the methods used in this plan. The complete methodology and results can be found in Appendix 6.
For floods, risk is estimated by three methods. Because flood risk is highly site-specific, none of these methods provides perfectly reliable risk determinations. However, the results of the methods can be compared to determine if they are closely correlated.
• Method 1 Risk to residential structures is determined using FEMA’s HAZUS-MH software, using a two-foot flood depth as a benchmark for estimating damages.
• Method 2 NFIP repetitive loss data is used to identify the counties in which the most repetitive losses have occurred.
265 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment • Method 3 Data on structures used to estimate flood losses for a benchmark two-foot flood in a county level analysis
The methods described above yielded less than desirable results in terms of actual risk and potential losses. When compared against actual damage figures, the counties in the metropolitan area with the highest population were found to be most at risk. This is not the case in flooding as it is more site-specific than other hazards affecting the state of Minnesota. Thus, actual damage amounts from past flooding were used to estimate potential future losses.
Methodology The following table includes Public Assistance dollars from federal, state and local sources. The damage totals are from major disasters declared from 1989-2006 or a 17 year time period. The Annual Estimated Loss was figured from the total payments to each County divided by the 17 year reporting period.
Table 49 Annual Estimated Loss to Counties from Flooding Public Assistance Damage County Amt. Annual Estimated (1989-2006)* Loss Koochiching $39,397 $2,317 Carlton $60,223 $3,543 Wadena $72,221 $4,248 Waseca $129,764 $7,633 Watonwan $187,812 $11,048 Stearns $208,259 $12,251 Chisago $226,415 $13,319 Sherburne $306,449 $18,026 Rice $351,113 $20,654 Douglas $420,720 $24,748 Isanti $426,474 $25,087 Lake $456,224 $26,837 Mille Lacs $472,793 $27,811 Benton $486,378 $28,610 Kanabec $507,787 $29,870 Pine $617,252 $36,309 Cottonwood $666,656 $39,215 Steele $673,347 $39,609
266 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 49 Annual Estimated Loss to Counties from Flooding Public Assistance Damage County Amt. Annual Estimated (1989-2006)* Loss Hubbard $677,201 $39,835 Red Lake $689,883 $40,581 Scott $694,937 $40,879 Crow Wing $703,491 $41,382 Jackson $738,092 $43,417 Todd $765,681 $45,040 Beltrami $799,211 $47,012 McLeod $799,515 $47,030 Morrison $825,889 $48,582 Winona $841,887 $49,523 Grant $849,337 $49,961 Pipestone $864,123 $50,831 Aitkin $864,887 $50,876 Dodge $938,115 $55,183 Houston $938,699 $55,218 Wabasha $945,094 $55,594 Kandiyohi $972,335 $57,196 Otter Tail $981,293 $57,723 Martin $1,049,024 $61,707 Cass $1,058,434 $62,261 Pennington $1,063,024 $62,531 Cook $1,122,832 $66,049 Goodhue $1,202,359 $70,727 LeSueur $1,213,247 $71,367 Pope $1,287,997 $75,765 Lincoln $1,312,822 $77,225 Faribault $1,317,455 $77,497 Carver $1,407,419 $82,789 Brown $1,414,713 $83,218 Mahnomen $1,420,865 $83,580 Sibley $1,421,856 $83,639 Stevens $1,437,705 $84,571 Clearwater $1,471,721 $86,572 Swift $1,478,767 $86,986 Lyon $1,499,109 $88,183
267 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 49 Annual Estimated Loss to Counties from Flooding Public Assistance Damage County Amt. Annual Estimated (1989-2006)* Loss Fillmore $1,537,774 $90,457 Rock $1,542,487 $90,735 Nobles $1,543,983 $90,823 Traverse $1,625,863 $95,639 Murray $1,638,352 $96,374 Freeborn $1,727,841 $101,638 Anoka $1,865,704 $109,747 Becker $1,966,980 $115,705 Itasca $2,124,608 $124,977 Redwood $2,170,776 $127,693 Meeker $2,201,777 $129,516 Chippewa $2,402,506 $141,324 Lac Qui Parle $2,450,687 $144,158 Lake of the $2,675,973 $157,410 Woods Nicollet $2,734,417 $160,848 Washington $2,912,201 $171,306 Blue Earth $3,015,929 $177,408 Hennepin $3,213,363 $189,021 Big Stone $3,576,040 $210,355 Wright $4,000,052 $235,297 Ramsey $4,699,860 $276,462 Mower $4,971,281 $292,428 St. Louis $5,020,267 $295,310 Kittson $5,223,055 $307,239 Yellow Medicine $5,470,262 $321,780 Clay $8,542,074 $502,475 Marshall $9,385,080 $552,064 Dakota $11,814,549 $694,973 Wilkin $12,126,339 $713,314 Roseau $28,910,605 $1,700,624 Norman $55,839,016 $3,284,648 Polk $70,284,407 $4,134,377 *Some figures are not yet in for all disasters so the numbers may change in the future.
268 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Summary In the 2005 Plan, HAZUS information was used with floodplain mapping to arrive at estimated annual losses. This information was based on total property values so the higher populated areas become the most vulnerable with the most risk. Flooding is more localized than tornadoes or windstorms, thus the results of this method are not very accurate. Dakota County is the exception to this. The counties with the highest estimated annual losses based on Public Assistance damage amounts are: Polk $4,134,377 Norman $3,284,648 Roseau $1,700,624 Wilkin $713,314 Dakota $694,973 Clay $502,475 Yellow Medicine $321,780 Kittson $307,239 St. Louis $295,310 Mower $292,428
In using the public assistance damage amounts, together with agricultural damage, a better picture of risk can be seen. The counties along the Red River which are typically the most vulnerable also turn out to have the higher estimated loss potential or risk.
Data Limitations In Table 47 the public assistance dollar amounts are not all in from past disasters. Once these are included, the results may change somewhat. Also, some disasters are grouped together such as flooding, tornadoes, etc. under one disaster number. An attempt was made to separate these numbers but it was not possible in all cases.
The annual estimated loss figures do not take into account mitigation actions that have occurred in some of the counties. These mitigation actions will decrease future estimated losses. For instance, in Polk County, an extensive buyout of homes in the floodplain was completed, thus damage in this area should be much less in the future. These efforts will be reflected in future plans when potential loss from damages decreases in areas where mitigation projects have taken place.
At this time, the public assistance damage amounts are the best indicator of future loss that we have available.
269 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Tornados Methodology Data used in the 2005 Plan for the tornado risk assessment was based on data from HAZUS-MH housing data and U.S. Bureau of the Census housing data. This information is included in Appendix 7 as reference material. This information was compared with the data used in this update and an analysis included later in this section.
In the 2008 plan, data from the NOAA National Climatic Data (NCDC) center storm events database was used. All properties in tornado- prone counties were considered at-risk for damages and the risk for each county was calculated from historic data compiled by the NCDC.
From 1950 to 2007, information on tornadoes from each county in the state was inputted into a spreadsheet with the following information developed: average damage amounts per tornado; annual probability and estimated future annual losses. Following are the methods that were used to determine each of the above stated figures that were used in Table 54. Calculations for each County have been done to arrive at an estimated future annual loss and annual probability of a tornado. The top ten counties with highest future estimated losses are in table 53 and a map indicates counties potential loss estimates.
Table 50 Tornado Damages from 1950-2007 (estimated annual losses)
1950-2007 # of Total Avg. Annual Estimated (57 yrs.) Tornadoes Damages damage/event Probability annual loss Cook 2 $0 $0 .0351 $0 Lac qui Parle 8 $38,000 $4,750 .1404 $666 Todd 15 $43,000 $2866 .2631 $754 Pine 9 $50,000 $5,555 .1579 $877 Lake 4 $53,000 $13,250 .0701 $929 Itasca 7 $80,000 $11,428 .1228 $1,403 Mahnomen 12 $110,000 $9,166 .2105 $1,929 Lake of the Woods 11 $155,000 $14,090 .1930 $2,719 Hubbard 8 $253,000 $31,625 .1404 $4,438 Beltrami 23 $278,000 $12,086 .4035 $4,876 Clearwater 13 $288,000 $22,154 .2281 $5,053 Scott 13 $300,000 $23,076 .2281 $5,262 Koochiching 6 $300,000 $50,000 .1053 $5,263
270 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 50 Tornado Damages from 1950-2007 (estimated annual losses)
1950-2007 # of Total Avg. Annual Estimated (57 yrs.) Tornadoes Damages damage/event Probability annual loss Chisago 12 $303,000 $25,250 .2105 $5,316 Dodge 13 $325,000 $25,000 .2281 $5,701 Kanabec 10 $325,000 $32,500 .1754 $5,701 Carlton 6 $330,000 $55,000 .1053 $5,789 Martin 16 $358,000 $22,375 .2807 $6,280 Marshall 13 $400,000 $30,769 .2280 $7,017 Wabasha 6 $500,000 $83,333 .1053 $8,772 Meeker 18 $525,000 $29,166 .3158 $9,210 Rock 11 $533,000 $48,454 .1930 $9,350 Mille Lacs 13 $603,000 $46,384 .2281 $10,578 Wilkin 17 $630,000 $37,058 .2982 $11,052 Lincoln 16 $730,000 $45,625 .2807 $12,807 Benton 6 $800,000 $133,333 .1053 $14,035 Pope 15 $835,000 $55,666 .2632 $14,648 Faribault 20 $1.2 million $60,000 .3509 $21,052 Big Stone 6 $1.53 million $255,000 .1053 $26,842 Polk 49 $1.54 million $31,428 .8596 $27,017 Clay 29 $1.74 million $60,000 .5088 $30,526 Isanti 11 $1.95 million $177,272 .1930 $34,210 Wadena 10 $2.03 million $203,000 .1754 $35,614 Wright 19 $2.20 million $115,789 .3333 $38,592 Sherburne 9 $2.53 million $281,111 .1579 $44,385 Morrison 20 $2.55 million $127,500 .3509 $44,736 Pennington 6 $2.55 million $425,000 .1053 44,736 Red Lake 15 $2.58 million $172,000 .2632 $45,263 Houston 7 $2.63 million $375,714 .1228 $46,140 Douglas 15 $2.83 million $188,666 .2632 $49,648 Becker 27 $2.92 million $108,148 .4737 $51,227 Aitkin 14 $3.6 million $257,142 .2456 $63,154 Kittson 29 $3.84 million $132,413 .5088 $67,368 Jackson 17 $4.2 million $247,058 .2982 $73,683 Kandiyohi 39 $4.38 million $112,307 .6842 $76,841 Mower 26 $5.02 million $193,076 .4561 $88,069 Chippewa 10 $5.03 million $503,000 .1754 $88,245
271 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 50 Tornado Damages from 1950-2007 (estimated annual losses)
1950-2007 # of Total Avg. Annual Estimated (57 yrs.) Tornadoes Damages damage/event Probability annual loss Traverse 8 $5.03 million $628,750 .1404 $88,276 Washington 12 $5.33 million $444,166 .2105 $93,508 Grant 14 $5.53 million $395,000 .2456 $97,017 Lyon 22 $5.53 million $251,363 .3860 $97,017 Stevens 11 $5.58 million $507,272 .1930 $97,903 Redwood 23 $6.03 million $262,173 .4035 $105,789 Watonwan 15 $6.08 million $405,333 .2631 $106,666 Saint Louis 33 $6.47 million $196,060 .5789 $113,508 Goodhue 17 $6.58 million $387,058 .2982 $115,438 Winona 12 $7.55 million $629,166 .2105 $132,455 Fillmore 10 $7.58 million $758,000 .1754 $132,982 Pipestone 10 $8.03 million $803,000 .1754 $140,877 Dakota 19 $8.13 million $427,894 .3333 $142,617 McLeod 14 $8.3 million $592,857 .2456 $145,613 $10.13 Cass 18 million $562,777 .3158 $177,719 $10.52 Otter Tail 44 million $239,090 .7719 $184,560 Crow Wing 22 $10.9 million $495,454 .3860 $191,227 $11.18 Blue Earth 28 million $399,285 .4912 $196,140 $12.63 Swift 28 million $451,071 .4912 $221,578 Renville 23 $16.5 million $717,391 .4035 $289,473 $21.11 Roseau 29 million $727,931 .5088 $370,350 $25.05 Norman 11 million $2,277,273 .1930 $439,513 $30.05 Nobles 30 million $1,001,666 .5263 $527,192 $32.05 Rice 18 million $1,780,555 .3158 $565,280 $33.83 Olmsted 28 million $1,208,214 .4912 $593,508 $34.58 Stearns 38 million $910,000 .6666 $606,666
272 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 50 Tornado Damages from 1950-2007 (estimated annual losses)
1950-2007 # of Total Avg. Annual Estimated (57 yrs.) Tornadoes Damages damage/event Probability annual loss $35.38 Cottonwood 12 million $2,948,333 .2105 $620,701 $43.89 Le Sueur 17 million $2,581,764 .2982 $769,999 Yellow Medicine 19 $45.6 million $2,400,000 .3333 $799,999 $48.28 Brown 18 million $2,682,222 .3158 $847,017 $51.35 Sibley 25 million $2,054,000 .4386 $900,877 $53.30 Steele 16 million $3,331,250 .2807 $935,087 $55.65 Murray 20 million $2,782,500 .3509 $976,315 Anoka 17 $63.9 million $3,760,000 .2982 $1,120,881 $78.81 Waseca 17 million $4,635,882 .2982 $1,382,631 $80.06 Carver 15 million $5,337,333 .2632 $1,404,560 $126.53 Nicollet 17 million $7,442,941 .2982 $2,219824 $150.84 Freeborn 37 million $4,076,756 .6491 $2,646,315 $190.55 Hennepin 24 million $7,939,583 .4210 $3,342,982 $225.25 Ramsey 5 million $45,050,000 .0877 $3,951,749
The methodology from the above table was further expanded to include loss estimates for injuries and death for a total with injury, death and property damage figures included.
The same calculations and methods were used as above for # Injuries and # Deaths for the time period from 1950-2007 (57 years). The same monetary conversion values for death and injury that were used in the HAZUS method from the 2005 plan were used in this plan and are shown below.
273 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment The figures used for valuation of deaths and injuries are approximations based on FEMA guidance used in benefit-cost analysis of hazard mitigation measures. Major and minor injuries are combined in the NOAA data, so it was necessary to use a blended number in the valuation.
Table 51 Monetary Conversion Values for Injuries and Mortality Damage Category Value for Monetary Conversion ** Injury (blended major and minor) $7,500 ***Death $3,000,000
These figures ($7,500 per injury and $3,000,000 per death) were then used and inputted into the table to arrive at the estimated losses in Table 56.
Using an example to illustrate the method used, take Carver County in Table 55. There were 187 injuries in the 57 year reporting time period (1950-2007) and 3 deaths. 187 injuries during the 57 year time period would equate to a 3.28 annual probability of an injury occurring in the county (187/57 = 3.28). For the estimated annual ($) loss, take the annual probability of .035 x $7,500 (value for monetary conversion of an injury) = $24,600. Similarly, there was 3 deaths during the same time period which would equate to a 0.05 annual probability of a death in Carver County from a tornado (3/57 = 0.05). Taking this 0.005 annual probability x $3,000,000 (value for monetary conversion of a death) = $150,000 or the estimated annual loss for a death in the county.
The property damage estimated annual loss ($1,404,560) was then added to the injury estimate annual loss ($24,600) and the death estimated annual loss ($150,500) to arrive at a Total Estimated Annual ($) Loss for Carver County of $1,579,160.
The 2005 plan included the HAZUS analysis for potential loss and did coincide somewhat with the actual damage figures from this (2008) plan. Four of the eight highest risk counties were the same. Again, the HAZUS information is based on the most populated areas of the state with the highest property valuation as being most at risk. In the case of tornadoes, this is not entirely inaccurate as tornadoes can and do occur anywhere in the state. However, actual damage amounts may give the state a more accurate picture of annual estimated potential loss based on past occurrences. Even though tornadoes can
274 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment occur anywhere in the state, they are more prevalent in the southern half where all of the most at risk counties are located. A map showing levels of vulnerability based on potential annual loss estimates will be included in the 2011 update of the Plan.
Table 52 Tornado Loss Estimate by Total Damages (Death, Injury & Property damage)
Estimated Estimated Estimated Annual Loss Estimated Annual annual loss (Injury & annual loss Loss (property Death & County (injury)* (death)** damage)*** Property ) Hennepin $34,050 $690,000 $3,342,982 $4,067,032 Ramsey $22,350 $52,500 $3,951,749 $4,026,599 Freeborn $10,275 $690,000 $2,646,315 $3,346,590 Nicollet $1,312 $52,500 $2,219,824 $2,273,636 Waseca $3,150 $330,000 $1,382,631 $1,715,781 Carver $24,600 $150,000 $1,404,560 $1,579,160 Anoka $49,200 $21,000 $1,120,881 $1,191,081 Murray $5,250 $52,500 $976,315 $1,034,065 Sibley $9,825 $52,500 $900,877 $963,202 Steele $0 $0 $935,087 $935,087
From the information in Tables 54 and 56, counties with the most risk for future estimate damages from tornadoes include the following: Hennepin $4,067,032 Ramsey $4,206,599 Freeborn $3,346,590 Nicollet $2,273,636 Waseca $1,715,781 Carver $1,579,160 Anoka $1,191,081
275 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
276 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Data Limitations Minnesota has a well-established history of tornadoes, and the NOAA database is large enough that it is probably reasonable to use past occurrences as a general indicator of future risk, at least on a statewide basis. Clearly, as with all risks, the presence of vulnerable assets (including people) in particular areas increases risk because of the potential for damage, injury and death. Because tornadoes occur relatively quickly (as opposed to floods and hurricanes, both of which are usually preceded by long-lead time warnings and predictions about their severity) several additional factors must be considered in assessing risk. These are the presence and effectiveness of warning systems, public knowledge about what to do if a tornado does occur, the willingness of the population to take appropriate action, and the availability of adequate shelter (both in terms of its proximity to potential users, structural characteristics, and potential occupancy level).
Using past occurrence data to estimate future risk can be particularly problematic for tornadoes, except in the most general sense. It is important to understand that tornadoes are a widespread phenomenon in most central U.S. States. Much of the record of tornado events is based on observations of tornadoes forming/touching the ground, or on after-the-fact empirical observations of the damage they caused. Because of this, it is appropriate to assume that the probabilities are somewhat higher than what is suggested by the data – in many cases tornadoes occur in unpopulated places where they are neither observed nor cause any damage or injuries.
The estimates of potential damage based on past occurrences are only as good as the reporting that occurs in the county. There were some tornadoes for a particular County that blew buildings apart yet no dollar amount was reported for damages. In general however, over a relatively long period of time (1950-2007) the numbers reported should give a fairly good idea of risk by an individual County.
Summary The map indicates the metro counties of Carver, Hennepin, Anoka, and Washington being vulnerable to more than $1 million potential loss due to tornadoes. The southern counties of Nicollet, Waseca and Freeborn are also in the highest potential loss category.
277 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Windstorms Windstorms for the purposes of this Plan are storms with winds in excess of about 58 mph or 50+ knots. Storms of this magnitude were used for the calculations found in this section. Although Minnesota has a history of windstorm events, by nature they are very difficult to predict, particularly on a site-specific basis.
Methodology Data used in the 2005 plan for the windstorm risk assessment was based on data from HAZUS-MH housing data and U.S. Bureau of the Census housing data. This information is included in Appendix 8 as reference material. This information was compared with the data used in this update and an analysis included later in this section.
In the 2008 plan, data from the NOAA National Climatic Data (NCDC) center storm events database was used. All properties in windstorm- prone counties were considered at-risk for damages and the risk for each county was calculated from historic data compiled by the NCDC. This is the same methodology that was used in the previous section on tornadoes.
From 1950 to 2007, information on windstorms from each county in the state was inputted into a spreadsheet with the following information developed: average damage amounts per windstorm; annual probability and estimated future annual losses. Following are the methods that were used to determine each of the above stated figures that were used in Table 57. These calculations were done for each County to arrive at an estimated future annual loss and annual probability of a windstorm.
Table 53 Estimating Annual Loss due to Windstorms
# of Estimated Wind Total Avg. Annual annual County Events Damages damage/event Probability loss Aitkin 37 $0 $0 .65 $0 Big Stone 40 $0 $0 .70 $0 Carlton 22 $0 $0 .38 $0 Cass 67 $0 $0 1.18 $0 Cook 6 $0 $0 .10 $0 Douglas 86 $0 $0 1.51 $0 Itasca 76 $0 $0 1.33 $0
278 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 53 Estimating Annual Loss due to Windstorms
# of Estimated Wind Total Avg. Annual annual County Events Damages damage/event Probability loss Kanabec 30 $0 $0 .53 $0 Koochiching 31 $0 $0 .54 $0 Traverse 32 $0 $0 .56 $0 Morrison 62 $11,000 $177 1.09 $193 Stevens 48 $60,000 $1,250 .84 $1,053 Saint Louis 161 $86,000 $534 2.82 $1,508 Pennington 17 $100,000 $5,882 .30 $1,754 Lake 21 $100,000 $4,762 .37 $1,754 Lake of the Woods 20 $100,000 $5,000 .35 $1,754 Red Lake 9 $100,000 $11,111 .16 $1,754 Kittson 44 $100,000 $2,273 .77 $1,755 Pope 49 $100,000 $2,041 .86 $1,755 Isanti 40 $105,000 $2,625 .70 $1,842 Polk 58 $107,000 $1,845 1.02 $1,877 Norman 38 $118,000 $3,105 .67 $2,070 Roseau 37 $120,000 $3,243 .65 $2,105 Grant 36 $125,000 $3,472 .63 $2,193 Mille Lacs 33 $135,000 $4,091 .58 $2,368 Marshall 40 $175,000 $4,375 .70 $3,070 Pine 36 $200,000 $5,555 .63 $3,508 Chippewa 43 $250,000 $5,814 .75 $4,386 McLeod 121 $280,000 $2,314 2.12 $4,912 Benton 31 $382,000 $12,322 .54 $6,701 Pipestone 34 $482,000 $14,176 .60 $8,456 Swift 45 $500,000 $11,111 .79 $8,772 Chisago 35 $560,000 $16,000 .61 $9,825 Yellow Medicine 48 $750,000 $15,625 .84 $13,158 Lincoln 38 $807,000 $21,236 .67 $14,157 Houston 29 $812,000 $28,000 .51 $14,245 Murray 43 $874,000 $20,326 .75 $15,334 Jackson 57 $930,000 $16,315 1 $16,315 Fillmore 65 $1,020,000 $15,692 1.14 $17,894
279 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 53 Estimating Annual Loss due to Windstorms
# of Estimated Wind Total Avg. Annual annual County Events Damages damage/event Probability loss Lyon 48 $1,020,000 $21250 .84 $17,895 Stearns 85 $1,080,000 $12,705 1.49 $18,946 Crow Wing 68 $1,220,000 $17,941 1.19 $21,403 Lac qui Parle 51 $1,420,000 $27,843 .89 $24,912 Winona 61 $1,990,000 $32,623 1.07 $34,912 Rock 48 $2,600,000 $54,167 .84 $45,614 Olmsted 164 $2,780,000 $16,951 2.88 $48,771 Sherburne 58 $3,160,000 $54,482 1.02 $55,438 Cottonwood 54 $3,230,000 $59,814 .95 $56,666 Nobles 73 $3,490,000 $47,808 1.28 $61,228 Renville 63 $6,000,000 $95,238 1.1 $105,263 Mower 67 $7,670,000 $114,477 1.17 $134,561 Le Sueur 41 $8,000,000 $195,121 .72 $14,035 Freeborn 58 $8,010,000 $138,103 1.02 $140,526 Redwood 86 $8,040,000 $93,488 1.5 $141,052 Sibley 54 $8,100,000 $150,000 .95 $142,105 Watonwan 44 $8,130,000 $184,772 .77 $142,631 Rice 55 $8,180,000 $148,727 .96 $143,508 Goodhue 66 $9,210,000 $139,545 1.16 $161,578 Dodge 38 $9,500,000 $250,000 .67 $166,666 Martin 73 $9,600,000 $131,507 1.28 $168,421 Meeker 59 $10,610,000 $179,830 1.04 $186,140 Waseca 51 $12,050,000 $236,274 .89 $211,403 Nicollet 59 $12,500,000 $211,864 1.04 $219,298 Steele 36 $13,010,000 $361,388 .63 $228,245 Wabasha 57 $13,740,000 $241,052 1 $241,052 Carver 88 $14,240,000 $161,818 1.54 $249,824 Wadena 31 $15,000,000 $483,870 .54 $263,157 Brown 54 $15,060,000 $278,888 .95 $264,209 Beltrami 31 $15,110,000 $487,419 .54 $265,087 Todd 44 $15,110,000 $343,409 .77 $265,088 Clearwater 19 $15,120,000 $795,789 .33 $26,526 Kandiyohi 71 $15,130,000 $213,098 1.25 $265,438
280 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 53 Estimating Annual Loss due to Windstorms
# of Estimated Wind Total Avg. Annual annual County Events Damages damage/event Probability loss Mahnomen 23 $15,130,000 $657,826 .40 $265,438 Clay 34 $15,140,000 $445,294 .59 $265,614 Becker 34 $15,150,000 $445,588 .60 $267,352 Wilkin 42 $15,180,000 $361,428 .74 $266,315 Hubbard 25 $15,210,000 $608,400 .44 $266,842 Faribault 50 $19,530,000 $390,600 .88 $342,631 Otter Tail 109 $20,150,000 $184,862 1.91 $353,508 Wright 102 $22,230,000 $217,941 1.79 $389,999 Ramsey 70 $25,330,000 $361,857 1.23 $444,385 Blue Earth 69 $28,000,000 $405,797 1.21 $491,227 Washington 64 $31,800,000 $496,875 1.12 $557,894 Anoka 76 $85,800,000 $1,30,000 1.33 $1,502,900 Hennepin 180 $138,090,000 $767,166 3.16 $2,422,629 Dakota 88 $187,730,000 $2,133,295 1.54 $3,293,507 Scott 80 $195,700,000 $2,450,000 1.4 $3,438,597
The methodology from the above table was further expanded to include loss estimates for injuries and death for a total with injury, death and property damage figures included.
The same calculations and methods were used as above for # Injuries and # Deaths from 1950-2007 (57 years). The same monetary conversion values for death and injury that were used in the HAZUS method from the 2005 plan were used in this plan and are shown in Appendix 8.
The figures used for valuation of deaths and injuries are approximations based on FEMA guidance used in benefit-cost analysis of hazard mitigation measures. Major and minor injuries are combined in the NOAA data, so it was necessary to use a blended number in the valuation.
281 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Table 54 Windstorm Loss Estimates by Total Damages (Injury, Death & Property Damages ) 1950-2007 Estimated Annual Loss Estimated (Injury+ Estimated Estimated annual loss Death+ Annual Loss Annual Loss (property Property County (injury) (death) damage) Damage) Scott $0 $0 $3,438,597 $3,438,597 Dakota $2,475 $0 $3,293,507 $3,295,982 Hennepin $825 $52,500 $2,422,629 $2,475,954 Anoka $263 $0 $1,502,900 $1,503,163 Washington $131 $0 $557,894 $558,025 Blue Earth $398 $0 $491,227 $491,625 Ramsey $131 $0 $444,385 $444,516 Wright $131 $0 $389,999 $390,130 Otter Tail $923 $0 $353,508 $354,431 Faribault $263 $0 $342,631 $342,894 Source: NOAA Storm Data Center (1950-2007)
Table 55 Agricultural losses from wind- related insurance claims from 1994-2006 (top 10 counties)
County Indemnity Nobles $1,176,463 Jackson $742,513 Lyon $618,040 Clay $612,419 Rock $610,336 Brown $563,313 Cottonwood $552,116 Pope $494,190 Sibley $449,811 Polk $449,447 Le Sueur $442,362 Source: USDA Risk Management Agency
282 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Summary There is no overlap between counties that received funding for wind damages from agricultural losses and those that received Public Assistance from wind related damages. The top four counties at highest risk from agricultural damages based on past damage amounts are: Nobles, Jackson, Lyon and Clay. The top four counties at risk of personal property damages, injury and death are in the metro area; Anoka, Hennepin, Dakota, and Scott.
Wildfire Methodology Utilizing the value of loss of personal property, and indemnity amounts, the following table indicates counties with the highest past damages due to fire, and the highest estimated potential losses. Full dataset is in Appendix 9.
Table 56 Combined Fire Risk Value of Personal property Loss Fire Indemnity Total Combined Losses Crow Wing $1,097,455 $1,097,455 Hubbard $1,049,950 $1,049,950 Itasca $645,120 $645,120 Roseau $628,050 $4,857 $632,907 Anoka $621,425 $621,425 Sherburne $539,120 $539,120 Pine $454,600 $454,600 Aitkin $407,824 $407,824 St. Louis $304,020 $304,020 Carver $300,000 $300,000
COUNTY Avg. Acres Burned/Year Avg. # Fires/Year Becker 9,296 80.5 Mahnomen 6,774 75.9 Anoka 2,687 69.8 Morrison 2,383 75.5 Beltrami 1,985 84.5 Marshall 1,180 87.2 Kittson 1,123 89.8 Roseau 1,092 64.2 Aitkin 1,051 60
283 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment An analysis of combined data has been analyzed in attempts to gain a clearer picture of hazards in Minnesota.
