Mitigation Plan Review 
Reference Manual
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Plan Review 
Emergency Management Institute
Course Code: E293

Prepared for FEMA
National Emergency Training Center, Emmitsburg, Maryland

TABLE O F CONTENTS
Unit 1: Introduction
Presentation
DMA 2000 Fact Sheet
Local Plan Review Procedures
Reference List
Interim Final Rule (44 CFR Part 201)
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance
Frequently Asked Questions
Unit 2: Planning Process
Presentation
Plan Excerpt
Plan Review
Unit 3: Risk Assessment
Presentation
Plan Excerpt
Plan Review
Unit 4: Mitigation Strategy
Presentation
Plan Excerpt
Plan Review
Unit 5: Plan Maintenance
Presentation
Plan Excerpt
Plan Review
Unit 6 - 9
Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Reviews Presentation
State and Tribal Plan Reviews Presentation
Manmade Hazard Mitigation Planning Presentation
Odds and Ends Presentation
Unit 10: Exercises
Exercise
Exercise Crosswalk
Sample Crosswalk
Sample Revisions
Planning Guidance
Review Crosswalk
Sample Language

[END TABLE OF CONTENTS]
1
Mitigation Plan Review 
National Emergency Training Center
Emergency Management Institute 
Course E293 

2 
Unit 1: Course Introduction 

3 
Intent of this training:
Training conducted with FEMA Region staff is intended to: 

Expand cadre of FEMA plan reviewers in anticipation of a 
substantial influx of local hazard mitigation plans; 

Develop consistent interpretations of what can be required of 
communities regarding mitigation planning requirements per the 
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, aka DMA 2000; and 

Identify ways to help communities improve planning capabilities 
and results for current and future mitigation planning efforts. 

4 
DMA 2000 fun facts 

General Information 

The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) 
was signed by the President (Public Law 106-390) on October 30, 2000; and 
was intended to facilitate cooperation between state and 
local authorities across a broad spectrum of mitigation activities. 

Section 322 of the Act specifically: 
addresses mitigation planning at the state and local levels;
reinforces the importance of pre-disaster mitigation planning; and 
promotes sustainability as a strategy for disaster resistance. 

5 
DMA 2000 fun facts 

General Information 

Commonly accepted emergency management terminology 
defines the phrase pre-disaster mitigation planning as  
 coordination of actions taken prior to a hazard event to 
reduce injuries, deaths, property damage, economic losses, 
and degradation of natural resources during and following 
natural or manmade hazard events. 

6 
DMA 2000 fun facts 

General Information 

Recommendations resulting from DMA 2000 compliant pre-
disaster mitigation planning are typically focused on:
 
physical projects that reduce risk from natural hazards; 
changes in land development regulations such as zoning 
and building codes; 

public education programs; and 
addressing information and data deficiencies needed to 
develop the plans. 

7 
DMA 2000 fun facts 

General Information 

To implement the DMA 2000 requirements, FEMA prepared an 
Interim Final Rule (aka the Rule), published in the Federal 
Register on February 26, 2002 (at 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206), 
which established planning and funding criteria for states, 
tribes, and local governments. 

The Interim Final Rule will eventually be amended as a Final 
Rule but that work will not begin until after November 1, 2004. 

8 
DMA 2000 fun facts 

General Information 

Guidance created by FEMA HQ (e.g., Multi-hazard Mitigation 
Planning Guidance, the State and Local Mitigation Planning 
How-to Guides, etc.) provides meaningful background and 
clarification regarding the intent of and methodology to meet 
the requirements of the Rule. 

But, the Rule is THE Rule. 

9 
DMA 2000 fun facts 

State Hazard Mitigation Planning 

DMA 2000 established a pre-disaster mitigation program and 
required that a FEMA approved standard state hazard 
mitigation plan be in place by November 1, 2004  

 for a state to continue to be eligible to receive Hazard 
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding or Public 
Assistance (PA) under the recovery categories of the 
Stafford Act for disasters declared after November 1, 2004. 

10 
DMA 2000 fun facts 

State Hazard Mitigation Planning 

DMA 2000 also identifies new requirements that allow HMGP 
funds to be used for planning activities and increases the 
amount of HMGP funds available to states that have 
developed and received FEMA approval of a comprehensive 
enhanced state hazard mitigation plan prior to the 
declaration of a disaster  

 from a maximum of 7 percent up to a maximum of 20 
percent of the total disaster declaration funding. 