Table 57 Indemnity Claims for Water, Hail, Excess Wind, and Wildfire Damages 1994-2006
Water (Flooding) Hail Marshall $115,858,579 Lincoln $3,412,074 Polk $73,118,217 Big Stone $3,233,518 Kittson $70,885,448 Lyon $3,052,488 Roseau $60,552,590 Redwood $2,381,353
Wind/Excess Wind Wildfire Nobles $987,540 Nobles $1,176,463 Jackson $517,765 Jackson $742,513 Rock $471,233 Lyon $618,040 Lyon $405,689 Clay $612,419
Utilizing estimated annual loss of property, injury and death for both tornado and wind events, the following counties have the highest vulnerability of over $1 million:
Table 58 Estimated annual loss of property, injury and death for Tornado and Wind County Winds Tornado Combined Hennepin $2,475,954 $4,067,032 $6,542,986 Ramsey $444,516 $4,026,599 $4,471,115 Scott $3,438,597 $3,438,597 Freeborn $3,346,590 $3,346,590 Dakota $3,295,982 $3,295,982 Anoka $1,503,163 $1,191,081 $2,694,244 Nicollet $2,273,636 $2,273,636 Waseca $1,715,781 $1,715,781 Carver $1,579,160 $1,579,160 Murray $1,034,065 $1,034,065
Data Limitations Existing data is limited and often is not in a form that can be easily mapped or analyzed on a county-by-county basis.
Summary Wildfire is a hazard to many counties, especially in the northern- forested parts of the state. Existing data on damages to property and
284 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment agricultural indemnity claims that are and attributed to wildfire are the best available data the state currently has.
Summary of Top Four Hazards Floods The counties with the highest estimated annual losses based on Public Assistance damage amounts are: Polk $4,134,377 Norman $3,284,648 Roseau $1,700,624 Wilkin $713,314 Dakota $694,973 Clay $502,475 Yellow Medicine $321,780 Kittson $307,239 St. Louis $295,310 Mower $292,428
In using the public assistance damage amounts, together with agricultural damage, a better picture of risk can be seen. The counties along the Red River which are typically the most vulnerable also turn out to have the higher estimated loss potential or risk.
Tornados The top counties with the highest risk for future damage estimates from tornadoes are: Hennepin $4,067,032 Ramsey $4,206,599 Freeborn $3,346,590 Nicollet $2,273,636 Waseca $1,715,781 Carver $1,579,160 Anoka $1,191,081
The metro counties of Carver, Hennepin, Anoka, and Washington are highly vulnerable to potential loss due to tornadoes. The southern counties of Nicollet, Waseca and Freeborn are also have high potential loss.
Wind There is no overlap between counties that received funding for wind damages from agricultural losses and those that received Public Assistance from wind related damages. The top four counties at highest risk from agricultural damages based on past damage amounts
285 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment are: Nobles, Jackson, Lyon and Clay. The top four counties at risk of personal property damages, injury and death are in the metro area; Anoka, Hennepin, Dakota and Scott.
Wildfire Wildfire is a hazard to many counties, especially in the northern forested parts of the state. Existing data on damages to property and agricultural indemnity claims that are and attributed to wildfire are the best available data the state currently has.
The following four counties had the highest combined agricultural indemnity claims from 1994 to 2006. This analysis also includes hail indemnity claims. Marshall $115,858,579 Polk $73,118,217 Kittson $70,885,448 Roseau $60,552,590
Local Risk Assessments The following analysis provides information on hazards and capabilities of counties with approved All Hazard Mitigation Plans that were ranked highest for the state’s top four natural hazards. For the 2011 plan grant funding will be applied for to complete a more in depth analysis of counties that rank highest for each hazard and their capabilities.
Flooding The probability in the state plan for flooding is “High” - see Table 36. The approved county plans were selected for comparison to the state plan by determining which counties had a history of flood damage. The “Summary of Public Assistance Paid to Counties” Table 39, was used to select the following counties approved mitigation plans for review: • Norman • Clay • Yellow Medicine • St. Louis • Mower
Wildfire The probability in the state plan for wildfire is “High” - Table 36. Five approved county plans were selected for comparison to the state plan by determining which counties had a history of damage due to wildfire.
286 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Information from these plans will also be used to compare local and state review mitigation policies, programs, and capabilities for flooding.
The methods to determine probability in the county plans vary but are generally based on historical data of frequency, the possible area affected and impact to the county overall. However, some counties average the results based on communities. For the purposes of this comparison, the average of the communities in the county where flooding is possible will be used and the rating from the lower risk communities will be discounted. Vulnerability to floods is based on location of structures and infrastructure in floodplains or the amount of flash flooding in the city or counties. The plans that do not project economic losses due to projected hazards.
Flooding County Hazard Probability Vulnerability Hazard Ranking Norman 100 yr. 2 to 5 years Moderate to NA Flood High
Flash Annual High NA Flood Clay 100 yr. 2 to 5 years Moderate to NA Flood High
Flash Annual High NA Flood Yellow 100 yr. 2 times per 10 Moderate First Medicine Flood years
Flash 2 times per 10 Low to Fifth Flood years Moderate St. Louis Flood NA Low to Not a great Moderate concern Mower Flood NA NA High Priority #2
Analysis Review of four out of the five plans show that there is high probability and vulnerability in the state. The state analysis correlates with the county plans. The mitigation goals in the county plans correlate to the risk analysis in the state plan. There is a significant difference between
287 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment the state plan and the St. Louis county plan. The difference may be that wildfire is a top priority based on frequent occurrence, magnitude, and other factors. The mitigation goals indicate their actions to limit construction in floodplains and wetlands and there are significant actions aimed at mitigating flash floods.
Wildfire County Probability Vulnerability Hazard Ranking Anoka 3/year 13 (range to 7 to Fifth 20) Beltrami 1-10% 50%+ First St. NA High Greatest potential for loss of Louis property and human life Hubbard 1-10% 50%+ First Norman Possible 10 (range from 7 NA to 13
Additional loss information: Three fatalities, six injuries, 33 assets were destroyed, damages resulting in over $6,515,000 have occurred in Anoka County.
Beltrami County recorded 1,299 fires, $1.19 million worth of timber losses, $310,000 in property losses, and 53,407 total acres burned during 1985 – 2002.
Between 1985 and 2002, Hubbard County recorded 574 fires, $600,000 in timber loss, $17,000 in property loss, and 18,376 total acres burned.
Analysis Anoka county is somewhat developed and has more grassland versus forest fires. Therefore, its hazard ranking and mitigation goals for wildfire are lower than that of the other four somewhat forested counties. The other four counties hazard rankings and mitigation goals are in line with the state plan.
Tornado and High Wind The local risk assessment analysis for tornados and high winds is challenging due to the use of different methods for ranking, assessment and categorization. In many plans, they are lumped together as summer storms. Tornado and high wind hazards are difficult to predict, in Minnesota there are no areas that are more hazard prone (to high winds and tornados) than others. Not all high
288 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment wind events are tornados, however all tornadoes have high winds associated with them. The state is not able to identify areas with increased vulnerability to tornados/winds with intense development pressure.
In attempting to provide estimates of future potential losses to new development the assumption is that structures will be built to applicable building codes, and will be (high) wind (and tornado) resistant. Though not all counties have adopted the International Building Code, most contractors have building standards. In addition, the all hazard mitigation plans that have been approved include recommendations/ requirements for inclusion of severe weather shelters for regions without safe rooms or basements.
Excerpts from the following county plans are included to illustrate how each county ranks the high wind and tornado hazards. Past damages, implementation strategies, goals and objectives are included as well as completed mitigation projects.
Tornados Combining the top counties impacted by tornadoes for each 1) damages due to tornadoes and 2) property damages, injuries and deaths (Tables 43 and 44) Carver, Freeborn, Hennepin, Nicollet, Ramsey and Waseca rank highest. The All Hazard Mitigation Plans for counties with plans (Carver, Hennepin, Nicollet, Ramsey and Waseca) and this plan have been analyzed for tornado.
Waseca County (Tornado) Waseca County ranks tornados as a moderate hazard. This county is located in a more rural, and less developed area of the state. Growth and development were not specifically identified, however, due to the importance of agriculture and crops, animals and crops were included in the risk assessment. In Waseca County, there were 17 tornadoes reported since 1950, which caused $78.8 million in property damage, 24 personal injuries and six deaths. Most of the reports identified Waseca County; however, the communities of Waterville and Janesville also reported tornadoes.
The summer storm (tornado) hazard risk assessment that follows does a thorough analysis of the various types of potential impacts to the county.
289 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
HAZARD: TORNADO LOCATION COUNTYWIDE Historic Events F4 tornado in 1967 was responsible for six deaths and 22 injuries. Likely to happen Possible now? How often? Once every 3-4 years according to current records Where would Countywide event occur? Severity of County has already had an F4 tornado event event? (207-260 mph winds) When would Spring-Fall hazard likely occur? What other Damage/failure of utilities/infrastructure, fire, hazards could exposure to hazardous materials occur at the same time? Economic Property loss or damage, loss/damage of impacts community infrastructure Loss of life Can be extremely dangerous, particularly impacts stronger tornadoes that can devastate houses down to the foundation where people are taking shelter. Would be especially dangerous in more densely populated areas. Risk Level Citizens/People: VH VH – Very High Animals/Livestock: H H – High Housing: VH L – Limited Critical Structures: L M – Minimal Infrastructure: H Total: H/VH
290 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
Risk Assessment Unlikely – 1 Frequency of Occurrence Occasional – 2 2 Likely – 3 Highly Likely – 4 More than 12 hours – 1 Warning Time 6-12 hours – 2 3 3-6 hours – 3 Minimal-None – 4 Limited – 1 Potential Severity Minor – 2 4 Major – 3 Substantial – 4 Minimal – 1 Risk Level Limited – 2 3 High – 3 Very High – 4 (Total divided by 4) Overall Priority Very Low – 1 Low – 2 3 Moderate – 3 Moderate High – 4
Waseca County promotes the use of education to develop a more disaster resistant community. Structural mitigation projects are also needed to protect residents and structures from tornados.
Carver County (Tornado) This plan does a thorough job of describing protective measures, property protection methods and local implementation of mitigation projects. The plan also describes structural projects and assesses their use in Carver County and makes recommendations based on that information.
The object of preventive measures is to protect new construction from hazards and see that future development does not increase potential losses. Building, zoning, planning, and/or code enforcement offices usually administer preventive measures. They include the following: Building codes provide one of the best methods of addressing all the hazards in this plan. They are the prime measure to protect new property from damage by tornadoes, high winds, and snowstorms. When properly designed and constructed according to code, the average building can withstand the impacts of most of these forces.
291 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Hazard protection standards for all new and improved or repaired buildings can be incorporated into the local building code. Provisions that should be included are: • Making sure roofing systems will handle high winds and expected snow loads, • Providing special standards for tying the roof, walls and foundation together to resist the effects of wind. • Requiring new buildings to have tornado “safe rooms,” • Including insulation standards that ensure protection from extreme heat and cold as well as energy efficiency, • Mandating overhead sewers for all new basements to prevent sewer backup. • Including effective HVAC systems for compliance with infectious release.
All communities that have not should adopt the latest International series of codes, the new national standard that is being adopted throughout the country. On a regional basis, municipal and county code enforcement staffs should work together to: • Develop building code language to strengthen new buildings against damage by high winds, tornadoes and hail, and • Adequately regulate mobile home installation (so that newly installed mobile homes get the same level of attention as other types of new single-family homes). • On a regional basis, municipal and County planning and engineering staff should develop example subdivision ordinance language that requires new infrastructure to have hazard mitigation provisions, such as • Streets and water systems that facilitate access and use by fire and emergency equipment, • Buried utility lines, and • Storm shelters in new mobile home parks.
Municipal comprehensive plans, land use plans and zoning ordinances should incorporate open space provisions that will protect properties from flooding and preserve wetlands and farmland. The County’s 2020 Comprehensive Plan provides a guide for this. Subsequent County- wide plans should, too.
Offices responsible for design, construction or permitting critical facilities should ensure that the design accounts for natural hazards and adjacent land uses.
292 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Local implementation: Utility lines have been buried by Minnesota Valley utilizing mitigation funds from the 1997 severe storms that affected Carver County.
1. Public education materials should be developed to explain property protection measures that can help owners reduce their exposure to damage by hazards and the various types of insurance coverage that are available. 2. All property protection projects should be voluntary. Other than State and Federally-mandated regulations, local incentives should be positive, such as providing financial assistance. 3. A standard checklist should be developed to evaluate property’s exposure to damage from the hazards most prevalent in Carver County: flooding, high winds, and lightning, hail and power losses from downed lines. It should include a review of insurance coverage and identify where more information can be found on appropriate property protection measures. The checklist should be provided to each agency participating in this planning process and made available to the public. 4. Each public entity should evaluate its own properties using the standard checklist. A priority should be placed on determining critical facilities’ vulnerability to damage and whether public properties are adequately insured. 5. Each public entity should protect its own publicly owned facilities with appropriate mitigation measure(s). 6. Communities should evaluate cost sharing programs, such as rebates, to encourage low cost (under $10,000) property protection measures on private property, such as: - Tornado safe rooms
Recommendations for structural projects for severe storms includes municipalities that have manufactured home sites and the county should work with manufactured home sites to identify severe storm shelter projects and identify retrofit capabilities for tie downs of the manufactured home.
Ramsey County (Tornado & Wind) Ramsey County uses the category of “Summer Storms” for hazard ranking. Summer Storms includes hailstorm, lightning, thunderstorm, tornado, and windstorm. Ramsey County addresses the impacts of tornados on the large population within its borders, people and housing, commercial and industrial structures and critical infrastructure. The following is the vulnerability assessment.
293 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Between 1/1/1980 and 4/30/2004 there were three tornados recorded in Ramsey County Location Date Time Magnitude Deaths Injuries Property or Damage County Ramsey 06/14/1981 F3 1 60 25.00M County 3:00pm Ramsey 04/26/1984 F3 0 0 25.00M County 8:35pm Roseville 05/15/1998 F1 0 0 150.00M 3:40pm Totals: 1 60 200.00M
Overall Vulnerability Frequency Moderate Intensity High Location Countywide Extent Damage to property, infrastructure and a risk to life Duration Quick event/long clean up Seasonal Pattern Spring and summer Speed of Onset Rapid Warning Time A few minutes to hours: dependent on National Weather Service Probability of Future Occurrences High
Impact on People and Housing Effects from severe summer storms, like a tornado, could impact people in the county. Every year, tornadoes kill people. Flying debris from homes and other structures kills many people. Larger impacts on people would be in the largest municipalities because of higher population densities. With Ramsey County being so densely populated, the entire county is at risk if a major tornado or other severe summer storm were to pass through its borders. Of the tornadoes on record since 1980, only one person has died, though injuries have been plentiful injuring 60 people. Lightning has also claimed one death.
Since tornadoes and other summer storms are not confined to any particular area of Ramsey County, assessing risk and damages is more difficult. Property damage is abundant with any severe summer storm. In tornadoes alone, property damaged totaled more than $225 million. Hail damage totaled $2 million. Mobile or manufactured homes are at the highest risk to receive damage from tornadoes and windstorms.
294 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment These homes are not structured to withstand the high speeds as well as site built structures.
Impact on Commercial and Industrial Structures Electric and phone lines could be directly impacted throughout the entire county by tornadoes or any other summer storm. Specifically, power lines could be knocked down, resulting in loss of electricity for entire areas of the county. Electricity is very important to the community. It operates businesses, homes and other industrial buildings throughout the county.
Impacts on businesses and other commercial structures would have significant impact on the community. Costs to rebuild can be high and some may shut down as a result.
Impact on Critical Infrastructure In regards to power outages or phone outages, this would have a drastic impact on critical facilities including hospitals, nursing homes, and public safety facilities. Major infrastructure facilities such as the waste treatment plant, water plant, roads and bridges could also be damaged by summer storms. Tornadoes and windstorms can often scatter knocked down trees and other debris over main roads, limiting travel of emergency vehicles. Hailstorms can be dangerous as well depending on the size of it. Large hailstones can breakout windows to facilities and vehicles.
Dakota County (Tornado & Wind) Dakota County includes winds storms as part of Summer Storms (also called Violent Storms) that also includes thunderstorms, tornadoes, hailstorms and windstorms. Over the past decade, Dakota County had six federal disaster declarations for flooding, severe storms, tornadoes, and straight-line winds. In the decade from 1993-2003 the county incurred more than $500 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance from floods, severe storms, ice storms, and tornadoes.
Overall Vulnerability to Violent Storms (for Dakota County) Frequency Highly Likely – (100% probable in next year) Intensity Moderate Location County-wide Geographic Extent Localized Duration Minutes to Hours Seasonal Pattern Winter and Summer Warning Time 3-6 hours
295 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Dakota County addresses cascading effects of other hazards, lists existing plans and programs, and identifies gaps and deficiencies. The following current mitigation effort statement from the plan: Public officials are most concerned about the impact of severe, large- scale weather events such as tornadoes, straight-line winds, and torrential rain. Cities, townships, and Dakota County itself have plans, ordinances, policies and procedures in place to prevent problems where possible – such as with assertive building and zoning codes. Staff update and enforce these as the makeup of Dakota County continues to change. Section 6 of this plan summarizes plans, ordinances, and other tools that Dakota County, the cities, and townships have in place to both prevent and respond to injuries/damages caused by natural and human caused hazards.
High Winds Based on data from this plan, Dakota, Anoka, Hennepin, Scott and Washington are ranked highest damages from windstorms 1) damages, 2) damages to property and life. Even though Scott County has received the highest amount of damages from high winds, had not begun the planning process for an all hazard mitigation plan, and will not be reviewed for wind risk. Nobles County ranked highest for indemnity claims due to winds, but will not be analyzed. Anoka, Dakota and Hennepin counties are evaluated.
Hennepin County (Wind) The Hennepin County is a major metropolitan area, and has the largest population, budget and assessed valuation of all counties in the state. The risk assessment is divided into five sectors. Each sector ranked all potential hazards in their jurisdiction.
Total Risk Sector Windstorm 1 Minneapolis 13 2 South Suburban 12 3 Lake Minnetonka 14 4 North Suburban 12 5 Northwest 12 Ranking: 20-17 Very High 16-13 High 12-9 Medium 8-5 Low
296 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment No past damage amounts were assessed. The plan focused on mitigation opportunities, capabilities (county, state, preparedness and equipment, response plans, plan exercises, mitigation plans/projects, public awareness and training) and recommendations/activities.
In reference to development in hazard prone areas, the following recommendations/activities were listed: • All sectors are encouraged to incorporate mitigation into other planning or policy-making efforts such as building codes or zoning ordinances whenever possible. • Thunderstorms with accompanying lightning and hail (and windstorms) can occur anywhere in the county. Information on wind resistant construction, retrofitting, and safe rooms must be publicized. • Consideration could be given to changing building codes of structures built slab-on-grade so that either safe rooms or community shelters are available to the occupants.
In the Goals, Objectives and Strategies section of the Hennepin County Plan mitigation goals for tornadoes and wind are addressed together. They address the goal of preventing wind damage to people and property from tornadoes, windstorms, straight-line winds, and thunderstorms. Strategies include educating citizens about the strength and danger of tornadoes, promoting safe rooms and passing ordinances that require community shelters in developments that have slab on grade housing, and to educate the public on the dangers of wind.
Anoka County (Tornado & Wind) Since 1961, 144 severe thunderstorms, hail, lightning, and wind have affected Anoka County and its jurisdictions resulting in 4 fatalities and 27 injuries. In addition, $15,116,306 in structure damage and $15,382,477 in content damage has occurred. Economically severe weather-Thunderstorms with hail lightning and high winds ranks third with over $30 million in losses.
When historical information for all selected hazards is evaluated and scored, flooding is the number one hazard that has affected Anoka County. It was recognized that the availability and quantity of data varied significantly between hazards and thus impacted evaluations. The committee believed that had economic data been accurately recorded, urban fires and severe weather dollars could easily have been up to 5-10 times greater.
297 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Anoka County’s first goal is to prevent damage to persons and property from tornadoes, windstorms and straight-line winds through improving the county’s warning and information systems. Project types do not address development trends or mitigation projects in regards to the high winds hazard.
The plan contains a comprehensive capability analysis for ranking regulatory control, resources and fiscal capabilities for each jurisdiction and the county. In an effort to look at community plans and how they are addressing development in hazard prone areas the ranking for Regulatory Control for the County has been included. The capability assessment is “Low” for regulatory controls in place. The first step in making communities safer is identifying gaps in existing programs.
Regulatory Control in place Yes=1 No=0 0-7=Low 8-14=Medium 15-20=High
Jurisdiction Building Codes Plan Improvement Capital Plan Comprehensive COOP/COG Plan Economic Development Plan Certified EMAP Response Plan Emergency Plan Flood Management Growth Control Ordinance Hazard Setback Ordinance Ordinance Hillside Ordinance Historic Ordinance Post Disaster Plan Recovery Disaster Post Disclosure Real Estate Ordinance Shoreline Requirements Site Plan Regulations Subdivision Ordinance Wildfire Regulations Zoning Score CAPABILITY Anoka County 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 L
Summary Communities that have experienced large-scale disasters have utilized federal and state programs to recover and mitigate their communities’ from natural disasters. The result is communities that were badly damaged are more disaster resistant. The City of East Grand Forks is a prime example of a major flood event, and following that successful mitigation projects. As
298 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment ESTIMATING POTENTIAL LOSSES TO CRITICAL FACILITIES 44 CFR 201.4(c)(2)(iii) – The risk assessment shall include the following: an overview and analysis of potential losses to identified vulnerable structures, based on estimates provided in the state risk assessment. The State shall estimate the potential dollar losses to State-owned or operated buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in identified hazard areas. Appendix 5 contains a detailed list of the 520 state critical facilities that matched above stated criteria.
Data and maps are currently available that indicate the following locations of: • Airport Runways • Assisted Living and Nursing Home Facilities • Major Electrical Transmission Lines and Substations • Major gas and liquid pipelines • FCC Communications (includes 12 types of communication structures and towers) • State parks
This data may be included in future versions of this plan if the data is able to assess risk to a variety of hazards in a meaningful way, specifically to assess vulnerability and estimate potential losses to critical facilities.
The following maps indicate each of the top four hazards and number of state owned facilities. The first map shows 1% and 2% annual chance per year (100 and 500) floodplain overlaid with counties and number of state owned facilities. Current data does not allow for further data analysis at this time. Vulnerability assessment and estimating potential loss are not currently possible. Future versions of this plan will include analysis to more accurately analyze both vulnerability assessment and potential losses to state owned facilities due to flooding. Utilizing HAZUS may allow for an accurate risk assessment of state owned facilities in floodplains.
The second and third map indicates locations of tornado touchdowns and recorded incidents of wind greater than 65 knots, and overlaid with number of state owned facilities. Current data does not allow for further data analysis at this time, as damages to state facilities due to tornados and straight-line winds has not been gathered. Future versions of this plan will include analysis to more accurately analyze both vulnerability assessment and potential losses to state owned
299 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment facilities due to tornados and straight-line winds based on available data.
The wildfire map also indicates number of state owned facilities per county and is overlaid with acres of wildfires burned in 2007. The available data does not lend to a comprehensive risk assessment for state facilities. Future versions of this plan may include a risk assessment for state owned facilities vulnerability to wildfires based on available data or data gathered for future versions.
300 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
301 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
302 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
303 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment
304 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Five: Risk Assessment Summary At this time only data for the general number of facilities and replacement values are available. It is difficult to analyze each of the hazards on state facilities due to existing data. Estimating potential loss of state facilities is ongoing and will be completed in the 2011 Plan update.
305 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy SECTION SIX: MITIGATION STRATEGY Hazard Mitigation Goal Setting Process The Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM) mitigation division is dedicated to the ongoing implementation of mitigation concepts, planning and action items to reduce the exposure of the State’s population to natural hazards. The Minnesota State All-Hazard Mitigation Plan is the central document to direct the implementation of the mitigation programs statewide.
MN HSEM Vision and Mission: Keeping Minnesota Ready The mission of HSEM is to help Minnesota prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from natural and human caused disaster. Our team develops and maintains partnerships; collects and shares information; plan; train and educates; coordinates response resources; and provides technical and financial assistance.
The State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Team (SHMPRT) and the SHMO which included members of the MNRTF and the EPRC met to develop the previous Plan. The planning process involved:
Presentations and discussions on natural hazards and their impact on the state (the risk assessment of this plan). Review and discussion of previous mitigation planning initiatives. Review and discussion of the mitigation goals, objectives and strategies of the state agencies participating in the development of this plan. Evaluation and discussion of the mitigation goals and objectives from the local plans for Minnesota jurisdictions.
The goals and objectives guided development of the mitigation activities in this plan, and they will provide a vision for hazard mitigation and disaster resistance throughout the State of Minnesota. The state’s goals are long-term general guidelines to establish and direct hazard mitigation and loss reduction measures. The overriding strategy is to reduce loss of life and damages to property from all hazards. Mitigation actions in the mitigation strategy may fall under one or more of the following six broad categories:
Prevention – Government administrative or regulatory actions or processes that influence the way land and buildings are developed and
306 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy built. These actions also include public activities to reduce hazard losses. Examples include: Planning and zoning Building codes Capital improvement programs Open space preservation Storm water management regulations
Property Protection – Actions that involve the modification of existing buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard area. Examples include: Acquisition Elevation Relocation Structural retrofits Storm shutters Shatter-resistant glass
Public Education and Awareness – Actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, and property owners about the hazards and potential ways to mitigate them. Such actions include: Education, outreach projects and publications Real estate disclosure Hazard information centers School-age and adult education programs
Natural Resource Protection – Actions that, in addition to minimizing hazard losses, also preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. These actions include: Sediment and erosion control Stream corridor restoration Watershed management Forest and vegetation management Wetland restoration and preservation
Emergency Services – Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a disaster or hazard event. Services include: Warning and communication systems Emergency response services Protection of critical facilities
Structural Improvements - Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Such structures include:
307 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy Dams Levees Floodwalls Retaining walls Channel modifications Storm sewers Safe rooms Shelters
Goals of State Mitigation Plan and Program 1. Maintain and enhance the State’s capacity to continuously make Minnesota less vulnerable to all hazards. 2. Build and support local capacity and commitment to continuously become less vulnerable to natural hazards. 3. Improve coordination and communication with other relevant entities. 4. Increase public understanding, support, and demand for hazard mitigation.
The hazard mitigation goals and actions contained in this section were derived from hazard mitigation recommendations found in the previous version of the state All Hazard Mitigation Plan, responses to a statewide survey of emergency management and response organizations, and from goals and actions described in local hazard mitigation plans. These goals and actions are intended to guide mitigation activities throughout the state at all levels of government. None of the goals or objectives has been changed from the previous plan because they still meet the objectives of the mitigation programs.
308 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy Inventory of Programs, Policies and Funding Resources This section provides information on resources available to assist with hazard mitigation planning. The following capabilities have been segregated into two major areas: federal and state agencies and related organizations, indexed by agency/organization beginning with federal agencies, and funding sources, indexed by the Federal Domestic Assistance Number.
This section contains an assessment of the State’s Mitigation capability can be found following the listing of all the various Federal, State, and related organizations, their general functions and contact information.
The following is an inventory of existing local, state, and federal hazard mitigation programs, policies, and funding sources:
Federal Agencies ORGANIZATION SITE SUMMARY CONTACT Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (http://www.fema.gov)
U.S. Department of General information on Http://www.fema.gov/ Homeland Security mitigation planning, FEMA hazards, disaster assistance programs, current disasters, etc.
FEMA, National Detailed information on Http://www.fema.gov/nfip/ Flood Insurance the National Flood Program (NFIP) Insurance Program and other mitigation activities. FEMA FEMA extreme heat fact Http://www.fema.gov/library/h
sheet. eatf.htm
FEMA Search on “heat” or http://www.fema.gov/ “cold” for detailed information. FEMA, Radiological Summary of the http://www.fema.gov/pte/rep Emergency national Radiological Preparedness Emergency Program (REP) Preparedness Program
FEMA, U.S. Fire To reduce life and http://www.usfa.fema.gov/
309 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy ORGANIZATION SITE SUMMARY CONTACT Administration economic loss due to (USFA) fire and related emergencies, through leadership, advocacy, and coordination. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (http://www.usda.gov) National Drought The National Drought http://www.fsa.usda.gov/drou Policy Commission Policy Commission was ght/finalreport/accesstoreports
formed in response to .htm the National Drought Policy Act (signed July 16, 1998). This site links to their final report published May 2000.
Natural Resources To provide leadership in http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ Conservation a partnership effort to Service (NRCS) help conserve, improve, and sustain our natural resources and environment. Farm Service Emergency http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/
Agency Conservation Program disaster/ecp.htm shares the cost of rehabilitating eligible farmlands damaged by natural disaster. Provides emergency water assistance during drought. U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) (http://www.doc.gov)
Economic To generate jobs, help http://www.doc.gov/eda Development retain existing jobs, and Administration stimulate industrial and (EDA) commercial growth in economically distressed areas of the U.S. U.S. Census Bureau Profile of Minnesota and http://www.census.gov/datam
each Minnesota county. ap/www/27.html National Oceanic Provides detailed http://www.noaa.gov/coasts.ht
and Atmospheric information on coastal ml Administration water issues, including (NOAA) the Great Lakes.
310 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy ORGANIZATION SITE SUMMARY CONTACT NOAA, National Current and historical http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ncd
Climatic Data archive of climatic data c.html Center (NCDC) and information.
NOAA, Drought NOAA Drought http://www.drought.noaa.gov/ Information Center Information Center.
NOAA, National Comprehensive http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/ Severe Storms information on severe Laboratory weather research.
NOAA, National Provides all available http://www.nws.noaa.gov/ Weather Service weather information (NWS) including warning updates. NOAA and USDA Weekly Weather and http://www.usda.gov/agency/o
Crop Bulletin posting. ce/waob/jawf/wwcb.html U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) (http://www.defenselink.mil/) U.S. Department of Point of contact for http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/index.
Homeland Security, reporting all oil, htm Coast Guard, chemical, radiological, National Response biological, and Center etiological discharges into the environment of the United States. U.S. Department of Provides technical http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/terrori
Homeland Security, advice on dealing with sm.htm Coast Guard, weapons of mass National Response destruction. Center U.S. Army Corps of Provides information on http://www.usace.army.mil/ Engineers (USACE) assistance available for planning, engineering and design of permanent flood control projects, and assistance to communities during flood emergency operations. Cold Regions Engineering and http://www.crrel.usace.army.m
Research and technology for use in il/ Engineering cold regions.
311 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy ORGANIZATION SITE SUMMARY CONTACT Laboratory (CRREL)
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (http://www.energy.gov) Federal Energy Regulates the http://www.ferc.gov Regulatory transmission of energy Commission (FERC) sources interstate commerce and oversees environmental matters. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (http://www.hhs.gov)
Agency for Toxic Detailed information on http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ Substances and toxic substances and Disease Registry disease.
Centers for Disease Provides information http://www.bt.cdc.gov/ Control and about biological agents Prevention – and other aspects of Bioterrorism bioterrorism Preparedness and preparedness and Response response. U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) (http://www.doi.gov)
U.S. Geologic Excellent source of http://www.usgs.gov/ Survey (USGS) natural disaster information (earthquakes, drought, floods, etc.). USGS Programs in USGS activities in http://mn.water.usgs.gov/stshe
Minnesota Minnesota. et/
National Earthquake Up to date information http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/ Information Center on world seismicity. (NEIC U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) (http://www.usdoj.gov) Federal Bureau of Programs and http://www.fbi.gov/programs.h
Investigation (FBI) initiatives page. tm
Office of Justice Assists state and local http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/osldp Programs, Office for response agencies s State and Local throughout the United Domestic States prepare for
312 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy ORGANIZATION SITE SUMMARY CONTACT Preparedness incidents of domestic Support terrorism.
U.S. Department of State (DOS) (http://www.state.gov) Office of the Coordinates all U.S. http://www.state.gov/www/glo
Coordinator for Government efforts to bal/terrorism/index.html Counter Terrorism improve counterterrorism cooperation with foreign governments. Provides information on terrorism and national security. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) (http://www.dot.gov) 2004 Emergency A guide to aid first http://hazmat.dot.gov/pubs/er Response Guide responders during the g/gydebook.htm initial response phase of an incident.
Federal Highway Responsible for http://www.fhwa.dot.gov Administration improving the quality of (FHWA) the Nation's highway systems and its intermodal connections.
National Information on http://www.ntsb.gov/ Transportation transportation safety. Safety Board (NTSB)
DOT, Pipeline and National safety http://phmsa.dot.gov/ Hazardous Material program for the Safety transportation of Administration hazardous materials by air, rail, highway and water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (http://www.epa.gov)
EPA, Office of Solid Provides guidance and http://www.epa.gov/swerrims/ Waste and direction for solid waste Emergency and emergency Response response programs. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (http://www.nrc.gov) U.S. Nuclear Detailed information on http://www.nrc.gov/ Regulatory nuclear power plants,
313 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy ORGANIZATION SITE SUMMARY CONTACT Commission (NRC) nuclear waste, and the national Radiological Emergency Preparedness program. U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) (http://www.sba.gov)
Small Business Provides training and http://www.sba.gov/ Administration advocacy for small firms.
State Agencies This section is an inventory of State programs that are important to mitigation efforts statewide. Agencies with programs that may impact mitigation efforts are listed with applicable programs, funding sources and levels, and the effect on loss reduction that the program may offer.
ORGANIZATION SITE SUMMARY CONTACT Minnesota Board Information regarding 90 West Plato Boulevard West, of Animal Health livestock and animal St. Paul, Minnesota 55107 diseases, as well as (651) 296-2942
reporting requirements. http://www.bah.state.mn.us/ Minnesota Board To assist local One Water Street West #200, of Water and Soil governments to manage St. Paul, Minnesota 55107 Resources and conserve water and (651) 296-2942
soil resources. http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/ Minnesota Provides services to 200 Administration Building Department of government agencies: St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Administration information technology, (651) 296-1424
facilities and property http://www.admin.state.mn.us/ management, graphic and geographic information systems data and software. Minnesota Responsible for the 90 West Plato Boulevard, St. Department of regulation of pesticides, Paul Agriculture fertilizers, food safety and Minnesota 55107 (651) 297- feed including emergency 2414 response, state
Superfund authority and http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ financial assistance for agricultural entities.
314 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy ORGANIZATION SITE SUMMARY CONTACT Minnesota Improve the well being of 1500 West Highway 36, Department of children through Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Children, Families programs that focus on (651) 582-8200 & Learning education, community
services, and prevention. http://children.state.mn.us/ Minnesota A guide to Minnesota's 85 7th Place East, Suite 500, Department of regulated businesses and St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Commerce industries. (651) 296-6319 http://www.commerce.state.m
n.us/ Minnesota Employer and labor 390 N. Robert St., St. Paul, Department of market information. Minnesota 55101 (651) 296- Economic Security 2919 http://www.mnworkforcecenter
.org/index.htm Minnesota Expedite fiscal 400 Centennial Office Building, Department of management during a 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Finance state disaster. Assist Minnesota 55155 (651) 296- with funding issues when 5900 federal assistance is not http://www.finance.state.mn.us
provided. / Minnesota Inform stakeholders of Minnesota Association of Association of pending legislation; Study Floodplain Managers Flood Plain and support needed P.O. Box 385134 Managers legislation; Provide a Minneapolis, MN 55438 method for disseminating http://www.mnafpm.org/ information; Promote public awareness of proper management Minnesota Detailed information on P.O Box 64975, St. Paul, MN Department of services and current 55164-0975 (651) 215-5800
Health (MDH) events affecting the http://www.health.state.mn.us/ citizens of Minnesota. Minnesota Provides health care, 444 Lafayette Rd. St. Paul, Department of economic assistance, and Minnesota 55155 (651) 297- Human Services other services for those in 3933
need. http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/
315 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy ORGANIZATION SITE SUMMARY CONTACT Minnesota Assist with investigations 443 Lafayette Rd. North, St. Department of when workers are injured, Paul, Minnesota 55155 (651) Labor and and detect air 296-6107
Industry contaminants caused by http://www.doli.state.mn.us/ chemical or geological agents, and assessing hazards. Statewide building codes and construction planning and inspection. Minnesota Information on the 20 West 12th St. Department of capabilities of the Veterans Service Building, Military Affairs Minnesota National St. Paul, MN 55155-2098 (DMA) -National Guard. (651) 282-4662 Guard http://www.dma.state.mn.us/in
dex.htm Minnesota The conservation of 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, Department of natural systems and the Minnesota 55155 (651) 296- Natural Resources maintenance of 6157 (DNR) biodiversity. Water http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ education information is or available on the Division http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wa
of Waters’ Home Page ters/index.html that discusses floodplain management, flood mitigation, drought/water supply, dam safety, flood warning, climatology, and lake and stream gauging. Minnesota This site contains 444 Cedar Street, Suite 223 Homeland Security information on St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 and Emergency Emergency Management. (651) 296-2233
Management http://www.hsem.state.mn.us// (HSEM)
316 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy ORGANIZATION SITE SUMMARY CONTACT Minnesota Information on the State Central Office Town Square Department of Fire Marshal's Office and 444 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Public Safety Pipeline Safety Team, Minnesota 55101 (651) 282- (DPS) State Patrol, Drug Policy 6565
and Violence Prevention, http://www.dps.state.mn.us/ Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Alcohol and Gambling, and highway and traffic safety. Minnesota To advance the economic 500 Metro Square Department of vitality of Minnesota 121 Seventh Place East, St., St. Employment and through trade and Paul, Minnesota 55101-2146 Economic economic development, (651) 297-1291 Development including the provision of http://www.deed.state.mn.us/in employer and labor dex.html market information.
Minnesota Comprehensive 395 John Ireland Boulevard, St. Department of transportation issues in Paul, MN 55155 (651) 296-3000
Transportation Minnesota. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/
Minnesota Provides leadership for 2829 University Avenue Emergency emergency medical care Southeast, Suite 310, Medical Services for the people of Minneapolis, Minnesota Regulatory Board Minnesota. 55414 (612) 627-6000
http://www.emsrb.state.mn.us/ Minnesota Responsible for 444 Cedar St., Suite 223, St. Emergency coordinating information Paul, Response about hazardous MN 55101 (651) 297-7372
Commission chemicals at state http://www.erc.state.mn.us/ facilities. Minnesota Housing Provides low- and 400 Sibley St., Suite 300, St. Finance Agency moderate-income Paul housing and resources. MN 55101 (651)296-7608
http://www.mhfa.state.mn.us/ Minnesota Office Information related to 520 Lafayette Rd. North, Floor of Environmental the environment. 2, Assistance St. Paul, MN (651) 296- 3417
http://www.moea.state.mn.us/
317 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy ORGANIZATION SITE SUMMARY CONTACT Minnesota Office Conduct research into Ft. Snelling History Center, St. of the State the prehistoric and Paul, Minnesota 55111 Archaeologist historic archaeology of (612) 725-2411 Minnesota. http://www.admin.state.mn.us/
osa/ Minnesota Provides pollution control 520 Lafayette Rd. St. Paul, MN Pollution Control information for 55155 (651) 296-6300
Agency Minnesota. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/
Minnesota State Provide information 500 World Trade Center, 30 Colleges and about Higher education East 7th St., St. Paul, Minnesota Universities in Minnesota 55101 (MNSCU) (651) 296-8012 http://www.mnscu.edu
Metropolitan Provides information on http://www.metrocouncil.org Council economic development and planning for anticipated growth in the seven county metro area –Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Ramsey, Scott and Washington Counties.
Other Organizations
ORGANIZATION SITE SUMMARY CONTACT American Red Provide relief to victims http://www.redcross.org Cross of disasters and help (ARC) people prevent, prepare for, and respond to emergencies. American Water American Water Works http://www.awwa.org/asp/defau
Works Association Association information lt_conservation.asp (AWWA) on water conservation. AWWA, Water Comprehensive listing of http://www.waterwiser.org/fram
Wiser water conservation and eset.cfm?b=5 Organization water related sites.
Association of General Information http://www.damsafety.org/ State Dam Safety about dams and dam Officials (ASDSO) safety in the US.
318 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy ORGANIZATION SITE SUMMARY CONTACT
Association of Information on floodplain http://www.floods.org/ State Floodplain management, flood Managers (ASFPM) hazard mitigation, the National Flood Insurance Program, and flood preparedness, warning and recovery.
Mid-America One of three national http://mae.ce.uiuc.edu/ Earthquake Center earthquake engineering (MAE) research centers established by the National Science Foundation. MILNET-Nuclear Good overview on http://www.milnet.com/milnet/n
Weapons nuclear weapons. ukeweap/ Frequently Asked Questions
Minnesota The University outreach http://www.geo.umn.edu/mgs/ Geological Survey center for the science (MGS) and technology of earth resources in Minnesota. Minnesota Minnesota seismicity http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis Seismicity information. /states/minnesota/minnesota.ht
ml
National NACo is the only nation- http://www.naco.org/index.cfm Association of wide organization Counties (NACo) representing county governments.
National Drought Information on drought http://enso.unl.edu/ndmc/ Mitigation Center preparation and risk (NDMC) management.
National NEMA is the professional http://www.nemaweb.org/ Emergency association of state, Management pacific, and Caribbean Association insular state emergency (NEMA) management directors.
319 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy ORGANIZATION SITE SUMMARY CONTACT
National Energy This is site for kids, http://www.getwise.org/ Foundation parents and teachers, with a focus on water conservation in the home.
National Fire Provides scientifically http://www.nfpa.org/ Protection based fire codes and Association standards, research, (NFPA) training, and education.
National Lightning Independent, non-profit http://www.lightningsafety.com/ Safety Institute consulting, education (NLSI) and research organization focusing on lightning safety. Natural Hazards Clearinghouse for natural http://www.colorado.edu/hazard
Center at the hazards information. s/ University of Colorado Project Safeside The goal of Project http://www.weather.com/safesi
(The Weather Safeside is to raise de/ Channel & national awareness of American Red the need to prepare for Cross) severe weather. Societal Aspects of Contains societal impact http://www.esig.ucar.edu/socas
Weather-Injury data for weather related p/stats.html and Damage disasters. Statistics
The Disaster Provides news and http://www.disastercenter.com/ Center information on current disasters, and the emergency management field. Links to each state included.
The Disaster Research center for the http://www.udel.edu/DRC/ Research Center preparation and (University of mitigation of natural and Delaware) technological disaster for groups, organizations and communities.
The National Site information to help http://firewise.org/ Wildland/Urban to become a “Firewise” Interface Fire community.
320 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy ORGANIZATION SITE SUMMARY CONTACT Protection Program The Terrorism The Terrorism Research http://www.terrorism.com/index
Research Center Center is dedicated to .shtml informing the public of the phenomena of terrorism and information warfare. The Texas Links to the 1998 report: http://agnews.tamu.edu/drough
Agricultural Texas Drought t/drghtpak98/ Extension Service Management Strategies, and the Texas prepared by the Texas A&M University Agricultural Extensions System Service and the Texas A&M University.
The Tornado Offers tornado books, http://www.tornadoproject.com/ Project posters, and videos. Many links.
United Nations Increase public http://www.unisdr.org/ International awareness of hazard and Strategy for risk issues for the Disaster Reduction reduction of disasters in (ISDR) modern societies, motivate public administration policies and measures to reduce risks, and improve access of science and technology for risk reduction in local communities. University of The center's goal is to http://epdweb.engr.wisc.edu/d
Wisconsin Disaster help improve the mc/ Management emergency management Center performance of non- governmental organizations, local and national governments, and international organizations, through a comprehensive professional
321 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy ORGANIZATION SITE SUMMARY CONTACT development program in disaster management. USA Today Good overview of current http://www.usatoday.com/weat
Weather weather and additional her/wfront.htm weather related data.
Worldwide Provides general http://www.disasterrelief.org/ Disaster Aid and information regarding Information relief agencies and available assistance.
Financial Assistance – By Codes of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers These federal programs are available to the state for financial resources. More information may be found at http://www.cfda.gov CFDA # Program Title 93.003 Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund
93.113 Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards
93.116 Project Grants and Cooperative Agreements for Tuberculosis Control Programs
93.127 Emergency Medical Services for Children
93.142 National Institute of Environmental Health Services (NIEHS) Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety Training
93.143 NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances-Basic Research and Education
93.161 Health Program for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
93.204 Surveillance of Hazardous Substance Emergency Events
93.208 Great Lakes Human Health Effects Research
93.283 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Investigations and Technical Assistance
93.944 HIV / Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) Surveillance
322 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy CFDA # Program Title 97.016 Reimbursement for Fire Fighting on Federal Property
97.020 Hazardous Materials Training Program
97.021 Hazardous Materials Assistance Program
97.022 Flood Insurance
97.023 Community Assistance Program (CAP) State Support Services
97.024 Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program
97.026 Emergency Management Institute (EMI), Training Assistance
97.029 Flood Mitigation Assistance
97.030 Community Disaster Loans
97.031 Cora Brown Fund
97.032 Crisis Counseling
97.033 Disaster Legal Services
97.034 Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA)
97.036 Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) 97.039 Hazard Mitigation Grant
97.041 National Dam Safety Program
97.042 Emergency Management Performance Grants
97.047 Pre-Disaster Mitigation
97.048 Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households
97.049 Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance – Disaster Housing for Individuals and Households
97.050 Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households – Other Needs
97.053 Citizens Corps
323 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy CFDA # Program Title 97.064 Debris Removal Insurance
97.067 Homeland Security Grant Program
97.073 State Homeland Security Program (SHSP)
97.078 Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP)
97.079 Public Alert Radios for Schools
97.088 Disaster Assistance Projects
97.032 Repetitive Flood Claims
97.093 Fire Service Hazardous Materials Preparedness and Response
97.098 Disaster Donations Management Program
97.099 Residential Fire Safety and Fire Sprinkler Initiatives
97.109 Disaster Housing Assistance Grant
66.701 Toxic Substances Compliance Monitoring Cooperative Agreements
66.714 Pesticide Environmental Stewardship-Regional Grants
66.801 Hazardous Waste Management State Program Support
66.805 Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program
66.809 Superfund State Core Program Cooperative Agreements
66.810 Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention (CEPP) Technical Assistance Grants Program
59.008 Physical Disaster Loans
39.003 Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property
20.303 Grants-in-Aid for Railroad Safety-State Participation
20.700 Pipeline Safety
324 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy CFDA # Program Title 20.703 Interagency Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training and Planning
15.031 Indian Community Fire Protection
15.064 Structural Fire Protection-Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Facilities
15.065 Safety of Dams on Indian Lands
15.807 Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
14.119 Mortgage Insurance-Homes for Disaster Victims
14.228 Community Development Block Grants/State's Program
12.101 Beach Erosion Control Projects
12.102 Emergency Rehabilitation of Flood Control Works, Coastal Protection Works 12.103 Emergency Operations Flood Response and Post Flood Response
12.104 Flood Plain Management Services
12.105 Protection of Essential Highways, Highway Bridge Approaches
12.106 Flood Control Projects
12.108 Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control 12.110 Planning Assistance to States
12.111 Emergency Advance Measures for Flood Prevention
10.054 Emergency Conservation Program
10.069 Conservation Reserve Program
10.404 Emergency Loans
10.417 Very Low-Income Housing Repair Loans and Grants
10.444 Direct Housing-Natural Disaster Loans and Grants
10.445 Direct Housing-Natural Disaster
325 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy CFDA # Program Title 10.451 Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance
10.452 Disaster Reserve Assistance
10.763 Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants
Mitigation Actions Consistent with Minnesota’s all-hazard philosophy, we have chosen not to make separate goals for each hazard, since most of the activities apply to all hazards. Instead we have chosen to organize the goals by the entities (individuals, agencies, jurisdictions, etc.) that are affected by disasters and who play a role in mitigating them. For instance, goal one involves HSEM and the administration of mitigation programs. The second goal is for local jurisdictions and how the mitigation partners can work with them to strengthen mitigation. The third goal is the interaction among agencies for the purpose of mitigation. The final goal is focused on individuals and how we can educate and involve them in mitigating their hazards.
Under each objective is a list of specific mitigation actions to accomplish or support the objectives and ultimately the goals. Each action was identified by the MNRTF or SHMO. The MNRTF evaluated the identified actions by considering three basic criteria: cost- effectiveness, environmental soundness and technically feasibility. As local plans are reviewed a list will be compiled and the state mitigation actions/projects will be expanded reflecting the projects identified by the local jurisdictions (see Action 1.1.3.4.).
Proposed state projects must compete with projects proposed by eligible local governments; this ensures that federal grant-funded state and local projects address state hazard mitigation priorities. Any state government construction project—regardless of potential funding source—has to be cost-effective, technically feasible and meet all appropriate federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations before it is started.
Plan projects funded by federal hazard mitigation grant programs administered by HSEM have to meet specific criteria related to cost- effectiveness, environmental soundness and technical feasibility. These criteria are established in the state’s hazard mitigation programs
326 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy Administrative Plan, which is updated annually, and is incorporated into this document by reference.
Structures that have experienced repetitive loss due to flooding have been, or will be identified by each county/jurisdiction with guidance from the state. The state will work closely with the jurisdictions to identify these properties, and prioritize them for funding through the FMA and SRL grant programs.
The MNRTF prioritized the action items by dividing them into four categories: ongoing, annually, within three years, and in the event of a disaster. The ongoing category is the largest group and covers the activities that are necessary to maintain a quality state-run hazard mitigation program. These activities take priority as they are the activities that need to be done on a regular basis, which are done as requested, or are ongoing projects that are worked on as time allows. Most of these projects have no cost beyond staff time.
The actions that are labeled “annually” are projects that should be completed once a year. Most of these are associated with events, such as conferences, that only occur once a year. The rest are projects that are not worked on a regular basis but need to be updated or redone once a year. Some of these actions are associated with funding that is available through an annual grant cycle.
The third category is items to be completed within three years. These actions involve the gathering of data that is to be completed by the time of the next State All-Hazard Mitigation Plan update.
The final category is the actions that occur in the event of a disaster. These are actions that do not occur on a regular basis but that need to take place if a disaster is declared. Some of these involve providing information in the aftermath of a disaster; others are associated with funding that becomes available in the event of a disaster.
There are several common themes to the action items. Building a team of people from agencies outside HSEM which support and promote mitigation is essential. The mitigation staff is limited and for mitigation to take root and grow it must do so by forming partnerships with groups outside of HSEM. To maximize the mitigation resources it is important to run the program as efficiently as possible with as little wasted effort as possible and with an emphasis on minimizing expenditures.
327 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy Another major theme is that developing a positive view of mitigation is vital to its growth. People that work with mitigation projects need to come away with a positive experience and the successes of the program must be promoted. One of the ironies of a successful mitigation program is when a disaster occurs nothing happens. Implementation of the projects must be made as trouble free as possible to provide the programs with a positive reputation. Successful projects which are difficult to administer limit the number of jurisdictions willing to attempt projects. Efforts must be made to promote the success stories so the public, policy makers, and elected officials view mitigation as a worthwhile and cost beneficial program.
The other major theme is the role of education in promoting mitigation. We have to make people understand what mitigation is and how they can use it to lessen the impact of hazards in their lives. There are finite funds that are insufficient for mitigating hazards that affect millions of people. The most effective tool we have is to educate people on the risks they face and the proper techniques to mitigate the risks. We are trying to reach a wide variety of people with the mitigation message, so we need to use a variety of methods. To ensure that the public absorbs the message the mitigation message must be repeated again and again. We must expose the public to mitigation concepts as many different ways and as many times as possible. This is how businesses promote products and how we must promote mitigation. We cannot demand that people mitigate so we must educate the people to demand mitigation.
Strategies are identified for the objectives. For each strategy, the format below has four columns to list the actions, projected resources, rational for action and how the action contributes to the mitigation strategy. The tentative timeframe for implementing these actions is shown in bold at the bottom of the column for each action. The responsible department(s) is listed at the end of each strategy in bold. If necessary, more specific information to identify the responsible department is provided in bold for the action before the projected timeline.
State Hazard Mitigation Action Plan These actions are arranged under the above mentioned hazard mitigation goals. The actions have been prioritized as High, Medium, or Low by state hazard mitigation staff. Prioritization criteria included; the benefit provided to local mitigation initiatives, relationship to goals and actions identified in existing local hazard mitigation plans, impacts from past disasters, social and political acceptance at the state level,
328 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy and the action’s overall contribution to the state all hazard mitigation strategy. Priorities may change or shift based on factors such as available funding, resources, or policy changes.
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.
In the event of a Presidential Disaster Declaration, one of the state's most notable mitigation activities involves the activation of the Minnesota Recovers Task Force. The MNRTF is comprised of both state and federal agencies, and is chaired by HSEM, in most cases. 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 and maximizing available funds in order to be able to implement projects. The Task Force will be informed of the priority of HSEM to fund and mitigate severe and repetitive loss structures.
329 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Goals, Objectives, Actions and Funding
GOAL 1. Maintain and enhance the State’s capacity to continuously make Minnesota less vulnerable to all hazards.
Objective 1.1. Institutionalize Hazard Mitigation.
Strategy 1.1.1. Attract and retain qualified, experienced hazard mitigation professionals. (All State agencies involved in Mitigation)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.1.1.1. Provide HMGP Training will increase A well-trained staff can more high quality in-house FEMA the skills of the effectively manage mitigation training. training mitigation staff. programs. Priority: Medium funds Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Minnesota recently hosted in-state Benefit Cost Analysis and HAZUS training sessions for all interested jurisdictions.
330 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.1.1.2. Encourage HMGP Continuing education Professional development professional development increases the skills of improves the execution of and certification through the mitigation staff. mitigation programs. outside continuing education courses. Priority: Low Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 1.1.1.3. Allow staff HMGP Conferences and Conferences and workshops members to travel and Admin Funds workshops increase the provide opportunities to spread attend relevant conferences and HMGP knowledge base of the mitigation ideas and to get ideas and workshops. mitigation staff and that make the staff more Priority: Medium provide networking that effective. Timeframe: (ongoing) can form relationships Update Status: HSEM and provide ideas. mitigation staff attended the Regional State Hazard Mitigation Officer conferences.
331 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.1.1.4. When EMPG and It is important for staff Professional organizations appropriate, provide HMGP members to be involved provide training, information, membership fees for with their professional and connections that improve professional organizations. organizations. the abilities of the staff to Priority: Low execute the programs. Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged
Strategy 1.1.2. Expand Mitigation Opportunities. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.1.2.1. Publicize HMGP By promoting positive By understanding the positive program successes through mitigation stories to the ramifications of mitigation, the news media or on the web. media and promoting public is more likely to support Priority: Medium them on our website we it. Timeframe: (ongoing) can educate the public Update Status: on how mitigation works. Opportunities have been The biggest obstacle to taken when they arise, promoting mitigation is staffing has not allowed that when it works, extensive outreach through nothing happens. HSEM mitigation staff.
332 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Action 1.1.2.2. Promote the HMGP Having the mitigation Getting the mitigation House out mitigation House for local House available for to the public to view shows use. agencies and local mitigation ideas and Priority: Medium entities to checkout for demonstrates how the public Timeframe: (ongoing) events. can protect their own house. Update Status: The mitigation house continues to be available for all interested jurisdictions.
Strategy 1.1.3. Maintain and implement a State All-Hazard Mitigation Plan that fosters innovation, advances public support, and gains long-term commitments for pre-disaster mitigation from the State of Minnesota. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.1.3.1. Closely HMGP By following FEMA’s An approved DMA2k plan and follow FEMA’s development guidance the State can additional updates are required of the new rules and develop a DMA2k for future mitigation funds. The regulations for approved plan and plan and the process guide the implementing Section 322 updates. The process of mitigation programs of the of the Disaster Mitigation developing a plan State. Act of 2000. strengthens mitigation in Priority: Low the State by forming Timeframe: (ongoing) connections with Update Status: HSEM staff numerous agencies. will continue to monitor information provided by the FEMA Regional office.
333 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.1.3.2. Maintain a HMGP and The mitigation planning A functional plan is necessary to State All-Hazard Mitigation FEMA DAE process allows for a guide the State’s mitigation Plan that remains a Assistance variety of interested activities. functional document to parties to work together guide all mitigation section to develop the most activities. effective strategies to Priority: High guide the State’s Timeframe: (annually) mitigation policies. Update Status: The state continues to support the all- hazard planning philosophy and has incorporated information from completed local plans in this version of the State Plan. Action 1.1.3.3. Review and HMGP, It is important to identify When the risk factors of State incorporate the completed FEMA DAE all of the State facilities facilities are known, the proper state owned/operated Assistance to be aware of their risk mitigation steps can be taken. facility inventory list. factors. Priority: Medium Timeframe: ongoing Update Status: The current version of the plan includes the incorporation of critical state owned facilities and their replacement values.
334 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.1.3.4. When local HMGP The locals are doing the The more detailed analysis of jurisdiction’s mitigation most detailed analysis of risks improves the ability of the plans are approved, the risks they face. State to mitigate those risks. incorporate the hazards, risk assessments and projects into the statewide planning initiative. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: This revision of the plan incorporates relevant information from completed local plans, including additional hazards that are discussed. The intent is that by the next update of the state plan we will be able to include completed local projects that were identified in their plans.
335 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.1.3.5. When local HMGP When the plans are Best practices can be learned jurisdiction’s mitigation approved they provide from local governments and plans are approved, review HSEM with the shared with others. It can also their mitigation policies, information on what guide the assistance the State programs and capabilities. locals are doing to provides. Priority: Medium mitigate and how they Timeframe: (ongoing) are doing it. Update Status: HSEM staff continue to review local plans to ensure they are consistent with the state strategy and to identify any new issues that should be addressed in the state plan. Action 1.1.3.6. Establish HMGP By establishing criteria it To determine the priorities for criteria to guide the assists in making logical spending is one of the approval of planning and determinations and cornerstones of a mitigation project grants. minimizes personal strategy. Priority: High preferences. Timeframe: (2008 revision) Update Status: This has been completed and is included in the plan.
336 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Objective 1.2. Improve organizational efficiency.
Strategy 1.2.1. Coordinate and communicate with other Sub-Divisions within the Division to support mitigation efforts. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.2.1.1. Jointly HMGP Infrastructure should It is in the interests of mitigation develop procedures with the be mitigated to prevent to protect the State’s Public Assistance Section to future damages, but it infrastructure and maximize the maximize the use of Section is often too costly for dollars spent on mitigation in 406 Mitigation Funding 404 projects. 406 the State. following a declared disaster funds are a potential event. large source of funds Priority: Medium for mitigation. Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status Unchanged
337 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.2.1.2. Coordinate HMGP and The PIO has the skills Success stories build support for with the Public Information FEMA DAE’s and resources to mitigation among the public, Officer (PIO) to publicize publicize success policymakers and elected success stories. stories. officials. Priority: High Timeframe: (annually, or whenever damages are averted) Update Status: 2007 marked the 10 year anniversary of the largest flooding disaster in the state. Mitigation successes were highlighted during Severe Storms Awareness Week.
338 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.2.1.3. Improve HMGP Regional Coordinators By involving Regional coordination and are links to local Coordinators it builds the team communication with governments. that is working on mitigation Regional Program Consulting them in the and increases the chance of Coordinators by consulting process and notifying mitigation ideas being applied as them in the application them of the results a solution. process and notifying them keeps them involved of grant approval. with mitigation. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: RPCs are now advised of grant opportunities and applications that are submitted by their counties. RPCs are updated periodically regarding the grant status.