11 
DMA 2000 fun facts 

State Hazard Mitigation Planning 

State governments have certain responsibilities for 
implementing Section 322 via activities at the state level 
including: 

preparing and submitting a standard plan 
 (preparing and submitting an enhanced plan is an option); and

reviewing and updating the state mitigation plan every three years. 

12 
DMA 2000 fun facts 

State Hazard Mitigation Planning 

State governments also have responsibilities under Section 322, 
for supporting activities at the local level including:

providing technical assistance and training to local 
governments to assist them in applying for HMGP grants; 
and 

supporting the development of local hazard mitigation plans. 

13 
DMA 2000 fun facts 

Local Hazard Mitigation Planning 

DMA 2000 also required that individual communities have an 
approved local hazard mitigation plan in place  

 to be eligible for project grants under HMGP for disasters 
declared after November 1, 2004 and other grant programs 
such as the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM). 

14 
DMA 2000 fun facts 

Local Hazard Mitigation Planning 

 Communities as defined in DMA 2000 local mitigation plan
requirements typically include counties, local municipalities 
 and tribal governments (*)  

 but can also include other local agencies and 
organizations (school systems, transportation authorities, 
public utilities, etc.) 

 that can participate as a subapplicant or subgrantee to 
their respective states. 

15 
DMA 2000 fun facts 

Local Hazard Mitigation Planning 

A local mitigation plan can apply to: 

a single jurisdiction; or 

multiple jurisdictions within a county, watershed, regional 
planning district (e.g., multi-county plans), etc. as long as 
each jurisdiction participated in the planning process. These 
plans are referred to as multi-jurisdictional pre-disaster 
mitigation plans. 

16 
DMA 2000 fun facts 

Local Hazard Mitigation Planning 

Local governments have certain responsibilities for 
implementing Section 322, including: 

preparing and submitting a local plan; 

monitoring projects; and 

reviewing and updating the mitigation plan every five years. 

17 
DMA 2000 fun facts 

Tribal Hazard Mitigation Planning 

Tribal governments have similar responsibilities for 
implementing Section 322, but have the option of submitting 
their tribal hazard mitigation plan as: 

a state enhanced hazard mitigation plan; 

a state standard hazard mitigation plan 

a local hazard mitigation plan; or 

all of the above. 

18 
Approach to the reviews 

The plan review process is structured to provide: 

1. Consistent interpretations of the relevant regulations i.e., the 
Rule (see full copy in Unit 1 of the Reference Manual)  

 focusing primarily on a quantitative review of local hazard 
mitigation plans (see discussion of Required Revisions). 

19 
Approach to the reviews 

The plan review process is structured to provide: 

2. Meaningful guidance for planners and their respective
communities to not only meet the minimum regulatory 
requirements but realize maximum reduction of risks from natural 
hazards  

 covering the qualitative aspects of plan reviews (see 
discussion of Recommended Revisions). 

20 
Roles and Responsibilities 

FEMA Headquarters (aka FEMA HQ)  Development and 
implementation of the DMA 2000 via the Rule via the FEMA 
Regional Offices 

FEMA Region Offices  10 autonomous offices covering all states 
and territories of the United States with specific responsibility for 
review and approval of state, tribal and local DMA 2000 hazard 
mitigation plans 

21 
Roles and Responsibilities 

State Hazard Mitigation Offices  Responsible for: 

development of a state-wide hazard mitigation plan; 

support for tribal and local planning efforts; 

preliminary reviews of tribal and local DMA 2000 hazard 
mitigation plans (in some FEMA Regions); and 

review and approval of tribal and local DMA 2000 hazard 
mitigation plans once managing state status is attained 

Individual Communities  Development of single or multi-
jurisdictional DMA 2000 hazard mitigation plans 

22 
Roles and Responsibilities 

URS  On-call technical support to FEMA Regional Offices under the
Hazard Mitigation Technical Assistance Program IDIQ contract 
for plan reviews and at times to states and individual 
communities for plan development (but under the ultimate 
supervision and direction of FEMA HQ) 

23 
Plan Review Terminology 

Crosswalk  The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk 
(as revised in March 2004) developed from the Rule and listing 
all the Requirements / Elements that shall / should be included in 
the plan (see the Crosswalk section of the Reference Manual) 

Requirements  Wording quoted directly from the Rule, all of which 
must be successfully addressed for the Plan to be approved 

Elements  Questions that break down the Requirements into 
component parts, all of which must be successfully addressed in 
the plan for the Requirement to be approved 

24 
Plan Review Terminology 

Shall  Rule Requirements that must be addressed in the plan. 
Revisions that are indicated for Elements under these 
Requirements are considered as Required Revisions 

Must = Shall (!) 