339 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 1.2.2. Improve Communication with HMGP and PDM applicants and subgrantees. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for How Action Contributes to Funding Action Mitigation Strategy Action 1.2.2.1. Make HMGP Correct actions come If we expect locals to follow the regular contact with from the people policies we must keep them subgrantees to disseminate implementing updated on what they are. policies and provide projects being well training. informed and Priority: Medium trained. Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 1.2.2.2. Maintain HMGP Disseminating If we expect locals to follow the consistency between information through policies we must keep them policies and procedures, email groups is the updated on what they are. and create an e-mail group cheapest most to allow for routine effective method. dissemination of policies Everyone is told the and procedures. same thing and it is Priority: Medium in writing for future Timeframe: (ongoing) reference. Update Status: E-mail groups have been established for planning grants and project grants.
340 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for How Action Contributes to Funding Action Mitigation Strategy Action 1.2.2.3. Maintain No resources By maintaining the Consistency in the guidance of the same Project Manager required same project projects minimizes for consistency. manager it enables dissatisfaction with the process. Priority: Low HSEM to have a Knowledge of projects can take Timeframe: (ongoing) better understanding awhile and it helps ensure that Update Status: This has of the project and the correct policies are been challenging due to assists the local by implemented. staff turnover within HSEM. developing a relationship with the project manager. Action 1.2.2.4. Maintain HMGP This serves to This helps ensure an informed and update a contact log. document that subgrantee. Priority: Medium information was Timeframe: (ongoing) conveyed to the Update Status: Files are local government. maintained for each subgrantee where staff can place relevant information. Staff also file e-mails and electronic documents in electronic folders for each subgrantee.
341 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 1.2.3. Streamline Grant Management Process and Procedures. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.2.3.1. Maintain a HMGP Filing must occur and by Efficient management of uniform 6-part standardized having a standardized mitigation requires that the filing system. system it prevents documents are easily found. Priority: Medium information from being Timeframe: (ongoing) lost. Update Status: All new files at HSEM follow a standardized format. Action 1.2.3.2. Assure staff HMGP This serves to document This helps ensure an informed documents all contact, that information was subgrantee. visits, etc. with community conveyed to the local in a contact log. government. Priority: Low Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Files are maintained for each subgrantee where staff can place relevant information. Staff members also file emails and electronic documents in electronic folders for each subgrantee.
342 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.2.3.3. An updated HMGP Disseminating If we expect locals to follow the POC group will be set up on information through policies we must keep them the e-mail system to email groups is the updated on what they are. facilitate POC’s receiving cheapest most effective policies promptly. POC’s method. Everyone is who do not have e-mail will told the same thing and be set up as a group on the it is in writing for future fax system and information reference. faxed to them. Priority: Low Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Email groups have been established for planning and projects. Action 1.2.3.4. Minimize HMGP Unnecessary paperwork A positive experience in paperwork and reporting is a burden, creates implementing projects improves requirements where dissatisfaction, and takes the image of the mitigation possible. time away from other program. Priority: Medium areas. Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged
343 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 1.2.4. Improve Management. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.2.4.1. Task HMGP Weekly prioritization of The mitigation staff has limited assignment - prioritize tasks ensures that the resources and decisions must be assignments during weekly priorities get made on priorities to ensure the mitigation staff meetings. accomplished and limited most important work is Priority: Low resources are used completed. Timeframe: (ongoing) correctly. Update Status: The previous action was “Task assignment-use a weekly task assignment sheet and help staff prioritize assignments.” The sheet was replaced with more frequent meetings. Strategy 1.2.5. Ensure Timely Process. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.2.5.1. Complete HMGP and If reviews are not timely Timely review improves Local Mitigation Plan FEMA DAE’s it hinders the efforts of satisfaction and prevents the reviews within 30 days. locals to make the plans from stagnating. Priority: High necessary changes. Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: This action continues to be met.
344 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Objective 1.3. Maximize the utilization of best technology.
Strategy 1.3.1. Incorporate geographic information system (GIS) as a tool in decision making. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.3.1.1. Continually HMGP Current data improves Using the best data leads to upgrade statewide spatial the use of technology. making the best decisions. data maintained in-house Technology is only as through multiple data good as the data put sources. into it. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: HSEM currently relies on other state agencies for GIS support.
345 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.3.1.2. Evaluate EMPG and Improved technologies Upgraded technology improves emerging technologies and HMGP can assist in risk the ability to assess risks and to upgrade through assessment which maximize the resources of the hardware/software enables us to better mitigation section. acquisition and training understand the risk where appropriate and factors. feasible. Priority: Low Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: HAZUS training was completed in- state for 26 students from various federal, state, and local agencies. Action 1.3.1.3. Maintain EMPG and Continuing education A well-trained staff can more capability of GIS specialists HMGP increases the skills of effectively assist with mitigation and technicians through the GIS staff. It is programs. classroom education and especially important for distance learning. them to learn how to Priority: Medium apply their skills for Timeframe: (ongoing) mitigation purposes. Update Status: Specialized mitigation training has been offered in the state (HAZUS).
346 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.3.1.4. Make EMPG and The more effectively Using the best data leads to spatial data with viewing HMGP HSEM can use available making the best decisions. and mapping capability data, the more available to all staff in effectively we can hazard mitigation section, implement the creating a scaled section- programs. wide geographic information system. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: At this time HSEM mitigation staff do not have access to GIS software on their computers.
347 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 1.3.2. Cooperate and coordinate with partners at all government levels in planning and use of best technology. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.3.2.1. Develop HMGP Other agencies are Limited mitigation resources working relationships with already gathering make building partnerships and other state agencies for information that can be using existing data essential. mutual assistance in useful to HSEM. technologies. Priority: High Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Relationship building continues and is vitally important due to the lack of GIS use internally at HSEM. Action 1.3.2.2. Work with HMGP Other agencies are Limited mitigation resources State and federal agencies already gathering make building partnerships and to ensure all current risk information that can be using existing data essential. data bases are utilized (i.e., useful to HSEM. We Using the best data leads to weather studies and rainfall need to ensure we are making the best decisions. data). using the best data Priority: Medium possible. Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged
348 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.3.2.3. Develop HMGP Other agencies are Limited mitigation resources working relationship with already gathering make building partnerships and federal agencies with information that can be using existing data essential. interests related to useful to HSEM. We Using the best data leads to emergency management need to ensure we are making the best decisions. and hazard mitigation, with using the best data technologies from which we possible can benefit. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged
Strategy 1.3.3. Increase the use of best technology in Grants Management. (HSEM) Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 1.3.3.1. Use GIS for EMPG and Improved technologies Using the best data leads to project identification, HMGP can assist in risk making the best decisions. application development assessment which and project implementation. enables us to better Priority: Medium understand the risk Timeframe: (ongoing) factors. Update Status: Progress has been limited due to the lack of access to GIS software for HSEM mitigation staff.
349 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
GOAL 2. Build and support local capacity and commitment to continuously become less vulnerable to natural hazards.
Objective 2.1. Increase awareness and knowledge of hazard mitigation principles and practice among local public officials.
Strategy 2.1.1. Conduct mitigation presentations for local public officials. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.1.1.1. Develop HMGP Previously developed Prepared presentations optimize and maintain a variety of presentations allow for a the opportunity to educate adaptable mitigation Power minimum of preparation officials. Point presentations for local time for speaking officials upon request. engagements and helps Priority: Low ensure everything is Timeframe: (ongoing) covered. Update Status: Status unchanged Action 2.1.1.2. Contact HMGP Zoning officials are an This builds partnerships and associations for zoning important ally in provides support for the mission officials to present mitigation and we need of zoning officials. mitigation ideas to their to form a better membership. relationship with them. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (annually) Update Status: Status unchanged
350 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 2.1.2. Conduct training courses for local public officials. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.1.2.1. Conduct HMGP Locals must be educated Local mitigation plans will form interactive “Mitigation on why and how to do the foundation for future state Planning Workshops.” mitigation plans. plans. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: HSEM mitigation staff offered G- 318 mitigation class in 2007. Action 2.1.2.2. Educate EMPG and Regional Program By involving Regional Program HSEM Regional Program HMGP Coordinators are links to Coordinators it builds the team Coordinators and local local governments. We that is working on mitigation coordinators in coordination need to educate them on and increases the chance of with the Training Officer. all of the mitigation tools mitigation ideas being applied as Priority: High available. a solution. Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged
351 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 2.1.3. Provide jurisdictions with the necessary resources to evaluate their community building codes highlighting the impact of safe buildings on local residents. (Building Code and Standards)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.1.3.1. Creation of EMPG and Educates individuals and Ensures that construction a website to provide HMGP contractors on building complies with the existing laws informational resources codes in force in their and regulations. regarding building codes jurisdiction. administered in Minnesota. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: The website is available and is updated on a regular basis. http://www.minnesotarecov ers.org
352 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Objective 2.2. Provide direct technical assistance to local public officials and help communities obtain funding for mitigation planning and project activities.
Strategy 2.2.1. Provide information on available mitigation funds to jurisdictions. (HSEM and MNDNR)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.2.1.1. Improve EMPG and This is the cheapest It provides information to local the HSEM mitigation HMGP most efficient method jurisdictions. website to provide the latest of making information mitigation information on available to all funding sources and interested planning instructions to the jurisdictions. local jurisdictions. Priority: Low Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: The HSEM website is updated as information and programs are released.
353 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.2.1.2. Following HMGP This targets the This educates the jurisdictions any major disaster, send a affected jurisdictions with potentially the highest level letter to the local to let them know of interest in mitigation about jurisdictions explaining the about potential available programs. mitigation assistance that is mitigation assistance. available. Priority: High Timeframe: (as needed) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 2.2.1.3. Provide HMGP Mitigation is not an This educates jurisdictions on presentations to local area familiar to many what tools might be available to jurisdictions explaining all people. Local them to minimize the risks their types of mitigation funding jurisdictions might not jurisdiction faces. sources that are or might be aware of the become available. potential funds for Priority: High projects that would Timeframe: (as needed) serve their interests. Update Status: Status unchanged
354 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 2.2.2. Publicize and provide risk assessment products and planning services to assist local officials throughout the local mitigation planning process. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.2.2.1. Distribute EMPG and Following FEMA Local mitigation plans will form FEMA’s mitigation planning HMGP guidance increases the the foundation for future State documents (State and Local chance of approval. Plans. Mitigation Planning how-to guides) to interested jurisdictions. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: FEMA website and reference library have been helpful references for communities just getting started in hazard mitigation.
355 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Objective 2.3. Encourage communities to develop, adopt, and implement local hazard mitigation plans.
Strategy 2.3.1. Continuously demonstrate the importance of pre-disaster mitigation planning to local public officials and promote the availability of PreDisaster Mitigation (PDM) resources. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.3.1.1. Send HMGP Local jurisdictions need Any projects approved provide updated information on the to be made aware of funds for mitigation activities in PDM initiative to all eligible this program. PDM is a the State. municipal and county competitive program. managers, along with local It is in the State’s planners and floodplain interest to attract as administrators. many applications as Priority: High possible. Timeframe: (annually) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 2.3.1.2. Publicize HMGP Local public officials The local plans serve as the Section 322 of the Disaster need to be aware of the foundation for the State plan Mitigation Act of 2000 to DMA2k planning and make the locals eligible for local public officials in all requirements to mitigation funds. outreach activities. encourage them to Priority: Medium begin work on a plan. Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged
356 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.3.1.3. Develop a HMGP A prototype should The local plans serve as the prototype local mitigation assist officials with local foundation for the State plan. A plan with both federal and planning. standard plan format will assist state requirements. in the review process and Priority: Medium obtaining information for the Timeframe: (next 3 years) State plan. Update Status: Status unchanged
357 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Objective 2.4. Improve compliance with State floodplain regulations and encourage participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Strategy 2.4.1. Promote NFIP compliance as a prerequisite for all communities with an identified Special Flood Hazard Zone considering hazard mitigation projects. (MNDNR and HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.4.1.1. Ensure that HMGP The mitigation staff Preventing structures from being Mitigation section staff travels to many built in harm’s way is the first routinely identify and floodprone locations. step in mitigation. communicate potential This provides the compliance issues. opportunity to refer Priority: Med potential violations to Timeframe: (ongoing) HSEM and MNDNR as we Update Status: Status work together to ensure unchanged jurisdictions are compliant with NFIP regulations.
358 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.4.1.2. Ensure HMGP Requiring good standing Preventing structures from being communities not in good in the NFIP for mitigation built in harm’s way is the first standing with the NFIP funds serves as an step in mitigation. understand that they will incentive for jurisdictions remain ineligible for any to come into compliance. mitigation funding. Priority: Low Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged Strategy 2.4.2. Encourage communities to adopt strong local floodplain regulations to reduce future flood losses. (MNDNR and HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.4.2.1. Work with HMGP The mitigation staff Preventing structures from being HSEM and MNDNR to travels to flood prone built in harm’s way is the first identify flood prone areas in locations. This provides step in mitigation. incorporated municipalities the opportunity to where stronger regulations identify areas where would be appropriate. stronger floodplain Priority: Low regulations can serve as Timeframe: (ongoing) an effective tool. Update Status: Status unchanged
359 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.4.2.2. Maintain HMGP Jurisdictions complying Preventing structures from being awareness of new with the NFIP rules built in harm’s way is the first incorporations and prevent structures from step in mitigation. encourage participation in being built in harm’s the NFIP. (MNDNR) way. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 2.4.2.3. Continue to HMGP This is a long standing Preventing structures from being work with MNDNR to partnership that benefits built in harm’s way is the first conduct floodplain both partners by step in mitigation. These management and flood educating the locals on workshops educate jurisdictions mitigation workshops. flood mitigation. on tools available to minimize (HSEM) the flood risk. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged
360 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 2.4.3. Encourage participation in Community Rating System (CRS) and improve ratings of communities. (MNDNR and HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.4.3.1. Identify HMGP CRS communities go CRS is a mitigation tool that potential CRS communities beyond the minimum rewards mitigation activities. and encourage enrollment. standards required by Priority: Low the NFIP. Many of Timeframe: (ongoing) these activities are Update Status: Status mitigation based. unchanged
Strategy 2.4.4. Use new technologies such as Map Modernization and digital floodplain mapping (DFIRM) as a tool to increase flood hazard awareness and risk reduction. (MNDNR and HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.4.4.1. Use DFIRM CAP funds Improved Using the best data leads to data to identify newly technologies can making the best decisions. mapped flood hazard areas. assist in risk (MNDNR) assessment which Priority: Medium enables us to better Timeframe: (annually) understand the risk Update Status: Status factors. unchanged
361 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.4.4.2. Notify CAP funds NFIP regulations are Mitigation begins prior to communities with new flood the first step in construction with appropriate risks and encourage them mitigating flooding. land use. to adopt local floodplain regulations and seek mitigation alternatives. Priority: High Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 2.4.4.3. Encourage CAP funds Improved Using the best data leads to and assist communities to technologies can making the best decisions. develop GIS parcel maps assist in risk and DFIRMs to identify at- assessment which risk properties in flood enables us to better hazard areas. understand the risk Priority: Medium factors. Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged
362 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.4.4.4. Work with CAP funds Improved data can Using the best data leads to communities with identified assist in risk making the best decisions. flood risks to establish flood assessment which gauging and early warning enables a better systems. response. Priority: High Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 2.4.4.5. Work with HMGP, Flood gauges are Flood gauges are part of the NWS to replace flood 5% Initiative aging and are system to warn of impending gauging and early warning becoming due for floods. systems. replacement. Priority: High Timeframe: (Next 3 years) Update Status: Status unchanged
363 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 2.4.5. Support the Minnesota Association of Floodplain Managers (MNAFPM) programs, including education and communication. (HSEM, MNDNR and MNAFPM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.4.5.1. Support HMGP This is a method of Professional development ASFPM administration of the professionalizing improves the execution of Certified Floodplain Manager floodplain management. floodplain management. (CFM) program. (MNDNR) Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 2.4.5.3. Coordinate HMGP MNAFPM is a valuable This provides information on education activities with partner for reaching a mitigation to interested parties. MNAFPM. target audience Priority: Medium interested in floodplain Timeframe: (ongoing) issues. Update Status: Status unchanged. Action 2.4.5.4. Support HMGP MNAFPM is a valuable This provides information on annual MNAFPM conference. partner for reaching a mitigation to interested parties. SHMO is on the committee. target audience Priority: Medium interested in floodplain Timeframe: (annually) issues. The conference Update Status: Status provides an opportunity unchanged to convey best practices and network.
364 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 2.4.6. Assure minimum flood protection standards are met and promote higher floodplain management standards in all jurisdictions. (MNDNR and HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.4.6.1. Update and CAP funds This assists jurisdictions Mitigation begins prior to distribute model Flood in utilizing the best construction with appropriate Damage Prevention ordinance possible. land use. Ordinance. (MNDNR) Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Complete in 2005 and posted at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us /waters/watermgmt_section /floodplain/sample_ordinanc
es.html Action 2.4.6.2. Develop CAP funds This assists the State in Mitigation begins prior to and maintain community identifying jurisdictions construction with appropriate floodplain management that need assistance in land use. information database. managing the floodplain. (MNDNR) Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Continual update with information from staff in the communities.
365 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.4.6.3. Develop CAP funds The model ordinance Incentives would cause greater state incentives for provides a minimum compliance by giving locals a minimum compliance and standard, mitigation can reason to make mitigation a for higher floodplain be furthered by adopting higher priority. management standards. more stringent Priority: Medium regulations. Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Incentive options are currently being analyzed.
Objective 2.5. To assist jurisdictions in developing mitigation projects and identifying funding for cost-beneficial mitigation projects.
Strategy 2.5.1. Identify and assess repetitive loss properties for possible projects. (MNDNR and HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.5.1.1. Verify CAP funds The repetitive loss database Acquiring repetitive loss repetitive loss database. potentially has errors. We need to properties is one of the State’s (MNDNR) HMGP work with correct data. highest priorities. Priority: Medium funds Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged
366 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.5.1.2. Collect CAP funds This is part of the process Acquiring repetitive loss digital pictures of rep loss potentially of building a data base on properties is one of the State’s properties. HMGP repetitive loss properties. highest priorities. Priority: Low funds They can also be used for Timeframe: (ongoing) future success stories. Update Status: Status unchanged Action 2.5.1.3. Gather GPS CAP funds This is the most important Acquiring repetitive loss latitude/longitude potentially part of the process of properties is one of the State’s coordinates and first floor HMPF building a data base on highest priorities. The best data elevations of repetitive loss funds repetitive loss properties. leads to the best decisions. properties. They can be used for B/C’s Priority: Low and success stories. Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 2.5.1.4. Take field CAP funds This is part of the process Acquiring repetitive loss inspection comments on potentially of building a data base on properties is one of the State’s repetitive loss properties. HMGP repetitive loss properties. highest priorities. Priority: Low funds They can also be used for Timeframe: (ongoing) future success stories. Update Status: Status unchanged
367 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 2.5.2. When available, allocate federal and state grant funding to local governments (or other eligible recipient) for the purposes of developing local mitigation plans. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.5.2.1. Provide HMGP, Many jurisdictions do not The local plans serve as the federal HMGP, FMA and PDM FMA, PDM have the resources foundation for the State All- Planning Grants to available to develop a plan. Hazard Mitigation Plan and make communities willing to The State wants as many the locals eligible for mitigation provide a 25% local match, local jurisdictions as funds. and based upon established possible to be covered by criteria. DMA2k mitigation plans. Priority: High Timeframe: (annually / disaster) Update Status: Out of 87 counties, 33 counties have completed plans and 53 counties are somewhere in the application or development process.
368 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 2.5.3. When available, allocate federal and state grant funding to local governments (or other eligible recipient) for the purposes of implementing eligible hazard mitigation projects using adopted plans as guides. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.5.3.1. Provide FMA, The State wants to The highest priority mitigation federal Flood Mitigation PDM, SRL maximize the Federal projects for the State are the Assistance (FMA), Pre- dollars available to assist acquisition of substantially Disaster Mitigation (PDM) local jurisdictions in damaged structures and Project Grants and Severe implementing hazard repetitive loss properties. These Repetitive Loss (SRL) to mitigation projects. Very are expensive projects and communities willing to make few jurisdictions have the Federal funds greatly expand the a 25% (or 10% for SRL) funds to finance mitigation amount of work that can be local match and with an projects on their own. accomplished. adopted and federally approved local mitigation plan, and based upon criteria established through a competitive grant cycle. Priority: High Timeframe: (annually) Update Status: Status unchanged
369 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.5.3.2. Provide HMGP The State wants to The highest priority mitigation federal Hazard Mitigation maximize the Federal projects for the State are the Grant Program (HMGP) dollars available to assist acquisition of substantially Project Grants to local jurisdictions in damaged structures and communities, who are implementing hazard repetitive loss properties. These completing within one year mitigation projects. Very are expensive projects and an adopted and federally few jurisdictions have the Federal funds greatly expand the approved local mitigation funds to finance mitigation amount of work that can be plan or currently have such projects on their own. accomplished an existing plan, based upon established criteria. Priority: High Timeframe: (disaster) Update Status: Status unchanged
370 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Objective 2.6. Continuously demonstrate and capitalize upon the connection between hazard mitigation and sustainable development.
Strategy 2.6.1. Actively participate in all State-level sustainable development initiatives. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.6.1.1. Establish HMGP This is a free way to This distributes mitigation ideas two-way links between the promote the ideas of and reinforces them with the Mitigation Section’s website sustainable development, concept of sustainable and those of other State which overlap with the development. agencies or other groups ideas of mitigation. that promote sustainable development. Priority: Low Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged
371 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 2.6.2. Coordinate with non-profit organizations that are responsible for promoting and/or implementing sustainable development or “smart growth” initiatives. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.6.2.1. Identify all HMGP The mitigation staff is Limited mitigation resources non-profit organizations that always looking for other make building partnerships are responsible for entities that share our essential. promoting and/or mission to develop implementing sustainable partnerships. development or “smart growth” initiatives. Priority: Low Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 2.6.2.2. Identify HMGP The potential partnerships Limited mitigation resources specific opportunities for can be strengthened by make building partnerships future collaboration and/or sharing projects that serve essential. partnerships and develop our common interests. methods to ensure continued coordination. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged
372 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 2.6.3. Ensure that hazard mitigation is recognized in any state-level programs or proposed legislation packages that target “smart growth” or sustainable development practices. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.6.3.1. Work to HMGP There is “smart growth” Inclusion would help amend the “smart growth” legislation that has been institutionalize mitigation as a legislation to include hazard approved but that did not factor in smart growth. mitigation. include mitigation as a Priority: Medium factor. Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged
373 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 2.6.4. Work in coordination with other organizations to acquire and connect hazard- prone or environmentally sensitive lands throughout the State. (MNDNR and HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 2.6.4.1. Work in HMGP Partnerships can be The acquisition of substantially developing and maintaining developed that serve damaged and repetitive loss a database on all protected common interests. properties is a State priority. lands, identifying possible Identifying the protected The State is always looking for partners in the acquisition lands will help to identify organizations that can contribute and maintenance of hazard organizations with common matching funds and potentially prone lands contiguous to interests and put acquired maintain acquired properties. protected lands. properties to the best use. Assistance in maintenance Priority: Low makes projects more attractive Timeframe: (ongoing) to locals. Update Status: Status unchanged Action 2.6.4.2. Use Flood FMA, SRL The State allocates funds to The acquisition of substantially Mitigation Assistance and acquire flood prone damaged and repetitive loss Severe Repetitive Loss properties. These funds properties is a State priority. programs funds to acquire are frequently used to Many jurisdictions would be flood prone property. provide the local match. unable to participate without Priority: High using these funds for matching Timeframe: (ongoing) funds. Update Status: Status unchanged
374 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
GOAL 3. Improve coordination and communication with other relevant entities.
Objective 3.1. Establish and maintain lasting partnerships.
Strategy 3.1.1. Distribute Minnesota publications to State Hazard Mitigation Officers and State Emergency Management Directors. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 3.1.1.1. Share new EMPG, The states work together to Limited mitigation resources hazard mitigation-related HMGP further mitigation. We make building partnerships publications with others. share our publications with essential. Priority: Medium them and they share their Timeframe: (ongoing) publications with us. Update Status: Status unchanged
375 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Objective 3.2. Streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of effort.
Strategy 3.2.1. Coordinate efforts with other agencies to ensure National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 3.2.1.1. Prior to HMGP Letters advising consulting NEPA compliance is a submission of application to agencies on potential prerequisite for FEMA approval FEMA, advising letters will projects is the first step in and the process produces better be sent to the consulting the required NEPA process. projects. agencies. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 3.2.1.2. All of the HMGP FEMA has advised us that NEPA compliance is a consulting agencies will be the consulting agencies prerequisite for FEMA approval called to review all active need to be consulted once a and the process produces better projects to ensure that they year to ensure projects projects. are still in compliance. remain in compliance. Priority: Low Timeframe: (annually) Update Status: Status unchanged
376 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for How Action Contributes Funding Action to Mitigation Strategy Action 3.2.1.3. During 2008, HSEM will HMGP The goal is to A dedicated fund will aid review the issue of establishing a single eliminate special in reducing the time for state mitigation fund, and determine requests to the acquiring state funds and whether or not to propose that it be legislature for result in projects starting addressed via legislature initiative for the mitigation funding. earlier. 2009 Legislative Session. Priority: Low Timeframe: (annually) Update Status: Status unchanged
377 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Objective 3.3. Incorporate hazard mitigation into the activities of other organizations.
Strategy 3.3.1. Assist other state agencies in identifying structures located in hazardous areas. (HSEM and MNIDNR)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 3.3.1.1. Work with HMGP GIS allows efficient Historic structures are important SHPO to identify elevations identification of at risk to the fabric of life. Part of of historic structures in the properties to plan preservation is minimizing the floodplain. appropriate mitigation risks from hazards. Priority: Medium actions. Timeframe: ongoing Update Status: data being collected from databases as made available Action 3.3.1.2. Work with HMGP GIS allows efficient State facilities serve the public state agencies to identify identification of at risk and to ensure continuity of the elevations of state properties to plan service we need to minimize the owned/operated facilities in appropriate mitigation risks from hazards. the floodplain. actions. Priority: Medium Timeframe: ongoing Update Status: data being collected from databases as made available
378 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 3.3.1.3. Partner with HMGP The risk of tornadoes This is an educational program former Project Impact makes this important for that works with partners to participants regarding public safety. educate them on appropriate construction of community mitigation measures. shelters. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Housing contractors are making safe rooms as an option on new construction.
379 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Objective 3.3. Incorporate hazard mitigation into the activities of other organizations.
Strategy 3.3.2. Update building and fire codes with mitigation standards for adoption by local governments.
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 3.3.2.2. Consult with HMGP Different organizations Mitigation measures adopted by state agencies, planning have specific information communities will make associations, and regional that may be useful when communities more damage development commissions developing a plan to resistant. regarding how mitigation implement new standards. standards may be adopted by counties based on information gathered in Action 3.3.2.1 Priority: Medium Timeframe: next three years Update Status: New Action 3.3.2.3. Develop a HMGP Different organizations Mitigation measures adopted by plan of action to outreach have different contacts to communities will make communities to adopt assist with and outreach communities more damage mitigation related standards throughout the state. resistant. based upon Actions 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.2.2. Priority: Medium Timeframe: next three years Update Status: New
380 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 3.3.2.4. Determine HMGP Volunteer participation may Mitigation measures adopted by funding for the appropriate be limited and funding may communities will make agencies to perform be needed to support communities more damage outreach to adopt mitigation various outreach efforts. resistant. related standards. Priority: Medium Timeframe: next three years Update Status: New
381 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
GOAL 4. Increase public understanding, support, and demand for hazard mitigation.
Objective 4.1. Identify hazard-specific issues and needs.
Strategy 4.1.1. Coordinate with key local officials to determine local issues and concerns as well as local, state and federal actions previously taken. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 4.1.1.1. Attend and HMGP This is a free way to By involving local coordinators it make presentations at the present mitigation ideas to builds the team that is working annual MNAFPM conference. an audience interested in on mitigation and increases the Priority: High mitigation. chance of mitigation ideas being Timeframe: (ongoing) applied as a solution. Update Status: Status unchanged Action 4.1.1.2. Hold EMPG, This is a method to explain This educates people on the risks meetings with Key Elected HMGP in detail the benefits of they face and the proper Officials, as requested. mitigation to people in a techniques to mitigate the risks. Priority: High position to promote Timeframe: (ongoing / as projects. needed) Update Status: Status unchanged
382 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Objective 4.2. Heighten public awareness of natural hazards.
Strategy 4.2.1. Launch or participate in awareness campaigns and special events. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 4.2.1.1. Participate EMPG, This is a method to partner This educates the public on risks in Severe Winter Storms HMGP with media outlets to and the tools to mitigate the Awareness Week. educate the public on risks risks. Priority: Medium and how to mitigate them. Timeframe: (annually) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 4.2.1.2. Participate EMPG, This is a method to partner This educates the public on risks in Severe Weather HMGP with media outlets to and the tools to mitigate the Awareness Week. educate the public on risks risks. Priority: Medium and how to mitigate them. Timeframe: (annually) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 4.2.1.3. Promote the EMPG, This program promotes This educates the public on risks National Weather Service HMGP safety from severe and the tools to mitigate the (NWS) Storm Ready weather. It is essentially risks. This is a worthwhile Program. a mitigation program. program that needs promotion. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged
383 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy
Action 4.2.1.4. Support and EMPG, This program promotes This educates residents and promote the DNR Firewise HMGP safe building and fuel developers on the risks and ways mitigation program through management in wildfire risk to mitigate the risks of wildfire. HSEM mitigation contacts. areas. This program is well known in Priority: Medium the forestry profession, but Timeframe: (ongoing) should be expanded to planners Update Status: Status and others that can influence unchanged mitigation activities.
384 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 4.2.2. Encourage the use of classroom curriculum to educate students on natural hazards. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 4.2.2.1. Inform EMPG, This is a well-developed This educates children on risks schools about the “Project HMGP program that provides and the tools to mitigate the Wet” curriculum and curriculum to students risks. This is a worthwhile encourage its use. on the water cycle. program that needs promotion. Priority: Low Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 4.2.2.2. Inform EMPG, This is a well-developed This educates children on risks schools about MNDNR’s HMGP program that provides and the tools to mitigate the wildfire prevention curriculum to students risks. This is a worthwhile curriculum including on the wildfire program that needs promotion. Smokey Bear. prevention. Priority: Low Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged
385 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 4.2.3. Publicize and encourage the use of warning systems. (NWS and HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 4.2.3.1: Encourage EMPG, The state has 100% EAS Encouraging local government local jurisdictions to HMGP, transmission coverage. to use redundant means of establish and maintain a NWS Locals may warn notification ensures that all warning systems (e.g., residents with EAS if populations will be warned. Emergency Alert System encoders are installed in Early warning allows for the (EAS), outdoor warning dispatch centers. proper means of protection to sirens, and Reverse 911) be taken. capable of alerting residents Sirens used for outdoor in a timely manner. warning are needed for Priority: High recreation areas. Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: city or Reverse 911 allows for county. The number of notification via phone, jurisdictions with their own text or e-mail. EAS encoders continues to increase. Warning sirens NWS distributed Weather continue to be an issue for Radios to all public several small communities. schools in 2007 and is Reverse 911 is being used private schools are in various cities. scheduled in 2008. Local government can warn schools if they have encoders.
386 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 4.2.3.2: Work to EMPG, Special populations Warning all populations of improve the capability to HMGP require different means of disaster is important to ensure warn special populations, warning. State agencies all of the public takes protective particularly those with have been working with measures. hearing or visual various groups to identify impairments. technologies and Priority: High procedures. Status: A consortium of state agencies is meeting with Regional Review Committees to integrate warning of special populations into response plans. Action 4.2.3.3: Promote the EMPG, ARMER and Disaster LAN Both ARMER and Disaster LAN use of ARMER interoperable HMGP coordinate the response are tools to get responders and radio and Disaster LAN from both state and local equipment that can mitigate a critical incident software. responders. Both help hazard quicker. Priority: Medium locate and get the Status: Both systems are appropriate equipment to used extensively in the the site of the disaster. metro area and have been used for natural and human made disasters.
387 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 4.2.3.4. Promote the HMGP, Weather radios can serve Adequate warning is necessary advantages of weather NWS multiple functions and to avert loss of life. The public radios to the general public. provide the best method needs to be educated on the Priority: High of providing warnings to most effective warning Timeframe: (ongoing) the public. systems. Update Status: The NWS, retail outlets, and media are working together to offer discounts on weather radios. Action 4.2.3.5. Encourage EMPG, There are no state funds Adequate warning is necessary jurisdictions to keep HMGP available to install to avert loss of life. Locals outdoor warning sirens in outdoor warning sirens, need to be encouraged to good condition. so it is important that maintain their systems. Priority: Medium existing ones are Timeframe: (ongoing) maintained. Update Status: Status unchanged Action 4.2.3.6. Publicize EMPG, Most people Adequate warning is necessary the use and limitations of HMGP misunderstand the to avert loss of life. The public outdoor warning sirens. purpose of warning sirens needs to be educated on the Priority: Medium and need to be educated most effective warning Timeframe: (ongoing) that they are not meant systems. Update Status: Status to warn people indoors. unchanged
388 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 4.2.3.7. Encourage EMPG, Heat waves are generally Education of the public on the jurisdictions to warn at-risk HMGP unrecognized as a natural risks and the tools to mitigate population groups of the disaster. Mitigation steps the risks can prevent harm to dangers of extreme by local jurisdictions can numerous people. temperatures and ways to reduce the causalities. avoid the danger. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 4.2.3.8. Encourage EMPG, HAN allows for expedited Preventing the spread of the use of the MDH Health HMGP communication of health communicable disease results Alert Network (HAN) to all related issues that could in less impact to the public and eligible communities. prevent the spread of services to the public. Priority: Medium communicable disease. Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged
389 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Objective 4.3. Publicize and encourage the adoption of appropriate hazard mitigation measures.
Strategy 4.3.1. Provide information on mitigation techniques in the aftermath of disasters. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 4.3.1.1. Attend Existing This is an opportunity to This educates people on the public meetings to discuss staff explain in detail the risks they face and the proper mitigation programs. resources, benefits of mitigation to techniques to mitigate the risks. Priority: Medium HMGP people in a position to Timeframe: (as needed) participate in projects. Update Status: Status unchanged Action 4.3.1.2. Ensure Existing People affected by This educates people on the mitigation is represented in staff disaster are the most risks they face and the proper the Joint Field Offices resources, likely to take steps to techniques to mitigate the risks. (JFOs). HMGP ensure they avoid future Priority: High losses. Timeframe: (as needed) Update Status: Status unchanged.
390 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 4.3.1.3. Organize Existing People affected by This educates people on the wind-resistant construction staff disaster are the most risks they face and the proper and/or safe room resources, likely to take steps to techniques to mitigate the risks. workshops in the aftermath HMGP ensure they avoid future of tornadoes. losses. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (as needed) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 4.3.1.4. Organize Existing People are most likely to This educates people on the property protection staff take action following a risks they face and the proper workshops following wildfire resources, high profile wildfire techniques to mitigate the risks. incidents. HMGP event. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (as needed) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 4.3.1.5. Organize Existing People affected by This educates people on the appropriate training staff disaster are the most risks they face and the proper workshops for any resources, likely to take steps to techniques to mitigate the risks mitigation issue that arises HMGP ensure they avoid future after a disaster. losses.
391 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 4.3.2. Increase the public’s exposure to hazard mitigation issues. (MNDNR and HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 4.3.2.1. Ensure Existing This is a low cost way of This educates people on the mitigation is represented at staff promoting mitigation to a risks they face and the proper the State Fair. resources, new audience and techniques to mitigate the risks. Priority: Low HMGP questions can be Timeframe: (annually) answered in an informal Update Status: HSEM setting. mitigation works with other agencies to present at the fair. MNDNR has an entire building at the State Fair. Action 4.3.2.2. Offer Existing This is a low cost way of This educates people on the promotional mitigation staff promoting mitigation to a risks they face and the proper items to jurisdiction for resources, new audience and techniques to mitigate the risks. their local public events and HMGP questions can be other promotional event answered in an informal opportunities. setting. Priority: Low Timeframe: (annually) Update Status: HSEM mitigation works with other agencies to present at the fair. MNDNR has an entire building at the State Fair.
392 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Objective 4.4. Educate the public on the benefits of mitigation measures.
Strategy 4.4.1. Utilize different methods to deliver the mitigation message to the public. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 4.4.1.1. Continue to HMGP By promoting positive By understanding the positive develop success stories for mitigation on the FEMA ramifications of mitigation, the the FEMA website. Provide web site we can educate public and public officials are a link from the HSEM the public on how more likely to support it. website. mitigation works. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 4.4.1.2. Provide HMGP Interest is highest in By understanding the positive information to any media mitigation following a ramifications of mitigation, the reporting on past disasters disaster and on the public and public officials are and mitigation in the anniversaries of more likely to support it. aftermath of a disaster. disasters. This is an Priority: Medium opportunity to reach the Timeframe: (as needed) public with a mitigation Update Status: Status message. unchanged
393 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 4.4.1.3. Distribute HMGP, It is important to make To reach the largest audience mitigation materials to all of 5% funds mitigation information and to repeat the message, we the libraries in the State. available to the public. need to utilize as many outreach Priority: Low Many people prefer methods as possible. Timeframe: (annually) libraries to the internet. Update Status: Status unchanged Action 4.4.1.4. Investigate HMGP Incentives should offset Mitigation plans for business and the feasibility of some of the cost to industry could reduce down time establishing incentives develop and maintain a due to a disaster thus reducing (e.g., tax credits) to mitigation plan. the impact to community. encourage business and industry to develop and maintain mitigation plans. Priority: Low Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged
394 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Objective 4.5. Help educate the public on the benefits of hazard-resistant construction and site planning .
Strategy 4.5.1. Provide the public with information on building codes to enable them to make informed decisions. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 4.5.1.1. Provide HMGP Correct building To reach the largest audience links on the HSEM techniques are an and to repeat the message, we mitigation website to sites important mitigation need to utilize as many outreach where individuals can learn tool. The codes are the methods as possible. more about building codes. best source for these Priority: Low techniques. Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged http://www.minnesotarecov ers.org/MR_Resources1.asp
395 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Objective 4.6. Maximize available post-disaster “windows of opportunity” to implement major mitigation outreach initiatives.
Strategy 4.6.1. Participate in PDA activities immediately following a disaster. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 4.6.1.1. Assign staff HMGP Personally seeing the The better the understanding of to mitigation outreach hazard and its effects the hazards the better the teams. educates the mitigation choice of solutions. Priority: High staff on effective mitigation Timeframe: (as needed) solutions. Update Status: Status unchanged
396 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 4.6.2. Document and disseminate information on losses avoided. (HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 4.6.2.1. HMGP The locals are on the scene It provides us with information to Coordinate with local and can tell us when losses inform people of mitigation officials to collect digital are avoided and can provide successes and reinforces the pictures and field us with the information at no success of the program for the reports. cost. locals. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 4.6.2.2. HMGP This provides a source for Success stories are often used to Incorporate findings into best practices and is used to sell other jurisdictions on the future volumes of promote mitigation. need for mitigation. success story documents. Priority: High Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged Action 4.6.2.3. Post HMGP By promoting positive By understanding the positive success story articles on mitigation on our website we ramifications of mitigation, the the mitigation website. can educate the public on public is more likely to support it. Priority: Medium how mitigation works. Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged
397 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Action 4.6.2.4. Present HMGP It is important for the policy By understanding the positive information to the policy makers to understand how ramifications of mitigation, policy makers. mitigation works. makers are more likely to Priority: Medium support it. Timeframe: (ongoing) Update Status: Status unchanged
398 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy
Strategy 4.6.3. Maximize available Federal resources. (MNRTF and HSEM)
Actions Projected Rationale for Action How Action Contributes to Funding Mitigation Strategy Action 4.6.3.1. Assist HMGP Universities shelter This can help protect people and colleges and universities in numerous students and critical facilities and maximizes applying for Pre-Disaster important research the dollars spent on mitigation grant funds. (HSEM) materials. It is important in the State. Priority: Medium to ensure the safety of Timeframe: (ongoing) both. Update Status: Unchanged Action 4.6.3.2. Work toward HMGP Enhanced plans improve It is in the interest of mitigation an approved enhanced state the delivery of mitigation to run the programs as mitigation plan. services and increase the effectively as possible and to Priority: Low HMGP allocations. maximize the dollars spent on Timeframe: (within three mitigation in the State. years) Update Status: Delayed due to mitigation staff turnover. Action4.6.3.3 Acquire HMGP The all hazard plans The local data validates data software to collect data identify facilities and that is available through state identified in local mitigation risks to be included in the planning agencies. plans for analysis in the sate plan. state mitigation Plan. Priority: Medium Timeframe: (within 3 years) Update Status: Status unchanged
399 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning State Capability Assessment The state of Minnesota has the legal authority to engage in pre- and post-disaster mitigation activities via federal programs. MN HSEM are pursuing ways to improve programs, plans and policies for hazard mitigation to become incorporated into other types of planning, programs and policies.
To address the state’s capabilities during times of disaster, the MNRTF is the group that forms to address issues of disaster and a forum to discuss mitigation issues. This group is comprised of federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies, and voluntary organizations. In times of disaster this group helps develop policy and promote the mitigation policies, best methods and procedures to their respective and related organizations in the state. In Minnesota, this group is a mitigation resource. In post-disaster, MNRTF functions not in the initial sense of first responders, but is a planned deliberate response to solve the post-disaster mitigation concerns. The integration of mitigation with recovery efforts has always been and still is a priority in Minnesota. This allows for maximum flexibility to provide whatever resources are required.
In addition to the MNRTF, mitigation staff identifies the most beneficial programs being:
1. Enforcement of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. The Floodplain Management Unit with the MN DNR, Division of Waters oversees the administration of the state Floodplain Management Program by promoting and ensuring sound land use development in floodplain areas in order to promote the health and safety of the public, minimize loss of life, and reduce economic losses caused by flood damages. This unit also exists to oversee and administer the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for the state of Minnesota.
The Community Rating System (CRS) is a voluntary program for NFIP- participating communities. The goals of the CRS are to reduce flood losses, to facilitate accurate insurance rating, and to promote the awareness of flood insurance. The CRS was developed to provide incentives for communities to go beyond the minimum floodplain management requirements to develop extra measures to provide protection from flooding. The incentives are in the form of premium discounts. See Appendix 12 for a list of communities that participate in the NFIP.
400 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning
Community Rating System - Minnesota Status COMMUNITY CRS CURRENT CURRENT % % STATUS NAME ENTRY EFFECTIVE CLASS DISCOUNT DISCOUNT C = DATE DATE FOR SFHA FOR Current NON-SFHA R = Rescinded Austin, City 10/1/91 10/1/01 5 25 10 C of East Grand 10/1/91 10/1/98 10 0 0 R Forks, City of Lake St. Croix 10/1/95 10/1/00 8 10 5 C Beach, City of Mower 10/1/95 04/1/00 8 10 5 C County Rochester, 10/1/91 10/1/96 10 0 0 R City of West St. 10/1/91 10/1/96 10 0 0 R Paul, City of
2. Acquiring substantially damaged structures. Structures that are located in the floodplain of jurisdictions participating in the NFIP that receive damages that exceed 50% of the value of the structure are considered “substantially damaged”. The structure must either be demolished or built above the base flood elevation. This degree of loss and the potential additional expense of coming into compliance make it an economic disaster for the flood victims. By acquiring the property for pre-flood fair market value we can ease the economic suffering of the disaster victims. Acquiring substantially damages structures is a strong program for the state of Minnesota hazard mitigation programs through the state FMA and the state FDR program. The mitigation staff feels CRS is under utilized in Minnesota.
3. Acquiring repetitive loss properties. This works hand in hand with enforcement of the NFIP rules and the acquisition of substantially damaged properties to break the cycle of construction, destruction, reconstruction. Minnesota has been very successful in reducing the number of repetitive loss properties. Using all the different mitigation programs, a significant number of repetitive loss structures have been acquired.
The NFIP Repetitive Loss Summary lists the counties and communities with building payments, contents payments, losses and number of
401 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning properties. The top ten communities with the highest number of repetitive loss properties is listed below. The total number of Non- Mitigated properties is 382. The total number of RL properties is 556 (includes mitigated properties) the resulting number indicates 174 properties have been mitigated.
Top 10 Communities with Highest Number of Repetitive Loss Properties as of Dec 31, 2007 Community Community Number of RL % of Number Properties Total
WARREN, CITY OF 270274 74 19.37% AUSTIN, CITY OF 275228 48 12.57% CLAY COUNTY * 275235 14 3.66% GRANITE FALLS, 270068 13 3.40% CITY OF BAYPORT, CITY OF 275229 12 3.14% MARSHALL 270638 11 2.88% COUNTY* MOORHEAD, CITY 275244 11 2.88% OF LAKELAND, CITY 275238 9 2.36% OF WASHINGTON 270499 9 2.36% COUNTY * MONTEVIDEO, 275243 8 2.09% CITY OF Asterisk (*) denotes an unincorporated area
As of 1/31/2008 Minnesota had (combined community and county) 1,522 repetitive loss claims with payments totaling over $111,349,600. The City of East Grand Forks had the most claims in the state (1,061) for a total of $33,082.881.34 in total payments, the majority due to the Great Midwest Flood of 1993.
Severe Repetitive Loss One property has been identified in the state as a SRL property. The property is in the City of Austin, Mower County. The owner of the property has been contacted by local and state personnel and has been informed of program options for mitigation activities. Mower County has a FEMA approved All Hazard Mitigation Plan, dated April 27, 2005. The city of Austin and Mower County have completed many acquisitions utilizing all federal and state funding programs. In the
402 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning case of a SRL buyout the city/county would have the capabilities to assist the homeowner with the project. They have the capabilities to design, implement, and monitor the project.
4. Installation of early warning and communication systems. Working with the MN DNR, National Weather Service (NWS) and other agencies installation and replacement of transmitters for flood gauges has been a success in Minnesota. In addition, the installation of NOAA radio towers and transmitters has increased weather radio and EAS communication coverage statewide.
5. Burying power lines or replacement of low caliber line with improved systems. Working with the electric cooperatives statewide to replace overhead power line to underground systems has reduced the damages and power outages to power systems throughout the state. Also, the upgrade of is a mitigation action that has proven great benefits in times of ice and severe storms.
6. Installation and upgrade of Firewise practices and sprinkler systems. Working with the MN DNR, local governments and many other agencies implanting Firewise practices and installation of sprinkler systems has proven to reduce loss of life and property in times of wildfire.
The State has several funding programs in place which are available to local jurisdictions. These funds are primarily from various federal grant programs. Currently, the state uses the FEMA programs of HMGP, FMA, PDM, the state Flood Damage Reduction (FDR) Program and the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) funds to promote mitigation activities.
The Flood Damage Reduction Grant Assistance Program (FDR) was created by the Minnesota Legislature in 1987 to provide technical and financial assistance to local government units for reducing the damaging effects of floods. Under this program the state can make cost-share grants to local units of government for up to 50 percent of the total cost of a project. The goal of existing regulations and programs for flood damage reduction is to minimize the threat to life and property from flooding. In addition to property loss, people can be killed or injured fighting flood waters. The efforts of local governments to enforce their zoning ordinances and to sponsor projects and acquire or relocate flooded buildings have helped to reduce risk to lives and flood damages.
403 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Currently, two different classes of grants are available through the FDR program. Small grants are for projects with a total cost of less than or equal to $300,000 (state share less than $150,000). Small grants are made directly by the DNR from funds appropriated by the Legislature. Large grants are for projects with a total cost greater than $300,000 (state share greater than $150,000). Large grant applications are received and prioritized by the DNR and then presented to the governor and the Legislature for consideration in a capital bonding bill.
Examples are as follows: • Each jurisdiction must enforce its own zoning rules and regulations which includes floodplain management. The State can not enforce these regulations; it is up to the local jurisdiction. • Each jurisdiction chooses whether or not to adopt building codes and is responsible for enforcing building codes. The State of Minnesota has adopted a statewide building code but there are only a few counties that have adopted them. • The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources/Office of Water Resources has developed a model ordinance for floodplain management, which provides the minimum requirements an NFIP participating jurisdiction must enforce. This model encourages community development outside of the floodplain and assists in managing the current floodplain.
Additional DNR programs that have proven to be successful are illustrated below.
1. NFIP Coordination in MN. The Department of Natural Resources Waters Division (DNR Waters) is the state coordinating agency for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). State statutes and rules have been adopted that are more restrictive than the federal standards in many respects. DNR Waters works with the zoning authorities around the state to adopt compliant ordinances, and provides training and technical assistance.
There are 533 participating communities, of which 85 are counties and most of the rest are cities. A total of 101 cities have FEMA maps that identify high flood risk areas, but are not participating.
2. Cooperating Technical Partners in the State of MN. The cooperating technical partner (CTP) program allow for more local direction and input during the remapping process, and typically allows
404 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning for more updated studies or data to be incorporated into the updated maps.
The following are CTP with FEMA - State of Minnesota, Washington County, Clay County, Dakota County, Scott County, Sherburne County, and Goodhue County. The following have CTP grants through DNR Waters - Carver, Olmsted, and Meeker.
3. Map Modernization Program in MN. Nationally, FEMA’s map modernization program was funded for $200 million a year for five years. The focus is on providing digital, county- wide maps. Since the funding was not adequate to remap the entire country, priorities were updated based on population, flood risk, etc, and not all of Minnesota will get updated maps with the current funding. Based on projected funding, as of September 2007, 52 of Minnesota’s 87 counties would be funded, including 645 communities (counties, cities, and some townships and other authorities). Preliminary updates in January 2008 indicate more of Minnesota’s counties will not get updated due to shifts in funding priorities nationally. As of January 2008, 4 counties (with 30 communities) have new effective maps.
4. Repetitive Lost Structures in MN. As of March 2008, there were 370 repetitive loss structures in Minnesota. An additional 175 had been documented as repetitive loss structures that have been mitigated.
Minnesota’s Flood Damage Reduction (FDR) grant program has paid for approximately 100 properties to be acquired a year, since 1988. The repetitive loss properties have been a priority for acquisition, and are expected to continue to be a higher priority. Overall, approximately $185 million has been allocated through the FDR grant program.
It has been a mitigation strategy of the State of Minnesota to promote public awareness for all-hazards. This public awareness policy has been an on-going effort for the top hazards identified.
Annex A of this Plan also includes an updated discussion of capabilities by hazard types in Minnesota.
The following is a summary of programs utilized by the state of Minnesota to assist with implementation of mitigation actions. A brief description of each program follows, as does funding information.
405 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning
The following definitions define the effect on loss reduction programs: Support: Programs, plans, policies regulations, funding, or practices that directly help the implementation of mitigation actions. Facilitate: Programs, plans, and policies that make implementing mitigation actions easier.
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
Program: Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) Designed to set aside marginal agricultural land and environmentally sensitive land along waterways to enhance wildlife habitat, improve water quality, reduce erosion and sedimentation and reduce the impacts of recurrent flooding. Funding: Federal (80%) and State (20%) funding. Provides funds to local government to administer state policies and programs for which the agency is responsible. Effect: Support Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Program: Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant Assistance To provide technical and financial assistance to local governmental units for conducting flood damage reduction studies and for planning and implementing flood damage reduction measures. Funding: A maximum of 50% of total eligible project costs up to $150,000 with grants more than $150,000 requiring approval by the Legislature. Effect: Support Program: Stream Bank Maintenance Grants The removal of brush, dead or downed trees and other debris from stream channels and floodplains. Funding: A maximum of 75% of eligible project costs, typically from $5,000 - $15,000. Created in 1972 to help county governments respond to flood damaged streams and floodplains. Effect: Facilitate Program: Dam Safety Grants To improve the safety and condition of publicly owned dams and water level control structures. Funding: Reimbursement of costs, up to 50% for repairs, up to 100% for removals. Grants ranged from $25,000 to $1,000,000 Effect: Support
406 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Program: Wetland Tax Exemption Program To provide a financial incentive to maintain wetlands in their natural state and to promote an awareness of wetland values. Funding: Qualifying areas are exempt from property taxes that remain in effect as long as wetland meets the requirements set forth in the statutes. Effect: Support Program: Wild and Scenic Rivers-Acquisition Program To implement the Wild and Scenic Rivers System which preserves and protects the outstanding scenic, recreational, natural, historical and scientific values of certain Minnesota rivers and adjacent lands? Funding: Project is currently not funded. Last funded for payments in 1989. Effect: N/A since not funded.
Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM)
Program: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Program funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to assist States and local communities in implementing long-term hazard mitigation measures following a major disaster declaration. Funding: Federal funding for HMGP projects can be up to 75% of the projects total eligible costs. Remaining 25% must be local or State funding. Effect: Support Program: Hazard Mitigation Planning Grant Program Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM) has partnered to assist communities with developing hazard mitigation plans. The basis for these plans is found in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Funding: FEMA provides HMGP grants to states that, in turn, provide sub- grants to local governments for mitigation activities such as planning. Federal funding for HMGP projects can be up to 75% of the project’s total eligible costs with 25% local match. Effect: Support
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development
407 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Program: Small Cities Development Program Purpose is to provide decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low-and-moderate income to cities and townships with populations under 50,000 and counties with populations under 200,000. Funding: Provides federal grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to local units of government. State program rules subdivide grant funds into three general categories: Housing Grants, Project Facility Grants, and Comprehensive Grants. Public Facility Grants could include projects involving storm sewer projects and flood control projects. Effect: Facilitate Program: Greater Minnesota Business Development Public Infrastructure Grant Program Purpose is to stimulate new economic development, create or retain jobs in Greater Minnesota, through public infrastructure investments. Funding: Provides grants to cities of up to 50% of the capital costs of the public infrastructure necessary, which expand or retain jobs in the area, increase the tax base, or which expand or create new economic development. Eligible projects include, but not limited to wastewater collection and treatment, drinking water, storm sewers, utility extensions, and streets. Effect: Facilitate; however, depends on whether or not investments encourage development in flood hazard areas. Program: Greater Minnesota Redevelopment Grant Program Purpose is to provide grants to assist development authorities with costs related to redeveloping blighted industrial, residential or commercial properties. Funding: Grants pay up to 50% of eligible redevelopment costs for a qualifying site, with a 50% local match. Grants can pay for land acquisition, demolition, infrastructure improvements, stabilizing unstable soils, ponding, environmental infrastructure, building construction, design and engineering and adaptive reuse of buildings. Effect: Facilitate; however, depends on whether or not investments encourage redevelopment in flood hazard areas.
408 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Program: Stormwater Program Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is the delegated permitting authority for Minnesota of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Permits are required for most construction activities designed to limit polluted discharges and implement best management practices. Funding: The budget for the Storm Water Program in FY03 was approximately $1.5 million and include administrative and management support in eight Minnesota locations. Effect: Support Metropolitan Council
Program: Livable Communities Grant Program The Council awards grants to participating communities in the seven-county area to help them, among other things, create development or redevelopment that demonstrates efficient and cost-effective use of land and infrastructure, a range of housing types and costs, commercial and community uses, walkable neighborhoods and easy access to transit and open space. Funding: Funding is in three different accounts to enable communities through the region to carryout their development plans, and leverage millions of dollars in private and public investment while providing jobs and business growth. Effect: Facilitate, depending on location of investment and whether or not it is in a flood
409 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Summary of Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Federal Share Allocations The following is an updated summary of mitigation planning, education, and projects grants in the state of Minnesota.
Total PDM Federal Share (1989 to 2006) $2,566,887.00 Total HMGP Federal Share (2002 to 2007*) $83,867,061.00 Total Federal Share $86,433,948.00
*DR-1717/2007 flooding is not included. Proposals are in the development stage.
PDM Project Detail The following PDM grants projects that are on schedule or have been closed.