Should  Rule Requirements that are encouraged to be addressed in 
the plan but not mandatory for approval. Revisions that are 
indicated for Elements under these Requirements are considered 
as Recommended Revisions 

25 
Local Plan Review Procedures 

DMA 2000 Local Plan Review Background Information 

Page 1 of the Crosswalk should be completed to the best of your 
ability with information provided in the plan or obtained from the 
community or State (including NFIP Participation information at 
the bottom of page 1). 

Each Region may have their own way for adding names, titles and 
dates in the middle of page 1 and those preferences should be 
provided to the reviewer prior to beginning the review. 

26 
Local Plan Review Procedures 

DMA 2000 Local Plan Review 

Then, starting on Page 3 of the Crosswalk, skim through the whole 
plan (or one of the major divisions of the plan  i.e., 
Prerequisite(s) / Planning Process / Risk Assessment / Mitigation 
Strategies / Plan Maintenance Process) to quickly determine if
the Elements listed in the Crosswalk are addressed or included in 
some way in the document. 

As you go through this first pass at reading the plan, complete the 
second column ("Location in the Plan") of the Crosswalk for each 
Element / Requirement so you can easily find it again. 

27 
Local Plan Review Procedures 

DMA 2000 Local Plan Review (continued) 

Next, go back and determine if the passage(s) you located in your 
first pass through the plan fully addresses the questions posed 
under each Element while avoiding the ( e.g., ) trap. 

If the answer is yes, score that Element with an S for Satisfactory 
(or Met for the Prerequisites). To the extent practical, you can 
add comments regarding how you felt the plan met each 
individual Element receiving a S score. 

See the example at the bottom of instructions page for the Crosswalk 
in the Reference Manual. 

28 
Local Plan Review Procedures 

DMA 2000 Local Plan Review (continued) 

If the answer is no, score that Element with an N for Needs 
Improvement (or Not Met for the Prerequisites). For each N 
score, you must (shall!) provide comment(s).
Comments need to provide clear guidance to communities regarding the specific 
improvements they need to make to their plans. This may be the 
only avenue available for you to communicate with the 
communities. 

We recommend that you first provide a brief summary of what you 
feel the deficiency is and then provide a succinct description of 
what revisions are needed to bring this Element into compliance.

See the example at the bottom of the instructions page for the 
Crosswalk in the Reference Manual. 

29 
Local Plan Review Procedures 
DMA 2000 Local Plan Review (continued) 

Resources that are available to plan reviewers that can be referred to 
when providing comments to communities include: 

Multi-hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance (and/or the Interim 
Criteria  see FEMA DMA Mitigation Planning Guidance Fact
Sheet in the Reference Manual); and 

State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guides

30 
Local Plan Review Procedures 
DMA 2000 Local Plan Review (continued) 

The Reference Manual includes a version of the Crosswalk with sample language for required and 
recommended revisions that can be used for this purpose (and is available in MSWord format). 

The Crosswalk also includes a series of matrices (starting on page 11) that will help with reviewing plans that cover multiple hazards. 

31 
Local Plan Review Procedures 
DMA 2000 Local Plan Review (continued) 

For shall Elements, the revisions are listed as either Required or Recommended Revisions. 

For should Elements, the revisions are only listed as Recommended Revisions. 

In all cases, it is encouraged to provide recommendations and suggestions for how to improve the plan and/or subsequent 
updates beyond the minimum standards. However, this type of comment needs to be always clearly identified as
Recommended Revisions. 

32 
Local Plan Review Procedures 
DMA 2000 Local Plan Review (continued) 

For each Requirement, determine if any of the Elements received an N score. If so, the Requirement also receives an N which is
indicated in the Summary Score box at the end of each Requirement and also on Page 2 of the Crosswalk. 

For the plan to be approved, all of the Requirements must be either Met or S (with the exception of the three should Requirements 
indicated in gray shading under Risk Assessment).