Year Jurisdiction Federal Share Project The following projects are on schedule: 2007 Crow Wing County $28,554.00 Mitigation Plans 2007 Freeborn County $23,121.00 Mitigation Plans 2007 Lincoln County $23,121.00 Mitigation Plans 2007 Cottonwood County $21,000.00 Mitigation Plans 2007 Wilkin County $18,975.00 Mitigation Plans 2007 Wright County $24,750.00 Mitigation Plans 2005 McLeod County $24,750.00 Mitigation Plans 2005 Douglas County $24,750.00 Mitigation Plans 2005 City of Austin $1,658,231.00 Acquisition 2005 Grant County $24,750.00 Mitigation Plans 2003 South Central Regional $111,432.00 Mitigation Plans – Development Brown, Faribault, Commission (Region 9, Martin, Nicollet, SCRDC) Waseca, Watonwan 2003 Region Five $67,682.02 Mitigation Plans – Development Cass, Morrison, Commission (Region 5, Wadena NCRDC) 2003 Pine County $13,865.00 Mitigation Plans 2003 Washington County $29,127.00 Mitigation Plans The following projects are closed. 2002 Minnesota Planning $104,267.00 Sample Local Plan Development “Careful County” 2002 Headwaters Regional $80,000 Mitigation Plans –
410 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Development Beltrami, Commission (HRDC) Clearwater, Hubbard 2002 Arrowhead Regional $93,333.00 Mitigation Plans – Development Lake, St. Louis, Commission (ARDC) Clark 2002 Carver County $30,667.00 Mitigation Plans 2002 Goodhue County $20,000.00 Mitigation Plans 2002 Hennepin County $30,677.00 Mitigation Plans 2002 Southwest Regional $80,000.00 Mitigation Plans – Development Murray, Nobles, Commission (SRDC) Redwood 2002 Todd County $26,667.00 Mitigation Plans 2002 City of St. Paul $7,167.00 Mitigation Plans Total PDM Federal $2,566,887.00 Share
HMGP Project Detail The following are HMGP projects that are on schedule or have been closed. FEMA DR-1648 2006 flooding Status: Projects are on schedule. Acquisition Federal Share City of Owatonna $100,500.00 Planning Federal Share Scott County $22,500.00 FEMA DR-1648 Total Federal Share $123,000.00
FEMA DR-1622 2006 Severe Winter Storm Status: Projects are on schedule. Acquisition Federal Share Mower County $316,725.00 Electric Distribution Projects Federal Share Lyon-Lincoln Electric Cooperative $263,963.00 Mitigation Plans Federal Share Southwest Regional Development Commission $43,500.00 FEMA DR-1622 Total Federal Share $624,188.00
FEMA DR-1569 2004 Severe Storms and Flooding
411 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Status: Projects are on schedule. Electric Distribution Projects Federal Share Lyon-Lincoln Electric Cooperative $434,400.00 Mitigation Plans Federal Share Stevens County $21,000.00 Traverse County $21,000.00 FEMA DR-1569 Total Federal Share $476,400.00
FEMA DR-1419 2001 Severe Storms, Flooding & Heavy Rains Status: Projects are on schedule. Acquisition/Relocation/Floodproofing Projects- Federal Share Number of Properties Mitigated City of Hugo - 1 $165,000.00 Roseau County - 6 $158,800.00 Stearns County - 3 $176,925.00 Electric Distribution Projects Federal Share BENCO Electric Cooperative $107,813.00 Redwood Electric Cooperative $648,244.00 Minnesota Valley Electric Coop $324,353.00 Drainage Improvement / Infrastructure Federal Share Projects City of Delano $638,730.00 City of Delano $165,038.00 City of Ada $314,325.00 City of Roseau $1,927,500.00 City of Twin Valley $478,500.00 City of Warroad $62,280.00 City of Winsted $75,000.00 Mitigation Plans Federal Share Southwest Regional Development Commission $40,001.00 Upper Minnesota Valley RDC $21,675.00 East Central Regional Development Commission $68,419.00 Northwest Regional Development Commission $67,500.00 Pope County $23,625.00 Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe $22,500.00 Clay County $22,500.00 Becker County $22,500.00 Otter Tail County $22,500.00 Anoka County $23,980.00 FEMA DR-1419 Total Federal Share $5,577,708.00
FEMA DR-1370
412 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning 2001 Flooding, Heavy Rains, & Tornadoes Status: Projects are on schedule. Acquisition/Relocation/Floodproofing Federal Share Projects- Number of Properties Mitigated City of Afton - 7 $343,754.00 Yellow Medicine County - 3 $136,125.00 Wild Rice Watershed District - 3 $890,318.00 City of Granite Falls - 16 $1,147,500.00 City of Lake St. Croix Beach $1,341,019.00 Mahnomen County - 17 $724,943.00 City of Moorhead - 3 $136,500.00 Electric Distribution Projects Federal Share Brown County Rural Electric $265,838.00 Clearwater-Polk Electric Cooperative, Inc. #1 $41,250.00 Clearwater-Polk Electric Cooperative #2 $138,750.00 Drainage Improvement / Infrastructure Federal Share Projects City of La Crescent $25,500.00 City of Warba $21,450.00 Mitigation Plans Federal Share Northwest Regional Development Commission $80,000.00 Headwaters Regional Development Commission $38,000.00 Arrowhead Regional Development Commission $78,000.00 Region Nine Development Commission $68,404.00 Upper Minnesota Valley RDC $75,000.00 Isanti County $14,375.00 Winona County $21,000.00 Mower County $19,000.00 City of Lake St. Croix Beach (Study) $11,250.00 FEMA DR-1370 Total Federal Share $5,617,976.00
FEMA DR-1333 1999 Severe Ice Storms, Flooding, & Heavy Rains Status: Projects are on schedule. Acquisition/Relocation Projects- Federal Share Number of Properties Mitigated City of Austin – 6 $293,674.00 Mower County – 6 $650,368.00 City of Spring Valley – 9 $395,625.00 Wild Rice Watershed District – 4 $220,512.50 City of Mabel – 1 $36,000.00 City of Wabasha – 6 $528,000.00 Electric Distribution Projects Federal Share
413 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Brown County Rural Electric Association $634,594.00 Goodhue County Cooperative Electric $170,625.00 Association BENCO Electric Cooperative $1,099,500.00 Beltrami Electric Cooperative $150,000.00 Drainage Improvement / Infrastructure Federal Share Projects Cook County $74,673.00 City of Cokato $146,325.00 City of Montevideo $75,150.00 City of Ada $15,000.00 NOAA Transmitter Projects Federal Share MN Department of Transportation $237,375.00 FEMA DR-1333 Total Federal Share $4,727,421.00
FEMA DR-1288 1999 Severe Ice Storms, Flooding, Heavy Rains Status: Projects are closed. Electric Distribution Projects Federal Share PKM Electric cooperative, Inc. $150,000.00 PKM Electric Cooperative, Inc. $135,000.00 Brown County Rural Electric association $52,125.00 North Itasca Electric Cooperative, Inc. $114,700.00 Nobles Cooperative Electric $213,000.00 FEMA DR-1288 Total Federal Share $664,826.00
FEMA DR-1283 1999 Severe Storms, Winds, and Flooding Status: Projects are closed. Acquisition/Relocation Projects- Federal Share Number of Properties Mitigated Houston County - 1 $52,125.00 Electric Distribution Projects Federal Share Arrowhead Electric Cooperative $455,700.00 New Ulm Public Utilities $212,400.00 Meeker Cooperative Light and Power $150,000.00 Association #1 Meeker Cooperative Light and Power $19,500.00 Association #2 Cooperative Light and Power Assoc of Lake Co. $53,437.00 City of Caledonia $178,500.00 City of Austin Utilities $198,784.00
414 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Brown County Rural Electric Association $67,763.00 Drainage Improvement / Infrastructure Federal Share Projects City of Biwabik $189,675.00 Red Lake County Highway Dept. $18,270.00 Two Rivers Watershed District $79,000.00 NOAA Transmitter Projects Federal Share St. Louis County $83,589.00 Minnesota Public Radio $52,500.00 Fire Prevention/Mitigation Projects Federal Share Department of Natural Resources - Forestry $108,750.00 Cook County $438,342.00 Cook County $281,242.00 Cook County $30,000.00 Lake County $53,064.00 FEMA DR-1283 Total Federal Share $2,722,641.00
FEMA DR-1225 1998 Severe Storms, Straight-line Winds, and Tornadoes Status: Projects are closed. Acquisition/Relocation Projects- Federal Share Number of Properties Mitigated Mower County - 1 $112,500.00 Marshall County - 3 $113,437.00 Electric Distribution Projects Federal Share Meeker Cooperative Light and Power $105,500.00 Association Square Butte Electric Cooperative $151,500.00 City of North Saint Paul $112,500.00 Freeborn-Mower Electric Cooperative $193,500.00 City of New Ulm (Public Utilities Commission) $615,000.00 Tri-County Electric Cooperative $268,875.00 BENCO Electric Cooperative $819,635.00 Itasca-Mantrap Cooperative Electrical $277,500.00 Association City of Blooming Prairie Public Utility $75,000.00 Lyon-Lincoln Electric Cooperative $333,750.00 Drainage Improvement / Infrastructure Federal Share Projects City of Hibbing $373,875.00 St. Louis County $265,050.00 NOAA Transmitter Projects Federal Share Itasca County $121,386.00
415 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning FEMA DR-1225 Total Federal Share $3,713,071.00
FEMA DR-1212 1998 Severe Storms and Tornadoes Status: Projects are closed. Electric Distribution Projects Federal Share North Itasca Electric Cooperative $385,200.00 BENCO Electric Cooperative $1,326,203.00 Drainage Improvement / Infrastructure Federal Share Projects City of Hibbing $629,256.00 Two Rivers Watershed District $47,400.00 Lake County $158,400.00 City of Keewatin $21,505.00 City of Virginia $102,000.00 City of Hill City $65,639.00 NOAA Transmitter Projects Federal Share Winona County $34,636.00 Murray County $178,424.00 FEMA DR-1212 Total Federal Share $4,448,663.00
FEMA DR-1187 1997 Severe Storms, High Winds, Tornadoes, and Flooding Status: Projects are closed. Acquisition/Relocation Projects- Federal Share Number of Properties Mitigated City of St. Anthony - 5 $700,000.00 City of St. Paul - 7 $569,775.00 Electric Distribution Projects Federal Share City of Waseca $202,500.00 City of Fairmont $142,500.00 City of Austin $156,750.00 NOAA Transmitter Projects Federal Share Aitkin County $69,361.00 FEMA DR-1187 Total Federal Share $1,840,886.00
416 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning FEMA DR-1175 1997 Severe Flooding, Severe Winter Storms, Snowmelt, High Winds, Rain, and Ice Status: Projects are closed. Acquisition/Relocation Projects- Federal Share Number of Properties Mitigated Wild Rice Watershed District - 15 $621,465.00 City of East Grand Forks - 385 $14,942,000.00 Marshall County - 20 $876,712.00 Goodhue County - 4 $289,650.00 City of Warren - 3 $184,500.00 Kittson County - 24 $366,225.00 City of Montevideo - 42 $1,227,450.00 City of Moorhead - 16 $1,312,275.00 City of Breckenridge - 43 $1,092,129.00 Brown County - 3 $116,250.00 Clay County - 16 $1,318,752.00 Kittson County - 4 $85,500.00 Polk County - 25 $1,311,116.00 Yellow Medicine County - 9 $342,450.00 Chippewa County - 13 $147,375.00 City of Dawson - 15 $607,650.00 City of Zumbrota - 8 $476,737.00 City of Cannon Falls - 7 $477,506.00 Drainage Improvement / Infrastructure Federal Share Projects City of Jordan $18,405.00 City of Ada $289,500.00 City of Breckenridge $20,000.00 City of Warren $80,475.00 Marshall County $34,447.00 City of Goodview $152,250.00 City of Breckenridge $800,000.00 Electric Distribution Projects Federal Share Beltrami Electric Cooperative, Inc. $337,500.00 North Itasca Electric Cooperative, Inc $190,600.00 Steele-Waseca Electric Cooperative $125,625.00 Freeborn-Mower Cooperative $225,000.00 Arrowhead Electric Cooperative, Inc $369,900.00 Meeker Cooperative Power and Light $217,500.00 Freeborn-Mower Cooperative $187,500.00 Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric $201,750.00 Association
417 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning PKM Electric Cooperative $108,300.00 South Central Electric Association $1,425,075.00 Crow Wing Cooperative Power and Light $376,621.00 Company Bagley Public Utilities $173,962.00 Cooperative Light and Power $52,922.00 City of St. Charles $337,500.00 Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative $24,100.00 Living Snow Fence Federal Share Yellow Medicine Soil and Water Conservation $47,004.00 District MN Department of Transportation - District 3B $348,487.00 Redwood Soil and Water Conservation District $9,101.00 Lac Qui Parle Soil and Water Conservation $64,113.00 District City of Franklin $15,538.00 Grant County Soil and Water Conservation $7,002.00 District City of Clinton $14,414.00 City of Warroad $3,040.00 Kandiyohi Soil and Water Conservation District $111,600.00 City of Marshall $9,000.00 Rock County $3,947.00 Stevens County Soil and Water Conservation $2,286.00 District Blue Earth River Basin Initiative (BERBI) $331,117.00 Lyon Soil and Water Conservation District $260,839.00 MN Dept. of Transportation - District 6A $126,750.00 MN Department of Transportation - District 1 $15,000.00 Scott Soil and Water Conservation District $62,775.00 West Polk Soil and Water Conservation District $38,750.00 Board of Water and Soil Resources $47,255.00 Wilkin Soil and Water Conservation District $251,100.00 MN Dept. of Transportation - District 7 $460,701.00 MN Dept. of Transportation - District 8 $481,325.00 Pipestone County SWCD $76,500.00 City of Stephen $29,154.00 City of Ada $1,104.00 NOAA Transmitter Projects Federal Share Brown County Rural Electric Association $75,000 Cass County $75,000.00 City of Dawson - 15 $56,250.00
418 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Other Federal Share Division of Emergency Management $70,375.00 FEMA DR-1175 Total Federal Share $34,639,201.00
FEMA DR-1151 1996 Ice Storm Status: Projects are closed. Electric Distribution Projects Federal Share Lyon - Lincoln Electric Cooperative $335,625.00 Marshall Municipal Utilities $51,192.00 Minnesota Valley Cooperative Light & Power $134,775.00 Association South Central Electric Association $97,500.00 Nobles Cooperative Electric $594,168.00 City of Adrian Public Utilities $118,500.00 Frost-BENCO-Wells Electric Cooperative (name $256,500.00 change to BENCO Electric) Federated Rural Electric Cooperative $49,485.00 Living Snow Fence Federal Share Board of Water and Soil Resources $21,000.00 Board of Water and Soil Resources $24,000.00 Community Forest Storm Damage Federal Share Reduction Department of Natural Resources/Division of $186,499.00 Forestry FEMA DR-1151 Total Federal Share $1,869,244.00
FEMA DR-1116 1996 Flooding and Severe Storms Status: Projects are closed. Acquisition/Relocation Projects- Federal Share Number of Properties Mitigated Kittson County - 12 $96,750.00 Electric Distribution Projects Federal Share Steele-Waseca Cooperative Electric $144,300.00 Aitkin Public Utilities Commission $56,250.00 MN Dept. of Transportation - Metro District $26,447.00 City of North Mankato $22,500.00 MN Dept. of Transportation - District 7 $110,681.00 MN Dept. of Transportation - District 6A $79,794.00 Drainage Improvement / Infrastructure Federal Share Projects City of Taylors Falls $173,542.00
419 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Kittson County $96,750.00 Wild Rice Watershed District Wild Rice $60,220.00 Watershed District Living Snow Fence/Community Shelter Federal Share Belt Projects MN Dept. of Transportation - District 6 $166,265.00 MN Dept. of Transportation - District 2 $251,672.00 FEMA DR-1116 Total Federal Share $1,285,171.00
FEMA DR-1078 1995 Severe Ice Storms Status: Projects are closed. Electric Distribution Projects Federal Share Traverse Electric Cooperative $277,497.00 Agralite Electric Cooperative $280,198.00 FEMA DR-1078 Total Federal Share $557,695.00
FEMA DR-1064 1994 Severe Storms, Straight Line Winds, and Tornadoes Status: Projects are closed. Electric Distribution Projects Federal Share Beltrami Electric Cooperative $73,725.00 North Itasca Electric Cooperative $59,942.00 Crow Wing Cooperative Power and Light $73,631.00 Clearwater-Polk Electric Cooperative $83,475.00 Red River Valley Cooperative Power Association $22,500.00 Clearwater-Polk Electric Cooperative (#2) $81,802.00 City of Detroit Lakes $56,277.00 Other Federal Share Clearwater County (Fire education in the $162,000.00 western blowdown area.) Department of Natural Resources/Division of $121,792.00 Parks (Trapping of Pine Bark beetles.) Board of Water and Soil Resources (living snow $38,447.00 fence research.) FEMA DR-1064 Total Federal Share $773,591.00
420 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning FEMA DR-993 1993 Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding Status: Projects are closed. Acquisition/Relocation Projects- Federal Share Number of Properties Mitigated City of Austin - 58 $2,064,375.00 City of Austin (#2) - 21 $900,000.00 Mower County - 15 $308,205.00 Chippewa County - 3 $97,755.00 Le Sueur County - 20 $967,275.00 City of Montevideo - 18 $312,375.00 City of Montevideo - 3 $28,200.00 City of Adrian- 1 $79,762.00 City of Moorhead - 8 $840,539.25 Mower County - 10 $308,000 Mower County (#2) - 8 $750,000.00 City of Rockford - 11 $484,781.00 Sibley County - 3 $276,375.00 City of Springfield - 14 $75,000.00 City of Waterville - 11 $389,120.00 City of Browns Valley - 24 $359,903.00 Wild Rice Watershed District - 4 $30,000.00 Drainage Improvement / Infrastructure Federal Share Projects City of Fergus Falls $300,000.00 City of Marshall $2,269,200.00 Renville County $1,275,000.00 Rock County $431,250.00 Electric Distribution Projects Federal Share Freeborn-Mower Electric Cooperative $157,500.00 Steele-Waseca Electric Cooperative $322,831 Other Federal Share Department of Natural Resources – Division of $640,238.00 Waters FEMA DR-993 Total Federal Share $13,667,684.00
FEMA DR-946 1992 Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding No projects funded by this declaration.
421 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning FEMA DR-929 1991 Ice Storm Status: Projects are closed. Electric Distribution Projects Federal Share Goodhue County Cooperative Electric $255,482.00 Association Freeborn-Mower Electric Cooperative $185,213.00 Other Federal Share Department of Natural Resources/Division of $22,000.00 Waters Board of Water and Soil Resources $75,000.00 FEMA DR-929 Total Federal Share $537,695.00
FEMA DR-824 1989 Flooding Status: Projects are closed. Acquisition/Relocation Projects- Federal Share Number of Properties Mitigated East Grand Forks - 7 Grant history not Drainage Improvement / Infrastructure available. Projects Breckenridge Warning System Norman County Total HMGP Federal Share = $83,867,061.00
422 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Evaluation of Existing Programs, Policies and Projects The section above exemplifies how well programs can work when utilized. As noted in previous sections, the MNRTF is an excellent group that is able to expedite prioritization of mitigation funding for projects. Continued coordination and integration of planning and hazard mitigation will continue to make the state of Minnesota more disaster resistant.
An evaluation of the prior federal and state programs indicates the successes of mitigation efforts. However, as mitigation is a relatively new field, much more can be done to integrate mitigation into existing planning efforts. The following is an assessment of existing programs, projects and policies that exist and should be pursued to further increase mitigation efforts and results. Contribution to and participation in existing initiatives and coordinated efforts will strengthen mitigation planning at the state and local level and will continue to integrate hazard mitigation planning at all levels.
Minnesota Regional Development Commissions Regional development commissions are multi-county planning and development districts that encourage cooperation between citizens, local government officials, and the private sector. These regional organizations are best equipped to help rural areas because they provide a critical mass of expertise needed at the local level.
Regions without development commissions are missing a great resource. There are currently 10 regional development commissions serving a majority of the states counties. Rural areas of the state without regional development commissions would greatly benefit from the (re)creation of these commissions to assist not only with all hazard mitigation plans, but all types of planning and development.
Local Planning Assistance Center The state government no longer funds Local Planning Assistance Center. It was a great resource available to communities for all aspects of planning. Future funding of this program would be a great asset to all communities in Minnesota. The website has been retained, and contains a wealth of information on all types of planning, including hazard mitigation planning. This center should be funded in the future to assist all communities in Minnesota will various planning functions.
423 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board develops policy, creates long-range plans and reviews proposed projects that significantly affects Minnesota’s environment. The Environmental Review Program writes the rules for conducting environmental reviews, provides guidance documents, and publishes projects and studies. The Water Program is charged with coordinating state water resource management activities. It is responsible for developing the state water plan, a state water-monitoring plan, biennial water policy and priorities reports, and biennial reports on trends in water quality and availability and research needs. http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/
The Round Table of the Environmental Quality Board has identified challenges to sustainable development in Minnesota. They have identified critical steps and strategies to improve the quality of life for long-term environmental, economic and community well-being.
State Water Plan The Minnesota State Water Plan, Minnesota Watermarks: Gauging the Flow of Progress 2000-2010 was begun in 2002 with goal a 10-year process toward unifying water management in Minnesota. It contains four statewide goals, nine objectives and 10 indicators to help measure results. As part of this process, teams were established to determine specific goals and objectives for Minnesota’s major water basins and to identify common concerns. The results of these team efforts are included in the report.
The statewide goals are to improve water quality, conserve the diverse characteristics of Minnesota’s waters, restore and maintain healthy aquatic ecosystems, and provide diverse recreational opportunities. Most of the statewide indicators integrate a variety of water-related measurements.
Sustainable Development Initiative is a collaboration of businesses, government and civic interests that aim to promote policies, institutions and actions that ensure Minnesota’s long-term environmental, economic and social well-being. Its goal is to find solutions that benefit people, business and the environment.
A guide entitled From Policy to Reality: Model Ordinances for Sustainable Development is available at http://www.gda.state.mn.us/pdf/2000/eqb/ModelOrdWhole.pdf This guide will be brought to the attention of jurisdictions within the state by mitigation staff that may find it useful.
424 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) The function of the LCCMR is to make funding recommendations to the legislature for natural resource projects primarily from the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund. These projects are to help protect and enhance Minnesota's natural resources. The development of a Statewide Conservation and Preservation Plan to chart a long-term course for Minnesota's natural heritage was approved in 2006.
This policy-making committee will be encouraged to make recommendations for funding for hazard mitigation related environmental projects. Staff from HSEM will contact the commission to educate them on the importance of integrating natural resources projects and hazard mitigation planning, especially in areas with projected growth.
Sustainable Development and Smart Growth are two relatively new planning tools will be encouraged to all local jurisdictions to be utilized in all community plans.
• Land Management Information Center (LMIC) Run through the MN Department of Administration, Office of Geographic and Demographic Analysis, LMIC is a resource for GIS data and analysis. LMIC offers consulting services for state agencies and will utilized to map and analyze data for a future iteration of the Plan. Minnesota government agencies, businesses, schools, nonprofits and citizens can use the Datanet software system reports, maps and analytical models to increase understanding of social, economic and environmental issues.
• In coordination with FEMA the Minnesota Statewide Elevation and Imagery Inventory (SEII) is a community effort designed to gather and share information about high-density elevation and digital aerial photography data in and around the state. In the future the data may be utilized if available to assist in the state and local hazard mitigation plans.
• The Clean Water Legacy Act (CWLA) was passed in 2006 State Legislature with the purpose of protecting, restoring, and preserving the quality of Minnesota's surface waters by providing authority, direction, and resources to achieve and maintain water quality standards for surface waters as required by section
425 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, United States Code, title 33, section 1313(d), and applicable federal regulations.
In fiscal year 2008-2009 the CWLA allocated $54 million to programs through which mitigation programs coordinate through the MNRTF, including DNR, BWSR, Public Finance Authority (PFA), Minnesota Pollution Control Authority (MPCA) and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA).
Through the MNRTF, the possibility to utilize funding from this program to integrate hazard mitigation planning and projects will be pursued by the state hazard mitigation planning team. Water is the primary resource (recreation, drinking water, etc.) and has a high potential threat (flooding) to the state of Minnesota.
Hazard Mitigation Planning Software Technology exists, specifically software that supports the Stafford Act requirements to assist communities to develop hazard mitigation plans, mapping, risk assessments, and estimating potential losses. The state will pursue the capabilities, ease of use and applicability of this type of software to integrate local plans into the state plan, and the possibility of local jurisdictions utilizing the software to create/update their plans for state and FEMA review for the 2011 state plan update.
The Association of Minnesota Counties is an excellent resource in Minnesota that is available to integrate existing comprehensive planning efforts, hazard mitigation plans, zoning, building codes, and ordinances.
Planning and Zoning tools are available for utilization by communities that choose to participate and pass ordinances and regulations based on communities needs. Types of ordinances that can incorporate mitigation include: • County Planning Act • Shoreland Management • Wild and Scenic Rivers • Floodplain Regulation • Local Water Planning • Individual Sewage Treatment Plans • Community Based Planning Act, 1997 • Feedlot Regulation
426 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning The state could improve upon how well this association is utilized in hazard mitigation and other planning. Communication with the association staff indicated that out of 62 counties with comprehensive plans, only 23 of them planned on revising them. It is also unclear how water plans, watershed plans and other land use plans are implemented once approved. An evaluation of the planning and zoning tools listed above will be investigated for inclusion in the 2011 plan.
Minnesota Governor’s Council on Geographic Information Pertinent active committees include:
Digital elevation: The committee works to promote the creation of statewide digital elevation data that is consistently accurate and available to the public. The committee formed on September 20, 2006, continuing the work of Minnesota's Digital Elevation Working Group, which has functioned for years on a mission to improve Minnesota's elevation data.
One project the committee is working on is LiDAR. LiDAR (LIght Detection And Ranging) remote sensing system used to collect topographic data. Data are collected with aircraft-mounted lasers capable of recording elevation measurements at a rate of 2,000 to 5,000 pulses per second and have a vertical precision of 15 centimeters (6 inches). After the baseline data set is created, follow-up flights can be used to detect changes.
LiDAR in Minnesota as of October 2007, • Data available for Ramsey, Scott, Carver, Goodhue, Pine, Stearns. Mahnomen, Norman, Blue Earth. Data for portions of Roseau, Becker, Clay, Polk, Kittson, Wilkin (Red River valley), and Jackson counties. • LiDAR is planned for Rice, McLeod, Crow Wing, and Chisago, and part of Morrison. • Counties interested in or have proposed LiDAR are Beltrami, Kittson, Roseau, Marshall, Pennington, Red Lake, Polk, Cass, Isanti, Wabasha, Winona, Clay, and Wilkin. • Portions of Clearwater, Beltrami, Becker, Otter Tail, Grant, Traverse, Big Stone
Emergency Preparedness: The Emergency Preparedness Committee (EPC) of the Minnesota Governor's Council on Geographic Information is Minnesota’s principal organization for
427 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning promoting, coordinating, and standardizing GIS use across all levels of the state's Emergency Management community. The chair of the committee is Director of HSEM.
Hydrography: promotes the consistent development of hydrography data and to enable data exchange through coordination, cooperation and standards development.
Land records modernization: researches statewide issues surrounding the automation and mapping of land record transactions.
The Director of HSEM is the Board Chair of the EPC. The group is in the beginning phase. Membership of HSEM mitigation staff will begin on these councils in order for incorporation of inclusion of these types of GIS data analysis into the 2011 version of this plan. As appropriate jurisdictions will be made aware of data and information available to them. A training plan for HSEM staff and other state employees for GIS and HAZUS-MH has been discussed with EPC.
StormReady Communities The program is run through the National Weather Service, participation is from NOAA, and other agencies. This type of effective local volunteer education program, like others including FireWise, and SkyWarn, will be encouraged by the state to be expanded and funded through the federal, state and local grants.
Counties that participate: Beltrami, Polk, Olmsted Communities that participate: Minnetonka, Byron, Dover, Eyota, Oronoco, Rochester, Stewartville
The state can improve upon community education, however staffing and resources are unfortunately scarce at this time. The state does participate and promote Winter Weather Awareness Week, Severe Weather Awareness Week and Preparedness month (September) with partner organizations. These programs are promoted at county fairs, but could use a lot more assistance in terms of staffing. The NWS purchased NOAA radios several years ago, however no program to disseminate and instruct users in communities is available. Code Ready is another program that does not have funding, no staff to promote the program, and as a result year-round community education is lacking in Minnesota.
428 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy Land Use Planning Monitoring and reducing the impacts of development on water resources is an important goal for the State of Minnesota. Collaboration between research institutions and public policy makers is an important link that exists in Minnesota and must continue to be strengthened to reduce the effects of development on the natural resources of the state.
The University of Minnesota’s Remote Sensing and Geospatial Analysis Laboratory provides a series of maps and statistics about land cover, impervious surface area and landscape change, derived from satellite imagery, in Minnesota from 1986 to the present. Their mission is to provide accurate and consistent information about land cover/use is critical for land managers and planners, policy makers, researchers and educators to make better informed decisions about land use in Minnesota.
Minnesota is one of the first states to have multiple dates of land cover and impervious surface, and change data, mapped statewide using satellite imagery. Other surveys have been performed by various means on smaller scales, but none have had the large area coverage as well as the historical depth of information. Quantifying the amount of impervious surface area, an important indicator of environmental quality, is particularly valuable because of its effects on stormwater runoff and lake and stream quality
In addition, the Water Resources Center at the U of M are working in collaboration with Remote Sensing and Geospatial Analysis researchers to create a new satellite based monitoring approach to estimate lake and stream water clarity and mapping aquatic vegetation at the city, state and regional scales. The collaboration aims to incorporate existing water quality databases and to transfer the technique to state agencies who steward water quality, including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the MN Department of Natural Resources. http://land.umn.edu/index.html
Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts There are 46 watershed districts in Minnesota. There are local units of government work to solve and prevent water-related problems. The boundaries of the districts follow those of a natural watershed, and the districts are usually named after that watershed. Because water does not follow political boundaries, it makes sense to manage natural resources on a watershed basis. This type of management allows for an overall, holistic approach to resource conservation. These districts
429 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy incorporate hazard mitigation into their watershed plans. Plans may include management practices regarding flooding and other water resource protection methods (quality and quantity, surface and ground water) along with other natural resource protection method. The state believes watershed districts are an underutilized resource for jurisdictions to work on a regional scale to understand ecosystems, and the connection of upstream actions and downstream effects.
Minnesota Geographic Data Clearinghouse contains links to state, regional, local and national mapping and GIS and other data. This resource may be utilized for additional mapping and analysis in future plans. This is one of many GIS resources that will be investigated for inclusion in the 2011 plan.
Minnesota River Basin Data Center is a center that focuses identifying and acquiring information and data necessary to facilitate natural resource decision making and education within the 37 counties of the Minnesota River Basin. With flooding as the number one hazard in Minnesota all existing water related data and resources should be utilized. As the clearinghouse described previously, this will also be investigated for inclusion in the 2011 plan.
Summary A local capability assessment will be completed on a county by county basis in future versions of this plan. Local jurisdictions are responsible for pursuing planning and mitigation activities, as all mitigation programs are voluntary. There are many resources available to the state and all jurisdictions located within its boundary. Funding for staff, staff time and technology are needed to utilize data that is identified as a need. All jurisdictions with a plan, or in the planning process have utilized federal, state and local plans, projects and policies to understand and document the mitigation planning process and its benefits-through projects. Continued communication and integration of existing resources and expanded use of available resources will continue with assistance from the federal government, state and other resources as mitigation planning comes into the forefront of emergency planning.
In addition, the growing population in Minnesota along rivers, lakes and forested areas must be done with potential hazards in mind. Utilization of the above resources will ensure Minnesota remains safe for its residents, as well as environmentally and economically sound. It is up to local jurisdictions to enforce existing regulations, and it is
430 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Six: Mitigation Strategy work with communities to develop and grow sustainably, and out of harms way, to the maximum extent possible.
431 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning SECTION SEVEN: COORDINATING LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING Local Plan Integration A greater picture of local mitigation measures-proposed and implemented via local mitigation actions-will come into view from the completion of statewide mitigation plans. The state hazard mitigation planner will continue to work closely with the development of these local plans and incorporate the findings into the state mitigation plan. The state has continually provided guidance and technical support to the local mitigation plans and has encouraged the sharing of information both between local planning projects and with the state.
Once local planning data and information is compiled and analyzed in a comprehensive manner the state will then be better prepared to select and plan mitigation projects more effectively. These separate actions contribute to the protection of the entire state and help meet the goals and objectives of the state’s plan. For example, multiple flood protection measures implemented on several tributaries within a watershed will provide greater geographical coverage, beyond local needs. This concept of regional risk reduction can be applied to all other hazards, such as fire and infectious disease outbreaks.
Of the 87 counties in Minnesota, 33 jurisdictions (27 counties, including two cities and three tribal governments) have FEMA approved plans. The remaining 54 (minus one county that has not begun the planning process) have started and are in various stages of developing multi-jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plans. These local all-hazard mitigation plans are consistent with and incorporate information from the state plan. Local hazard mitigation plans are encouraged to incorporate other local planning mechanisms, thus providing a unified mitigation strategy throughout all levels and aspects of government within Minnesota.
A spreadsheet listing all counties and what step in the process they are in is in Appendix 10, Planning Grant Status. The document states the grant source; PDM, HMGP, independent, or federal disaster declaration. The following data is a summary of grant funding from PDM and HMGP amounts, and what mitigation activity dollars were spend on.
The hazard mitigation software mentioned above will be investigated as to its use for incorporating community’s plans into the state plan.
432 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning HSEM staff created an Access database to be utilized to track all projects, however due to the past staffing shortage the database is out of date. An attempt will be made to update this database for the 2011 update. The database will include all pertinent information regarding disaster declaration, contacts, timelines for projects and plans, budgets, payments and closeout status in order to assist HSEM staff to query information as needed.
Local Capability Assessment The counties identified in the risk assessment were analyzed for existing capabilities, success and gaps. They were identified and analyzed because they had completed plans. In the risk assessment we highlighted the stronger communities in the state. Their capabilities would be hindered if they did not have approved county plans. Through the evaluation of the top counties in the risk assessment, and the Summary of Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program jurisdictions that have applied for and been successful in implementing hazard mitigation in their communities. These communities have capabilities and are working to make their communities more disaster resistant. The state works with communities to encourage them to complete all hazard mitigation plans, and makes them aware of mitigation grant funding opportunities. Based on the state policies, programs, and plans evaluation, local communities utilize the available information for guidelines, funding and planning. All federal, state and local planning and programs are completely voluntary.
Communities with All Hazard Mitigation Plans include: • Goodhue • Chippewa • Anoka • St. Louis • Redwood • Clay • Hubbard • Winona • Nicollet • Cook • Lac Qui Parle • Lake of the • Mower • Ramsey Woods • Murray • Carver • Mahnomen • Nobles • Swift • Waseca • Steele • Lake • City of St. Paul • Hennepin • Clearwater • City of Warren • Yellow • Todd • Mille Lacs Band Medicine • Beltrami of Ojibwe • Benton • Washington • Prairie Island • Big Stone • Norman • Upper Sioux
433 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning
Additional analysis of counties with All Hazard Mitigation Plans and successful implementation of either PDM or HMGP projects includes:
• Aitkin County • Kittson County • Brown County • Lake County • Cass County • Marshall County • Chippewa County • Mower County • Chippewa County • Polk County • Clay County • Roseau County • Clay County • Scott County • Cook County • St. Louis County • Goodhue County • Stearns County • Itasca County • Yellow Medicine County
The next section describes the application process for jurisdictions, the criteria, ranking and funding for the HMGP and PDM grant programs.
434 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Prioritizing Local Assistance The criteria and ranking for HMGP and PDM funding differ, whereas PDM is evaluated at the national level, HMGP funds are evaluated by the MNRTF and SHMO. Counties affected by disasters are eligible for many different types of grant funding. HMGP prioritizes jurisdictions in need as detailed in previous section. In Section Two: FEMA Grant Programs, the HMGP Administration Plan and Sub-grantee Handbook are summarized and give details as how they are the state and applicants utilize them in the planning process.
The August flooding in Southeast Minnesota, (DR-1717) HMGP funding has been made available to develop county hazard mitigation plans, technical assistance and management costs. An expedited process is underway to assist the counties without hazard mitigation plans to have FEMA approved plans in place in order to make additional funding available for mitigation projects as a result of the disaster. In addition, the State of Minnesota is capable of appropriating funds for disasters, as in the case of the Southeast Minnesota Flood Relief, I- 35W Bridge Collapse and additional funding for drought, other flooding and wildfires.
The excerpt below is from the Administrative Plan that guides state hazard mitigation planning staff in the HMGP. Not all sections have been included.
Overview and Purpose Per the authority of Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288 as amended, and the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Public Law 106-390 cost- sharing Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) was established to be used to fund state and local hazard mitigation projects. This section is closely tied to the post-disaster hazard mitigation plans defined and required in Section 409 of the Act and the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K). Sections 322 and 404 in combination with several other state and federal programs and activities help to form an overall pre-and-post disaster hazard mitigation strategy for the State of Minnesota and affected local governments in the state. The purpose (of the Administrative Plan) is to describe the organization, staffing, and procedures the State of Minnesota will use when implementing the Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program in both the post and pre-disaster mitigation environment.
435 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning State Responsibility for Administration of the Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) The Governor's Executive Order Assigning Emergency Responsibilities to State Agencies stipulates that the director of the Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM), who is also the state coordinating officer (SCO) "...shall designate one of the division's staff members as the state hazard mitigation officer (SHMO)." The Executive Order goes on to state that "The state HMO shall administer the (Public Law 93-288) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program…." Accordingly, in Minnesota, HSEM is responsible for administration of the Section 404 HMGP. The SHMO position in the Mitigation Section of HSEM will be assigned to administer this program, and with guidance from the Minnesota Recovers Task Force (MNRTF), determines criteria and project eligibility, cost-effectiveness, environmental soundness, and technically feasible. The projects must also be identified in the Minnesota All-Hazard Mitigation Plan and fundable under the Stafford Act.
Organization and Staffing Assignments A. Organization Chart- During Joint Field Office and During normal operations (not included) B. Staffing Assignments 1. Governor's Authorized Representative (GAR) / State Coordinating Officer (SCO) - the HSEM director. HSEM assistant directors serve as deputy GAR and SCO. 2. Financial Management Officer (FMO) - The Department of Public Safety accountant responsible for the HSEM accounting practices. 3. State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) – A HSEM staff member appointed by the HSEM director 4. State Hazard Mitigation Officer Assistants – Hazard Mitigation Specialists. 5. Hazard Mitigation Planners – Other members hired as needed for plan and project development. 6. Other state agency Minnesota Recovers Task Force (MNRTF) members and other state agency personnel. a. Other state agency MNRTF members: Other state agencies with expertise relevant to a particular disaster will provide personnel, as necessary, to serve on MNRTF. These agencies will normally include, but are not limited to the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Employee and Economic Development, Housing Finance Agency, State Historic Preservation Office, and the Pollution Control Agency. b. Other potential state agency personnel: In addition to the above, other state agencies that might be asked to provide
436 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning personnel could include, but are not limited to the following: Department of Health; Department of Children, Families, and Learning; Department of Administration; Department of Transportation; Department of Agriculture; and Department of Human Services.
Assignment of Responsibilities - By Position A. Governor's Authorized Representative / State Coordinating Officer - The GAR/SCO or his/her designee is the grant administrator for all funds provided under the HMGP, as well as funds authorized under other disaster programs. As such, he/she is the state official who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the state properly carries out Section 404, Section 409, and DMA2K responsibilities relevant to a particular presidential disaster declaration. In this regard, the GAR/SCO or designee will supervise/monitor the activities of the SHMO. The GAR/SCO’s major HMGP responsibilities include: 1. Ensuring that all potential applicants are aware of HMGP assistance available and submission of those documents necessary for a Sub-grant award. 2. Ensuring technical advice and assistance is made available to eligible sub-grantees. 3. Notifying FEMA in writing, within 60 days of the disaster declaration, of the state’s intention to participate in the HMGP. This task is usually included in the Governor’s letter to the President requesting disaster relief. B. Financial Management Officer (FMO) - The FMO is responsible for: 1. Managing the letter of credit (LOC), including performing disbursements and financial revisions, auditing final payments (as appropriate), and instituting requests to decrease and close out the HMGP portion of the LOC. 2. Processing, or supervising the processing, of HMGP checks to sub-grantees, recording disbursements, determining correct mailing addresses for checks, and entering disbursements into the state financial management system. 3. Developing, in cooperation with the SHMO, the state financial management procedures for implementing provisions of the Single Audit Act. 4. Reviewing for compliance sub-grantees’ single audits, and providing a copy to the SHMO. The SHMO will forward these reviews to FEMA.
437 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning 5. Maintaining records of administrative expenses and state management costs eligible for reimbursement, as provided for in FEMA regulations. 6. Submitting quarterly financial reports to FEMA. C. State Hazard Mitigation Officer - The SHMO is the person designated by the GAR to be responsible for the Section 404 program. This includes operation of the HMGP, as well as maintenance of this Administrative Plan and Procedures. The SHMO is also responsible for ensuring that a State Hazard Mitigation Plan meeting DMA2K requirements is developed, and updated, as required.
Specific responsibilities of the SHMO include the following: 1. Pre-Establishment of the JFO: a) Conferring with the federal HMO regarding: (1) Development of a Mitigation Strategy Report for the disaster. (2) The initial estimate of the total FEMA monies that will be available for the HMGP. (3) State staffing for the JFO. (4) Personnel who will be serving as state and federal staff, assistants, etc. (5) Potential applicants for HMGP sub-grants. b) Preparing HMGP materials for distribution at Applicant Briefings and/or other briefings. c) Participating (along with other state staff) in briefings for county emergency management directors. d) Preparing other HSEM personnel to assume their Section 404 responsibilities during the operation of the JFO. e) Revise/Update Administrative Plan. 2. During JFO operations: a) Disseminating HMGP information and materials at Applicant Briefing(s) and/or other briefings. (If separate briefings are conducted, their intended audience will be potential HMGP applicants.) b) Coordinating with the federal HMO, the state and federal Public Assistance (PA) Program and Human Services Program Officers, and with local government officials in identifying potential hazard mitigation projects. c) Preparing and submitting a SF424 request for funding to FEMA for the available amount of HMGP funding. d) Meet with MNRTF to activate review and application submittal process. e) Determine need for planning outreach to meet DMA2K planning requirements. 3. Post-JFO:
438 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning a) Coordinating the state review and evaluation of proposed hazard mitigation projects. b) Submitting to FEMA, for its review and evaluation, those proposed hazard mitigation projects that have been selected by the state for HMGP funding. c) Overseeing creation of a grant contract shell for use with HMGP recipients. d) Initiating the HMGP grant contract process with those applicants whose projects have been approved by both the state and FEMA for funding. e) Monitoring the status of projects and reporting to FEMA, as required. f) Processing time extension requests, appeals, and other project- related forms. g) Closing out completed projects and disasters. h) Ensuring that HMGP projects selected for funding are compatible with those referenced in the State Mitigation Plan. 4. MNRTF members (depending on level of activation) a) Providing information on agency concerns with disaster. b) Providing information on possible funding sources for projects. c) Participating in development of MRDTF procedures and policies for a particular disaster d) Reviewing applications if a joint application process is used.
D. Other Mitigation Staff 1. Work on project development and implementation. Duties are outlined in the staffing plan. 2. Work on state and local plan implementation, review and update. Duties are outlined in the staffing plan. 3. Other positions as needed for proper implementation of the HMGP.
Funding A. FEMA will make HMGP monies available to the State of Minnesota, in accordance with the following requirements from federal regulations: 1. The total federal assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program shall not exceed fifteen (15%) percent of the federal share of estimated aggregate amount of grants to be made (less any associated administrative costs) under the Stafford Act. 2. The federal funds provided will be based on the cost-sharing provisions established in the FEMA-State Agreement. FEMA may contribute up to 75 percent of the cost of measures approved for funding under the HMGP. The FEMA HMGP project funds will be
439 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning referred to as the "HSEM/HMGP Share". The non-FEMA share of projects may exceed the FEMA share. 3. HMGP funds may be "packaged" or used in combination with other federal, state, local, or private funding sources when appropriate to develop a comprehensive mitigation solution. However, HMGP funds cannot be used as a match for other federal funds. An exception to this general rule is Community Development Block Grant funds. Once these funds have been transferred to the state, they lose their federal identity and are considered state monies for the purposes of matching HMGP grants. B. The availability of state funding for HMGP projects will be determined at the time of a presidential disaster declaration. Such funding, if there is any, may come from either another state agency or through an allocation to HSEM from the state General Fund or both. If General Fund monies are made available to HSEM (and, in turn, the sub-grantee), they will be referred to as the "HSEM State Share". Lastly, if "HSEM State Share" monies are made available, the actual state/sub-grantee split of the non-FEMA share will be determined on a project-by-project basis.
Eligibility A. Applicants Applicant eligibility criteria will be in accord with federal statutes and regulations. Specifically, potentially eligible applicants will include: state agencies, local governments, private non-profit organizations (or institutions that own or operate a private non-profit facility as defined in 44 CFR 206.2211,e), and Indian tribes. Any questions regarding the eligibility of an applicant will be resolved by the SHMO, or, if necessary, by the GAR or his/her designee. B. Planning Up to 7% of the HMGP funds may be used for planning for the State All Hazard Mitigation Plan or local, multi-jurisdictional mitigation plans. C. Projects 1. Types of projects - Projects may be of any nature that will result in protection to public or private property. Specific types of eligible projects include, but are not limited to: a) Structural hazard control or protection projects; b) Construction activities that will result in protection from hazards; c) Retrofitting of facilities, including burying or rebuilding of power lines; d) Acquisition, elevation, or relocation of floodplain properties; and e) Development of comprehensive hazard mitigation programs with implementation as an essential component.
440 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning 2. Non-Duplication of Programs – HMGP funds cannot be used as a substitute or replacement to fund projects or programs that are available under other federal authorities, except under limited circumstances in which there are extraordinary threat to life, public health, safety or improved property. Other federal program authorities that should be looked into before requesting use of HMGP monies are, for example: Section 406 of the Stafford Act, Federal Insurance Administration Programs, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Small Business Administration, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 3. Project Criteria a) FEMA Minimum Project Criteria (1) Be in conformance with the State Hazard Mitigation Plan developed as a requirement of Section 409 of the Stafford Act and Section 322 of DMA2K. (2) Have a beneficial impact upon the designated disaster area. Projects do not have to be located in the designated disaster area, funding is made available statewide. (3) Be in conformance with 44 CFR Part 9, Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands, and 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Considerations. (4) Solve a problem independently or constitute a functional portion of a solution where there is assurance that the project as a whole will be completed. Projects that merely identify or analyze hazards or problems are not eligible. (5) Be cost-effective and substantially reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, loss, or suffering resulting from a major disaster. The sub-grantee must demonstrate this by documenting that the project: (a) Addresses a problem that has been repetitive or a problem that poses a significant risk if left unsolved. (b) Will not cost more than the anticipated value of the reduction in both direct damages and subsequent negative impacts to the area if future disasters were to occur. Both costs and benefits will be computed on a net present value basis. (c) Has been determined to be the most practical, effective, and environmentally sound alternative after consideration of a range of options. (d) Contributes, to the extent practicable, to a long-term solution to the problem it is intended to address. (e) Considers long-term changes to the areas and entities it protects and has manageable future maintenance and modification requirements.
441 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning b) Environmental Considerations: Projects funded under the HMGP must comply with all appropriate environmental requirements. These include the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), P.L. 91-190, as amended; Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations, and Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. (Minnesota is a NEPA - compliant state.). The SHMO will ensure that all required environmental review is performed. The extent of such review will depend upon (1) the nature of a project, (2) the environmental contractor assistance, if any, made available by FEMA or funded by the state, and/or (3) the environmental requirements imposed by other agencies participating in a project (if any). Approval to initiate a project will not be granted, nor will any HMGP monies be expended prior to the completion and satisfactory outcome of a required environmental review.
Pre-Identification and Notification of Potential Applicants A. Pre-Identification 1. Information acquired during the Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA) process may be used if completed by Mitigation in identifying potential projects. In the event of an expedited presidential declaration request, mitigation may not be included in the PDA. 2. The SHMO will review the existing State Mitigation Plan for identification of potential statewide projects for HMGP funding. 3. Following a presidential disaster declaration but prior to the establishment of a JFO, the SHMO will confer with the federal HMO on a number of issues. Among these will be early indications of potential HMGP applicants. 4. The Public Assistance Project Worksheet teams may also discover potential hazard mitigation projects. 5. Projects that include the acquisition of properties that have repetitive flood-insurance claims will be of high priority. B. Notification 1. Shortly following submission of the Governor's request for a presidential declaration, the state PA Program Officer and the SHMO will jointly meet with the affected county emergency management directors to briefly review both the PA Program and the HMGP if possible. In the event of an expedited presidential declaration, the SHMO will schedule meetings with each individual county emergency management director when it is deemed an appropriate time by both the SHMO and the county. 2. Indication of interest forms for the HMGP will be distributed to potential applicants at the Applicant Briefing(s) and individual meetings the SHMO schedules. The SHMO and the federal HMO will
442 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning coordinate as to the nature of the HMGP information and presentation to be offered at the briefing(s) and individual meetings the SHMO schedules. 3. At the discretion of the SHMO and federal HMO, press release(s) describing the program may be developed and issued. Such press release(s) would include a point of contact for obtaining additional program information. The release could also include an announcement of HMGP briefings or meetings to be held in the area, should the SHMO and federal HMO decide to hold such briefings. 4. At the discretion of the SHMO and federal HMO, mitigation information describing the program may be disseminated to communities and the public through Disaster Recovery Centers (DRC’s) and/or public meetings held by local officials of the disaster- impacted area. 5. Shortly after the presidential declaration of disaster, the SHMO and federal HMO will determine if a separate HMGP briefing (in addition to that given at the Applicant Briefing) would be beneficial, and if so, could be scheduled. Depending on the scope of a disaster, the Minnesota Recovers Task Force (MNRTF) may hold a consolidated, multi-agency applicant briefing. Such briefing(s) would include the following: a) General program overview b) Eligibility c) Application process d) Technical assistance
Application Process A. The SHMO is responsible for ensuring that HMGP application forms and other informational documents are made available to potential applicants. Depending on the magnitude of a disaster and the number of agencies participating in the recovery/mitigation process, a HMGP preliminary application form may be utilized and/or a multi-agency, multi-program application form may be developed. (Refer to Attachment B for a sample HMGP Preliminary Application Form and a sample Application Form.) Such forms may be disseminated at the Applicant's Briefing(s), and/or at a special HMGP briefing, if such a briefing is held. B. In Minnesota, applicants for HMGP funds will be required to submit a completed application form (or preliminary application form) within a time frame established by the SHMO. If an applicant is unable to submit a fully completed application form within the required time period, it will need to notify the SHMO. The deadline to submit applications to FEMA is 12 months from the date of declaration with a
443 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning possibility for two-three month time extensions totaling up to an additional six months. C. The SHMO will make an initial review of all application forms to determine if the minimum required project information and eligibility criteria have been met. If they have not, the applicant(s) will be notified of the need to provide additional information. D. HSEM may request state management costs from FEMA to fund one or more staff positions. The principal responsibility of the positions would be to facilitate the timely development and submission of project applications.
Project Review, Ranking, and Selection A. Review 1. Once an application (or preliminary application) is received by HSEM, it is brought to the attention of the MRDTF (assuming it is activated). At this time, a consensus is obtained as to which agency represented on the MRDTF, if any, can/should fund the project. 2. For projects being considered for HMGP funding, the SHMO will perform an initial review of submitted application forms and determine if: a) All questions on the form have been adequately addressed. b) FEMA's minimum project criteria and any additional state criteria have been met. c) All relevant information about the project has been provided. 3. If more project information is needed, the SHMO will obtain it in one or both of the following ways: a) By requesting the appropriate staff person to ask local officials for it, or b) By contacting applicants directly and asking for the additional project information. 4. HSEM staff will perform a benefit-cost analysis for the project. 5. When necessary, HSEM staff will request that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to perform a review for historical concerns. 6. HSEM staff will work with the DNR and FEMA to ensure that the community in which a project is located is compliant with NFIP. 7. HSEM/FEMA staff will determine the level of environmental review necessary. When needed and as required, the SHMO will request the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) or FEMA to conduct an environmental and floodplain management review relative to specific proposed hazard mitigation projects. 8. When necessary, HSEM staff will initiate consultation with both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN DOT) for project review and
444 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning concurrence of no future agency projects are scheduled in the project action area. B. Ranking Review of the application forms by the SHMO may reveal that several eligible projects are competing for insufficient hazard mitigation funding. Should this be the case, Projects will be prioritized in accord with FEMA and state criteria. These criteria are as follows: 1. Measures that best fit within an overall plan for development and/or hazard mitigation in the community, disaster area, or state. 2. Measures that, if not taken, will have a severe detrimental impact on the applicant such as potential loss of life, loss of essential services, damage to critical facilities, or economic hardship on the community. 3. Measures that have the greatest potential impact on reducing future disaster losses. 4. Measures that are designed to accomplish multiple objectives, including damage reduction, environmental enhancement, and economic recovery. 5. Measures that are in accordance with any overall hazard mitigation project priorities established by the State Mitigation Plan. 6. Additional state criteria that may be considered a) Geographic distribution of projects b) Projected cost of proposed project c) Relative cost-effectiveness of projects d) Conformity of project with existing local hazard mitigation plans and land use/building regulations in the communities. Sub-grantees who do not have a plan will be required to develop an all-hazard mitigation plan. e) Applicant's level of interest and demonstrated degree of commitment to hazard mitigation actions and programs. C. Selection 1. Following the review, and if necessary, prioritization of potential hazard mitigation projects, the SHMO will decide: a) Which projects should be selected, b) The level of funding for each project selected, and c) The order in which projects should be funded (i.e., a ranking of the projects by priority). 2. The SHMO will notify all applicants of the decision made by the state relative to their proposed projects. For those projects that have been selected, the SHMO will determine if the applicant still intends to carry out the project, and if it would carry out the project with the level of state funding tentatively approved. 3. Following notification of the applicants of the (state) action taken on their application, the SHMO will submit the state's HMGP
445 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning applications to the FEMA Region V HMO. All submissions will be made within the time-frame of 12 months, as established by FEMA. The application materials that the SHMO will forward to FEMA include the following: a) Name of the sub-grantee b) State or local contact for the project c) Written location of the project including geo-coding of structures and map. d) Description of the project e) Cost estimate and budget and letter of funds commitment for the project f) Analysis of the project's cost-effectiveness and substantial risk reduction consistent with Section 206.434 (b) of Federal 404 Regulations g) Work schedule h) Justification for selection i) Alternatives considered j) Environmental information consistent with 44 CFR Part 9, Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands, and 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Considerations k) Historical importance information
Additional information on project initiation, project management and administration, appeals, technical assistance, project completion and close out are included in the Administrative Plan.
Local Funding and Technical Assistance Funding for local hazard mitigation programs and technical assistance is available through federal, state, government and other agencies, as listed in this Plan. The PDM and HMGP are two of many grant programs available to assist locals.
Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) PDM grant funding provides funds to states, territories, Indian Tribal governments, and communities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. Funding these plans and projects reduces overall risks to the population and structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual disaster declarations. The PDM is a competitive grant program that is ranked via a national ranking process.
Project grants are available for: • Voluntary acquisition of real property (i.e. structures and land, where necessary) for open space conversion;
446 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning • Relocation of public or private structures; • Elevation of existing public or private structures to avoid flooding; • Structural and non-structural retrofitting (e.g., storm shutters, hurricane clips, bracing systems) of existing public or private structures to meet/exceed applicable building codes; • Construction of safe rooms (tornado and severe wind shelters) for public and private structures that meet requirements in FEMA 320 and FEMA 361; • Hydrologic and Hydraulic studies/analyses, engineering studies and drainage studies for the purpose of project design and feasibility determination directly related to the proposed project; • Vegetation management for natural dune restoration, wildfire, or snow avalanche; • Protective measures for utilities (e.g. electricity, gas); water and sanitary sewer systems and/or infrastructure (e.g. roads and bridges); • Storm water management projects (e.g., culverts, retention basins) to reduce or eliminate long-term risk from flood hazards; and, • Localized flood control projects (certain ring levees, bank stabilization, floodwall systems) that are designed specifically to protect critical facilities and that do not constitute a section of a larger flood control system.
Planning grants are available for: • New Plan development • Plan upgrades • Comprehensive Plan Revisions
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Criteria and Ranking Summary Under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 it is the responsibility of the state to identify and select hazard mitigation projects to be recommended to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final approval and funding of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
In addition to mitigation projects, mitigation planning grants are also available for: • New Plan development • Plan amendments and updates • Comprehensive Plan Revision
447 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Applications for planning grants are typically always approved for funding, as the 7% from federal disaster funding has exceeded the need. In the future this may not be the case, as each jurisdiction will be required to update their plans, every five years. The potential funding shortfall will be addressed at that time.
The hierarchy of mitigation actions approved by the state are accepted and prioritized based on a ranking and scoring of mitigation project applications.
Before an applicant will be considered for HMGP funding, it must meet minimum criteria set by FEMA and the State. This criterion includes:
1. The proposed project must conform to the goals of the State All Hazard Mitigation Program.
2. The proposed project must not encourage development in Special Flood Hazard Areas.
3. Communities that have mapped flood hazard areas must participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and be in good standing.
4. The proposed project must be in conformance with the community’s comprehensive land use plan, hazard mitigation plan, or capital improvements program where such plans and programs exist.
The MNRTF reviews HMGP applications and ensures that the proposed projects are eligible, meet the minimum above criteria, and rank the applications. A list of recommended projects, based on ranking and funding availability, is submitted to HSEM Hazard Mitigation Officer for approval. Some projects may be referred to other agencies for appropriate funding. In addition, the MNRTF “packages” funding projects where possible to maximize the funding that is available. Those proposed projects with the highest priority and based on funding availability are invited to complete the formal application for HMGP funding.
Proposed projects are evaluated based on Project Type, Site Vulnerability, Project Benefits, and other considerations. Non- Structural projects will receive top priority for funding and include projects that involve acquisition, relocation, and floodproofing. All projects of this type receive the highest ranking and the greatest consideration for funding.
448 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Review of 2005 Recommendations The 2005 recommendations were derived from the previous versions of the Minnesota Hazard Mitigation Plan, responses to a statewide survey of emergency management and response organizations, and recommendations expressed during a series of public meetings and workshops.
The 2008 revision contains an analysis of the 2005 recommendations by providing a progress report then comparing them to the 2008 Mitigation Strategy found in Section Six. The 2008 Action line describes which Mitigation Objective, Strategy, or Action the 2005 recommendation aligns with by referring to the strategy or action. In some cases actions were added to the 2008 Strategy from the 2005 recommendations. In many cases there is a recommendation not to carry the 2005 recommendation forward. The reasons for not carrying the 2005 recommendations forward are that the recommendation was completed or the recommendation is being implemented by a program that is related to the preparedness or response areas.
Equipment Recommendations 1. Encourage local jurisdictions to establish and maintain a warning system capable of alerting residents in a timely manner. Progress The main focus is use of NOAA Weather Radios and the Report Emergency Alert System (EAS). Communities are using sirens primarily as outdoor warning and realize that sirens may not be heard in buildings that are well insulated. Some communities are using or are evaluating reverse 911 to varying degrees. 2008 Action Refer to Action 4.2.3.1.
2. Work to improve capability to warn people with handicaps, particularly those with hearing or visual impairments. Progress A consortium of state agencies (HSEM, MDH, DHS, Report Board of Aging) are working on behalf of special populations in regards to emergency planning. This consortium is meeting with Regional Planning Committees to plan and implement warning devices for the hearing or visual impaired into local and county Emergency Operations Plans (EOPs). 2008 Action Refer to Action 4.2.3.2.
3. Continue to pursue the state and/or federal funding necessary to upgrade the NOAA Weather Radio System in the state of Minnesota.
449 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Promote the expansion of the NOAA Weather Radio system through meetings with HSEM Regional Program Coordinators, coordination with the NWS, and various organizations with an interest in expanding warning system coordination areas in the state. Progress Transmitters installed in Minnesota and neighboring Report states have increased EAS transmission capability so that virtually all (greater than 99%) of Minnesota is capable of receiving an EAS transmission. (The less than 1% is due to area where radio transmission is not feasible due to geography). Also, a 2007 grant from the NWS placed a NOAA Weather Radio in all public schools in Minnesota. A similar grant is expected in 2008 to place the radios in private schools. NWS is also partnering with local stores and media to offer weather radios at discounted prices. 2008 Action Refer to Action 4.2.3.1.
4. Continue to participate in the Minnesota Emergency Alert System (EAS) committee that is involved in the development of communication links, procedures, testing, and the exercise of the system. Assist local jurisdictions in developing area plans for EAS. Continue to maintain the Minnesota Department of Health’s (MDH) Health Alert Network (HAN) that allows state and local public health agencies to issue alerts to clinics, hospitals, laboratories, veterinarians, emergency management, law enforcement, and elected officials. With the assistance of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, add after hours capability to the network. Progress There are two areas of concern with this Report recommendation. The first is participating with the EAS committee. HSEM and other state agencies participate in a working group with the National Weather Service (NWS) and local broadcasters for coordinating equipment, testing and associated activities. These activities are covered in a Letter of Agreement with the NWS and a Letter of Concurrence with WCCO Radio and Television. This is an ongoing relationship to make EAS viable. The second concern is about HAN which is now a 24 hour, web based system available throughout the state by MDH. HAN capabilities are now such that stakeholders may now be notified by phone and pager. 2008 Action Covered in Strategy 4.2.3.
450 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning 5. Upgrade communications systems, including web-based interagency communication systems that could be linked with police, fire, emergency medical response, hospitals, health agencies, etc. in order to more readily share information. Progress Disaster LAN (D-LAN) is incident critical software that Report is being implemented to coordinate response between local and state agencies and the private sector. Federal agencies may be given upon approval by the State Incident Manager. D-LAN has been used to coordinate between state and local agencies during natural disasters and the I-35W bridge collapse. The base core is in place with a JIC module being implemented in 2008. GIS capabilities are available for the metro area and are being planned for out-state. 2008 Action Refer to Action 4.2.3.3.
6. Ensure that there are duplicative or redundant means of communication during emergencies. Reliance on one form of communication is ineffective. Progress The Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan states the Report redundant communication for the State Emergency Operations Center. The Local Emergency Operation Plan Crosswalk: The MNWalk has a similar item for local emergency plans. 2008 Action Recommend to remove since it is covered in other recommendations.
7. Develop a Geographic Information System (GIS) based system to provide emergency responders with building plans. These plans should be linked to photos of rooms and routes that provide access to the utility shut-offs, particularly for structures, public or private, that are potential terrorist targets or contain hazardous materials. Building plans could be available to emergency responders on-site through internet links or laptop computer and compact disc. Progress The State Homeland Strategy (SHS) guides but does Report not prescribe the use of mapping tools and building plans to aid in a response. The Emergency Planning and Right to Know Act (EPCRA) program gives information to local responders about hazardous materials in facilities. Local government is using GIS more in its planning and the emergency response organizations use this GIS information per local plans and procedures.
451 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning 2008 Action Recommend to remove since this is not a mitigation issue.
8. Continually upgrade the quality and quantity of equipment for the local emergency response community, including communications devices public health agencies use for receiving and issuing health alerts. Progress The State Homeland Strategy (SHS) is guiding the Report upgrade and use of new technology in equipment purchases. Modernization and increased monitoring and identification equipment is being purchased. The Minnesota Department of Health is procuring radio equipment compatible with the interoperable Allied Radio Matrix for Emergency Response (ARMER) system. 2008 Action Refer to Action 4.2.3.2.
9. Develop statewide support for advanced, specialized equipment for technical response groups, such as bomb squads, hazardous materials (HAZMAT) teams, search and rescue teams, radiological support teams, and law enforcement tactical teams. Progress Overall capability for the response groups have Report increased. Collapsed structure teams have been added to the state response. Local tactical teams have increased incident response capabilities. 2008 Action Recommend to remove since this is not a mitigation issue.
10. Purchase a helicopter capable of transporting equipment and response teams in an efficient manner to areas of need. Progress The State Patrol purchased a helicopter in 2006. Report 2008 Action Recommend to close since this action is complete through State Homeland Security funding.
452 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning
Response Planning Recommendations 1. Integrate the following into the State emergency planning process: a. Long term commitment for sustaining programs. b. Commitment to share information within and between agencies and organizations. c. Greater state support for local planning and zoning to guide future community development. d. Integrate community development and emergency management with public health and other partners. e. Commitment to maintain a single point of contact for emergency support requests. f. Arrangements or requirements to for cell phone providers to provide priority to the emergency response community during disaster situations. This may require legislation if it is not done on a voluntary basis. Progress This recommendation is response based and also has Report aspects covered in other recommendations. 2008 Action a. Recommend to close based on the progress report and redundancy with other recommendations.
2. Develop a statewide communications system for emergency responders. Progress The State Radio Board is implementing the 800 Report megahertz Allied Radio Matrix for Emergency Response (ARMER) system state wide. The ARMER system is already being used in the metro area, some out-state areas, and by state agencies. 2008 Action Refer to Action 4.2.3.3.
3. Encourage county and local level planners to include a master list of resource agencies in their Emergency Operations Plans (EOPs). Include this master list at the state level as well. Progress The Resource Management section (Annex N) of the Report Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan list agencies with services and equipment that may be supplied by those agencies. The Local Emergency Operations Plan Crosswalk (MNWALK) includes several planning requirements in regards to resources. 2008 Action Recommend to remove since coordination may be done through D LAN critical response software.
4. Regularly remind, through training and guidance materials, state
453 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning and local governments to document disaster-related damages and expenses, as they occur. By maintaining this historical information, local government should: (1) improve the accuracy of a benefit/cost analysis associated with HMGP and Public Assistance Program mitigation projects; and (2) be better able to develop a comprehensive local hazard analysis. Progress New directors Workshop and Debris Management are Report courses that that are part of the curriculum for state emergency managers that cover documents disaster damages and expenses. Presentations at the annual Governor’s Conference on Emergency Management also give reminders about documentation. Reminders and guidance materials are also distributed when EOC’s are activated. 2008 Action Refer to Action 2.1.2.1.
5. Identify those jurisdictions that lack an adequate all-hazard EOP. Encourage such jurisdictions to "upgrade" or "update" their EOP in accordance with the four-year planning/exercising schedule described in the HSEM Local Emergency Operations Planning Policy. In conjunction with this, maintain a dedicated full time staff person for response plan exercises. Encourage all county public health agencies— and pertinent county agencies—to annually review, and update as needed the health annex to the county’s EOP. Progress Regional Program Review Committees ensures that an Report up to date county EOP is in place if a local plan is not. The Homeland Security Emergency Exercise Program (HSEEP) mandates that county and local government participate in the program as a stipulation to receive any grants from the Department of Homeland Security. This stipulation is in essence addressing the dedicated staff person for response plan exercises. The MNWALK integrates all agencies into the local EOP. 2008 Action Recommend to remove since this is not a mitigation issue.
6. Encourage communities without notification and warning annexes / standard operating procedures (SOPs) to develop such documents. Furthermore, work with communities to ensure that existing notification and warning annexes/SOPs be kept current.
Progress County plans and procedures are responsible for Report notification and warning if local plans do not. The case
454 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning where local plans do not have notification and warning has to do with small communities in the out-state area that depend on the county for these functions. 2008 Action This recommendation should be closed since it is related to communication and warning.
7. Develop an inter-agency plan to deal with household animals (pet) issues during a disaster. Progress Federal guidance regarding evacuation and shelter of Report household pets will be applied in future revisions of the Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan (MEOP). 2008 Action Recommend to remove since this is not a mitigation issue.
8. Maintain a single point of contact for emergency support requests. Progress The Minnesota State Duty Officer is the single point of Report contact to request emergency support if the State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC) is not already responding to an incident. If the SEOC is operational, all requests are directed to the Operations Chief for approval. 2008 Action Recommend to remove since this is not a mitigation issue.
9. Use an inter-agency task force to develop plans for the public health community to be an integral part of the response team for a biological or chemical incident, regardless of whether it results from a natural or terrorist event. Progress An inter-agency task force has developed approved Report and preliminary plans on how the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) will assist local and other state responders to any health crisis. 2008 Action Recommend to remove since this is not a mitigation issue.
10. Develop a checklist of “no cost or low cost” preparedness and mitigation activities that can be implemented at county or local level to reduce risks. Progress Guidelines are given during workshops and training. Report 2008 Action Refer to action 2.1.2.1.
11. Improve coordination between emergency management and
455 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning emergency response agencies and organization. Progress HSEM supports open communication between state Report and local agencies in a variety of ways. Regional Review Committees (RRC) review local emergency response plans. HSEM Regional Program Coordinators (RPCs) not only coordinate with the RRCs but are liaisons for other types of planning and response. The Emergency Planning and Response Committee (EPRC) is hosted by HSEM to not only ensure that emergency planning coordinated between state agencies but to ensure planning is coordinated with local jurisdictions. HSEM participates on various state association boards related to emergency response and emergency management. HSEM representatives are also on boards such as the league of Minnesota Cities and the Association of Minnesota Counties. This overall structure is intended to keep communication open between HSEM. Disaster LAN critical incident software is currently being used to coordinate state and local response during disasters. 2008 Action Recommend to remove since this is not a mitigation issue.
12. Develop strong partnerships between the public and the private sector through the former Project Impact program that could also improve emergency response programs. Progress Ongoing Report 2008 Action Refer to Action 3.3.1.3.
13. Develop state agency plans for continuity of their own operations if facilities are impacted. Progress State agencies are required to develop a Continuity of Report Operations Plan with the Office of Technical Support Services as the lead agency. 2008 Action This recommendation should be closed since a state program is in place.
14. Develop boilerplate strategies to coordinate efforts among communities to share resources. Progress Local response agencies have been developing Letters Report of Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding as legal documentation of how to coordinate resources
456 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning from outside their jurisdiction or use resources from private owners or companies. 2008 Action This recommendation should be closed since LOAs and MOUs are recognized legal documents.
Mitigation Planning Recommendations 1. Require applicants for state or federal monies such as HMGP, Pre- Disaster Mitigation (PDM), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), Flood Damage Reduction (FDR), or state-administered Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), for projects in which hazard mitigation as a principal objective, to have and maintain a hazard mitigation plan. If such a plan does not exist at the time at which a grant is awarded, require the applicant to develop it within one year of the awarding of the grant. Such projects should have to (a) meet the normal requirements associated with the (funding) programs, and (b) be approved by the agency that administers the program. Progress As needed. Report 2008 Action Refer to Action 2.2.1.3.
2. Develop one or more prototype hazard mitigation plan(s). The prototype(s) should contain a minimal number of required content items, as well as other suggested (i.e., optional) items. Progress “Careful County” was a prototype plan developed by Report Minnesota Planning. Criteria evolved and that template was not revised. 2008 Action Refer to Action 2.3.1.3.
3. Investigate the feasibility of establishing incentives (e.g., tax credits, etc.) to encourage local business and industry to develop and maintain hazard mitigation plans. Progress No action has been taken. Report 2008 Action Refer to Action 4.4.1.4.
4. Encourage state support for local planning and zoning to guide future community development. Progress Ongoing. Report 2008 Action Refer to Action 2.3.2.1.
457 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Public Awareness 1. Increase, through various education and awareness efforts, the promotion of the concept of personal responsibility for hazard mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Progress The Code Ready program is a mass media effort to Report inform the public to become aware of and participate in personal preparedness. 2008 Action Refer to the Actions in Objective 4.3.
2. Encourage, through training and guidance materials, local emergency managers to include business and industry in severe weather awareness campaigns and other educational activities in order to expose local business and industry to the same important information as individuals and families regarding hazard mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Progress Various awareness week long campaigns are Report conducted in the state every year. 2008 Action Refer to Actions in Objective 4.2
3. Improve the education of elected officials at state and local levels to understand the significance of the programs and benefits that are derived. Progress HSEM has been informing officials of the importance of Report the available programs. More elected officials have been attending events like the Governor’s HSEM Conference, the Association of Minnesota Emergency Managers Conference and participating in emergency management courses and continued education. 2008 Action Refer to Action 4.6.2.4.
4. Prepare informational materials covering a broad range of topics (e.g., "Before You Buy, Own, or Build In a Floodplain..."). Progress HSEM uses FEMA brochures and distributes during Report workshops and outreach activities. 2008 Action Refer to Action 1.1.2.2.
5. Continue to emphasize to local emergency managers, through training and guidance materials, the importance of developing and maintaining partnerships with local business and industry (e.g., encourage the formation of emergency management planning groups such as Community Awareness Emergency Response groups). Progress Ongoing. Report
458 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning 2008 Action Recommend not carrying this recommendation forward since this project if being carried out by other HSEM programs.
6. Encourage, through training and guidance materials, local emergency managers to utilize the resources of universities, business and industry to enhance state and local governments' delivery of hazard mitigation education. Progress Ongoing. Report 2008 Action Refer to Action 2.1.2.1.
7. Encourage statewide partners to work together to utilize the annual state tornado and severe summer weather awareness campaigns as a forum to disseminate specific safety information. Progress In progress. Report 2008 Action Refer to Objective 4.2.
8. Develop a "hazard mitigation fact sheet" in order to increase awareness of hazard mitigation amongst local governments and other potential applicants for state-administered CDBG monies. Make this information available to all applicants (for state-administered CDBG monies), grantees, and interested parties. Progress CDBG is part of the MN Recovers Task Force and is a Report possible funding source for the non-federal share. 2008 Action Refer to Actions 2.1.2.1 and 2.2.1.3.
Training 1. Encourage FEMA to (1) update the current emergency management training curriculum to address hazard mitigation in a more comprehensive manner; and (2) give priority time to hazard mitigation in the context of (most) required courses.
FEMA should develop a course dealing specifically with substantial damage determinations. This course should emphasis how to determine actual damages and related repair costs for individual structural elements of a damaged structure. This course would supplement FEMA’s “Substantial Damage Estimator Program.” This course would train people on how to determine the percentage of structural damage by major building components that are critical for using FEMA’s “Substantial Damage Estimator Program.” Progress FEMA has developed more courses to support hazard
459 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Report mitigation programs. A course for using the Substantial Damage Estimator Program could not be found. 2008 Action Action 2.2.2.2.
2. Develop the ability to maintain and keep current the records and paperwork to demonstrate that responder training has been completed and is maintained Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) certification. Progress HSEM developed the Training Registration and Tracking Report (TRT) Program is a web based data base. The database is an electronic record of training for FEMA emergency management courses and Grants and Training first responder WMD courses. Agencies are required to keep records for their employees that need to be OSHA certified for hazardous material handling or response. 2008 Action Consider to remove since this is not a mitigation issue.
3. Develop funding strategies to provide sufficient funds to enable emergency responders to attend training classes. Progress Funding is identified for training through grant Report programs identified in the State Homeland Strategy. 2008 Action This recommendation should be closed since funding is in place through other programs.
4. Develop a cadre of qualified instructors to go into the field and provide quality training at the local level for:
• All Emergency Management courses • WMD training for local fire departments. • WMD training in the rural areas of the state. • Sheriffs, who are most frequently incident commanders, need to be thoroughly trained in disaster response of all types and OSHA certified. Progress Qualified instructors are delivering training for all the Report levels stated in this recommendation. The appropriate training is guided by the Minnesota Incident Management System of which OSHA certification is required to be an incident commander for hazardous material incidents. 2008 Action This recommendation should be closed since the qualified instructors are in place.
460 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning Legislation and Codes Recommendations 1. Continue to encourage communities that have not adopted building codes to do so through the following methods: (1) Regular visits to municipalities by regional Department of Administration (DOA), Building Codes and Standards Division (BC&SD) staff; (2) Responding to municipalities' requests to attend public information meetings regarding the state building code, and (3) Making communities aware of the Insurance Service Office rating Progress Ongoing. Report 2008 Action Refer to Actions 3.3.2.2 and 3.3.2.3.
2. Codify the legal authority to quarantine people or areas of communities. Progress State statute 144.419 was adopted to address isolation Report and quarantine of people. 2008 Action This recommendation should be closed since legislation is in place.
3. Improve regulations dealing with development adjacent to areas subject to wild land fires to require clearings and space separation between buildings and potential fire hazards. Progress This method along with outdoor sprinkler systems on Report houses proved to be successful during the wildfires in Minnesota during 2007. 2008 Action Refer to Action 3.3.2.1.
4. Establish initiatives at the state level to ensure and encourage appropriate zoning in the vicinity of industrial plants that may store hazardous materials or chemicals, particularly to preclude these types of facilities from being located near hospitals or other sensitive structures. Progress Environmental permitting done by the Minnesota Report Pollution Control Agency (PCA) takes in to account the inventory of hazardous material in the site and the potential effluents from a proposed facility and how it impacts surrounding area. This information is available to local planning boards and citizen groups to decide if a proposed facility should be built in the community. 2008 Action This recommendation should be closed since the PCA permitting process takes into account the risk to the community and local individuals and organizations
461 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning already have the means to input into local planning.
5. Support legislative efforts to increase staff levels that are devoted to emergency preparedness and develop a staff of “subject matter experts” that can be deployed as part of the tactical response team. Progress HSEM has HAZMAT specialist on staff to support state Report funded hazardous material response teams. The main effort through the State Homeland Strategy is to train specialists to be on the local teams to reduce response times. 2008 Action This recommendation should be closed because it is covered by a separate program.
6. Increase, through the following methods, efforts to educate local officials about their responsibilities regarding building code enforcement: (1) a new emphasis should be placed on existing state and federal educational outreach programs which address this issue (i.e., regional workshops and individual, on-site community assessments); and (2) educational outreach to communities which do not have a designated building code or building official should be considered a priority. Progress Ongoing. Report 2008 Action Refer to Action 3.3.2.2.
7. Develop a statewide database of available or existing resources. Progress This project was reviewed in 2006 and found to be too Report broad. State and local agencies are asked, or in some cases mandated, to keep an inventory of its equipment. These databases can be shared in an EOC using the request part of the Disaster LAN incident computer software. 2008 Action This recommendation should be closed since capabilities are in place as described above.
8. Develop lab capabilities for chemical and biological analysis with the capability to maintain chain of custody and evidence preservation policies. Progress The Minnesota Department of Health Public Health Report Laboratory (PHL) moved to a new facility in 2006. PHL had capability to support incident response and chain of custody at the previous facility. 2008 Action This recommendation should be closed since the
462 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning conditions of the recommendation have been met.
9. Coordinate volunteer building inspectors with communities that need to increase efforts in enforcing building code requirements in post-disaster scenarios. These volunteer teams should have the responsibility to provide construction guidance and assistance to local officials and victims according to the following priority: (1) protection of life and property; (2) dissemination of permit, licensing and inspection information and materials; (3) survey construction that is already in progress and provide remedial action/advice to victims not rebuilding according to state code; and (4) collect and disseminate lists of available competent contractors. Establish a process by which potential contractors of all types may be screened and, in turn, placed on a list of recommended, available competent contractors in order to help ensure that state licensing requirements for contractors/workers are enforced (especially in post-disaster scenarios). Progress Ongoing. Report 2008 Action This recommendation should be closed since the MN Recovers Task Force performs the above items.
10. Establish the Minnesota State Building Code as the recognized post-presidential disaster reconstruction standard for general public and private buildings. Provide guidance and materials to such communities. Progress Ongoing. Report 2008 Action Refer to Action 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.2.2.
11. Revise building codes to require sprinkler systems in every new commercial, residential, or industrial building. Progress Ongoing. Report 2008 Action Refer to Action 3.3.2.1.
12. Develop design standards for landscaping, building design, etc. to reduce the fire risks. Progress Ongoing. Report 2008 Action Refer to Action 3.3.2.1.
13. Update the State Building Code with "Floodproofing Regulations," as promulgated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as soon as the
463 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning documents are available in adequate quantities. The Department of Natural Resources has had ongoing meetings with the Department of Administration, Building Codes and Standards Division staff to incorporate the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ current “Flood Proofing Regulations” into the State Building Code. Progress Ongoing. Report 2008 Action Refer to Actions 3.3.2.2. and 3.3.2.3
Funding Recommendations 1. Obtain recognition by the Internal Revenue Service that hazard mitigation activities should be eligible for tax credits. Progress No progress. Report 2008 Action This recommendation should be closed since it is not feasible for the mitigation staff to influence federal tax code.
2. Utilize, when possible, non-disaster-specific sources of federal and state funds (e.g., portions of FDR, state-administered CDBG) for projects that have hazard mitigation as a principal objective, so that such projects may be implemented on an on-going basis. Such projects should have to (1) meet the normal requirements associated with the (funding) programs, and (2) be approved by the agency that administers the program. Progress Ongoing. Report 2008 Action Refer to Actions 2.1.2.1 and 2.2.1.3.
3. Raise the base level of funding for emergency response programs. Progress EMPG has increased since 2005. Report 2008 Action This recommendation should be closed since it is covered by another program.
4. Improve access to technical guidance at all levels – federal, state, and local government. Progress Technical assistance is available at the MN Recovers Report Task Force website. 2008 Action Refer to Action 2.1.3.1.
5. Provide financial assistance to replace old and antiquated equipment, as well as funds to help pay for emergency response
464 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Seven: Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning volunteers. Progress Report Ongoing. 2008 The recommendation should be closed since it is Recommendation part of the State Homeland Strategy.
6. Assure continued state funding for Emergency Medical Services programs. Pursue commitments from state and local officials to continue to support programs that may be initiated but based on federal funds. Progress The Emergency Medical Services Board stated funding Report for emergency response is being structured through the State Homeland Strategy grants. 2008 Actions This recommendation should be closed since it is included in the State Homeland Strategy.
7. Work, through a legislative initiative, to establish a single state mitigation fund that can be drawn upon to provide supplemental funding for state/local hazard mitigation projects. Progress Proposed HSEM legislative initiatives must be approved Report by the Division Director, by the Commissioner of Public Safety, and by the Governor, in that order. For a number of reasons, this initiative was not among those proposed by HSEM for either the 2007 or the 2008 Legislative Session. Consequently, it is not and will not be included in Minnesota’s 2008-09 Biennial Budget. 2008 Action Refer to Action 3.2.1.3.
465 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Eight: Plan Maintenance Process SECTION EIGHT: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS Plan Adoption The state will submit the plan to the FEMA Region V office for review and approval before a formal adoption process is pursued. Once approved, the plan will be adopted via signature: director of HSEM, Governor, state agency commissioners involved with mitigation activities, and from those with shared interests in the plan.
Once the plan has been approved an official notice announcing the approval will be posted in the State Register and on HSEM website. This step will inform stakeholders of the Plans’ success and encourage the implementation of mitigation strategies in the community and it will welcome ongoing feedback on the plan.
Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan The state will comply with 44 CFR 13.11(c) with respect to the periods for which it receives grant funding. The State will amend its plan whenever necessary to reflect changes in State or Federal laws and statutes as required in 44 CFR 13.11(d). The state will comply with §201.4(c)(6) and §201.4(c)(7) requirements.
Integration of existing mitigation and other pertinent programs into the State plan will be encouraged through continued outreach and communication. During the development of county wide All-Hazard Plans, additional types of programs will be introduced and participation encouraged.
Programs in which communities can participate in to reduce their vulnerability to hazards include the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the Community Rating System (CRS). Future updates of multi-jurisdictional plans will anticipate participation in both programs. Both programs contain planning elements similar to those of the State mitigation plan. Notification to all communities throughout the State would be accomplished to encourage integration and coordination of all the planning efforts. Many of the requirements are the same, so preparation of a plan that met the strictest requirements would assure compliance with all the planning requirements. This would also provide for the most comprehensive approach in reducing damages as a result of a disaster, no matter what the source.
With such a diversity of mitigation opportunities available, it is anticipated that the on-going updating of this document will aid in encouraging other agencies to incorporate mitigation measures into
466 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Eight: Plan Maintenance Process their planning and activities. Through the comprehensive state agency review and approval process, a request will be made that each agency attempt to incorporate mitigation opportunities into their own programs and activities.
To accomplish the monitoring and evaluation tasks, the state will make use of FEMA planning guides. The associated worksheets of this guide will be put to use on strategy progress reporting, evaluating the planning team, evaluating project results, revising the risk assessment, and on the general plan update itself.
Public participation strategies such as website postings, press releases and outreach through conferences and workshops will continue throughout the life of the plan. Opportunities for public review will be made possible through local contacts throughout the state—via local emergency managers, planners and State Regional Program Coordinators.
The Plan is a living document and requires regular monitoring, review, and evaluation. Also, the Federal Hazard Mitigation Planning regulations require the Plan is updated and submitted for approval to the Regional Director of FEMA every three years. The Plan will be reviewed annually by the MNRTF as described below. The SHMO will initiate planning to update the Plan 18 months before FEMA approval is required to integrate input from federal, state, local agencies and the public.
MNTRF will meet formally on an annual basis (approximately 12 months following Plan approval) to conduct a review of the plan. If political or hazard events change and dictate an earlier review, then the members will be solicited via telephone or e-mail contact for their input to these changes. Then MNRTF will: • Review the goals and action items to determine their relevance to changing situations in the state. • Review the Risk Assessment as necessary to incorporate current information, including updated hazard profiles and any new data on vulnerable state facilities. • Monitor progress on mitigation actions and projects in the Plan by reviewing quarterly progress reports. The database of all local plans and local action items will be reviewed as part of the process. • Evaluate mitigation actions and projects in the Plan by reviewing the final quarterly progress report.
467 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Eight: Plan Maintenance Process • Identify implementation problems (technical, political, legal and financial) based on quarterly progress reports and input by the public and partners. • Evaluate the effectiveness of the planning effort by using Worksheet #2: Evaluate Your Planning Team. • Consider recommendations by the MNRTF members to increase hazard mitigation involvement by state agencies and local jurisdictions. • Discuss changes in policies, priorities, programs and funding that alter the Plan’s goals and objectives, projects and timelines.
Should HSEM, EPRC, MNRTF or the SHMO determine during the annual meeting that the Plan should be updated; a meeting will be scheduled for updating the Plan. A list of recommendations or enhancements compiled during the annual MNRTF/EPRC meeting will be used to update the Plan. The State will update its plan as necessary to reflect:
• Hazards addressed in the Plan – All of the natural and human- caused hazards that have been identified as posing a threat to the state of Minnesota have been included in the Plan. As situations change or new information becomes available 1) the hazards currently included in the Plan will be updated and 2) new hazards identified as a threat will be added to the Plan. • State owned structures – A state owned and other Critical Facilities Database is referenced as Appendix 10. This database inventories all state owned structures and will be maintained, as necessary. • County and City owned structures – funding for geocoding county and city critical facilities is planned to be completed by 2011. • HAZUS Analysis – HAZUS, the risk assessment software program, was attempted in the first edition of the Plan. The data was skewed and did not reveal the actual risk, vulnerability or costs. HSEM will attempt to utilize HAZUS for the next three- year update. • New mitigation actions and projects – Additional actions and projects may be identified during the Plan evaluation. • Problem identification and resolution – Recommendations developed to overcome problems (technical, political, legal and financial) may affect the mitigation strategy. • Incorporation of Local Plan Action Items – the Action Items listing will be updated within 180 days of the date of final approval of the local hazard mitigation plan. The Action Items section of the State plan will be updated to reflect the new local
468 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Eight: Plan Maintenance Process plan information. As local action items are completed based on information provided by the PDM and HMGP program coordinators and county emergency managers, the mitigation planner will compile a list and insert it into the three year update. The local jurisdiction is required to notify the HSEM Mitigation Branch within 90 days of completion of an action item. • Review and update will involve all of the original participants in the planning process and others identified as important for the Plan update (i.e., the State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Team (SHMPRT) comprised of the MNRTF, other State and federal agencies, various associations from the State, business and public sectors). This process will occur, as needed, or at a minimum every three years. The Plan will be resubmitted to FEMA for their review as required by the federal DMA 2000 planning guidelines. • The State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) has the overall authority and responsibility for maintenance of the plan. The updated Plan will be submitted to FEMA for review. Once FEMA has determined the Plan is approved- pending adoption, the updated Plan must be submitted for approval by the Governor and the SHMPRT no later than three months after the conclusion of the plan update meeting.
Disasters provide an opportunity to evaluate the effects of the disaster, to improve resistance to the hazard, review the accuracy of hazard specific sections and to determine if the planning efforts affected damage reduction. In the case of a disaster declaration in the State, the Plan can be updated if HSEM or the MNRTF believe this necessary. A post-disaster review may replace an annual review depending upon the severity of the disaster event.
The Mitigation Branch of HSEM is responsible for reviewing all Local Mitigation Plans based on the criteria established in 44 CRF 201.6 within 30 days of the arrival date and either certify or supply comments, as needed. Upon the certification or approval of the Local Mitigation Plan, the Mitigation Branch has 180 days to update the Local Hazard Assessment, Local Capability Assessment, Actions items section and the database of the Action Item Listing sections of the Plan with the new material from the Local Mitigation Plans.
Plan Distribution The plan, and any changes to it, will be available in an electronic format on the HSEM website. Revised portions of the plan will be annotated with the date of the revision. Hard copies of the plan will be
469 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Section Eight: Plan Maintenance Process distributed to State and Federal agencies as requested and required. HSEM will maintain a distribution list for hard copies provided to such agencies to facilitate the distribution of plan revisions.
470 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronyms and Abbreviations
ASDSO Association of State Dam Safety Officers ATF Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
BAH Minnesota Board of Animal Health BCA Benefit Cost Analysis BWCAW Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
CAP Community Action Program CDBG Community Development Block Grant CDC Center for Disease Control CFM Certified Flood Managers CRS Community Rating System
DAE Disaster Assistance Employee DFIRM Digital Floodplain Mapping DMA Disaster Mitigation Act DMA Department of Military Affairs DMA2K Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
EAP Emergency Action Plan EAS Emergency Alert System EMPG Emergency Management Grant Program EMI Emergency Management Training EOP Emergency Operations Plan EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FDR Flood Damage Reduction FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FIS Flood Insurance Study FMA Flood Mitigation Act
GIS Geographic Information System GTVFD Gunflint Trail Volunteer Fire Department
HAN Health Alert Network HAZMAT Hazardous Materials HLRW High Level Radioactive Waste HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HSEM Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
471 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Acronyms and Abbreviations
IFR Interim Final Rule
JFO Joint Field Office
MDH Minnesota Department of Health MEOP Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan MFIRS Minnesota Fire Incident Rating System MGS Minnesota Geological Survey MHIRA Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment MMI Modern Mercalli Intensity Scale MN/DOT Minnesota Department of Transportation MNAFRPM Minnesota Association of Floodplain Managers MNICS Minnesota Incident Command System MNRTF Minnesota Recovers Task Force
NCDC National Climatic Data Center NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFIA National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 NFIF National Flood Insurance Fund NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NFIRA National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 NIEH S National Institute of Environmental Health Services NOAA U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NWS National Weather Service
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation PDSI Palmer Drought Survey Index PGA Peak Ground Acceleration PIO Public Information Officer PNP Private Non-Profit
RFC Repetitive Flood Claims
SFM State Fire Marshal SFMPST State Fire Marshal Pipeline Safety Team SHMO State Hazard Mitigation Officer SHMPRT State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Team SHMT State Hazard Mitigation Team SOP Standard Operating Procedure SRL Severe Repetitive Loss
472 MINNESOTA ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Acronyms and Abbreviations
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation USFA U.S. Fire Administration USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction
473