THE DISASTER MITIGATION ACT O F 2000  F A CT SHEET
General Information
* The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) was signed by the President (Public Law 106-390)
on October 30, 2000 and was intended to facilitate cooperation between state and local authorities.
Section 322 of the Act specifically addresses mitigation planning at the state and local levels;
reinforces the importance of pre-disaster mitigation planning; and promotes sustainability as a
strategy for disaster resistance.
Note: In the specific context of this Act and generally accepted emergency management terminology,
the phrase pre-disaster mitigation planning is defined as the coordination of actions taken prior to a
hazard event to reduce injuries, deaths, property damage, economic losses, and degradation of
natural resources during and following natural or manmade hazard events. Recommendations
resulting from pre-disaster mitigation planning are typically focused on physical projects that reduce
risk from specific hazards but can also include changes in land development regulations such as
zoning and building codes as well as public education programs.
* To implement the DMA 2000 requirements, FEMA prepared an Interim Final Rule, published in the
Federal Register on February 26, 2002 (at 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206), which established planning
and funding criteria for states, tribes, and local governments.
State Hazard Mitigation Planning
* DMA 2000 established a pre-disaster mitigation program and required that a FEMA approved
standard state hazard mitigation plan be in place by November 1, 2004 for a state to continue to
be eligible to receive Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding or Public Assistance (PA)
under the recovery categories of the Stafford Act for disasters declared after November 1, 2004.
* DMA 2000 also identifies new requirements that allow HMGP funds to be used for planning activities
and increases the amount of HMGP funds available to states that have developed and received
FEMA approval of a comprehensive enhanced state hazard mitigation plan prior to the declaration
of a disaster from a maximum of 7 percent up to a maximum of 20 percent of the total disaster
declaration funding.
* State governments have certain responsibilities for implementing Section 322, including:
* preparing and submitting a standard plan (preparing and submitting an enhanced plan is an
option);
* reviewing and updating the state mitigation plan every three years;
* providing technical assistance and training to local governments to assist them in applying for
HMGP grants; and
* supporting the development of local hazard mitigation plans.
Local Hazard Mitigation Planning
* DMA 2000 also required that individual communities have an approved local hazard mitigation plan
in place to be eligible for project grants under HMGP for disasters declared after November 1, 2004
and other grant programs such as the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM).
* Communities as defined in DMA 2000 local mitigation plan requirements typically include counties,
local municipalities and tribal governments, but can also include other local agencies and
organizations (school systems, transportation authorities, public utilities, etc.) that can participate as a
subapplicant or subgrantee to their respective states.
* A local mitigation plan can apply to a single jurisdiction or multiple jurisdictions within a county,
watershed, regional planning district, etc. as long as each jurisdiction participated in the planning
process. These plans are referred to as multi-jurisdictional pre-disaster mitigation plans.
* Local governments have certain responsibilities for implementing Section 322, including:
* preparing and submitting a local plan;
* monitoring projects; and
* reviewing and updating the mitigation plan every five years.

LOCAL PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES
Terminology
* Crosswalk  The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk developed from the Rule and listing
all the requirements/elements that shall/should be included the plan.
* Requirements  Wording quoted directly from the Rule, all of which must be successfully addressed
for the Plan to be approved.
* Elements  Questions that break down the Requirements into component parts, all of which must be
successfully addressed in the plan for the Requirement to be approved.
* Shall  Rule Requirements that must be addressed in the plan. Revisions that are indicated for these
items are considered as Required Revisions.
* Must = Shall
* Should  Rule Requirements that are encouraged to be addressed in the plan but not required.
Revisions that are indicated for these items are considered as Recommended Revisions.
DMA 2000 Local Plan Review
1. Page 1 of the Crosswalk should be completed to the best of your ability with information provided in
the plan or obtained from the community or State (including NFIP Participation information on page
1). Each Region may have their own ways for adding names, titles and dates in the middle of page 1
so check with the responsible party.
2. Starting on Page 3 of the Crosswalk, skim through the whole plan (or one of the major divisions of the
plan  i.e., Prerequisite(s) / Planning Process / Risk Assessment / Mitigation Strategies / Plan
Maintenance Process) to quickly determine if the Elements listed in the Crosswalk are addressed or
included in some way in the document. As you go through this first pass at reading the plan, you
should complete the second column ("Location in the Plan") of the Crosswalk for each Element /
Requirement so you can easily find it again.
3. Next, go back and determine if the passage(s) you located in your first pass through the plan fully
addresses the questions posed under each Element.
4. If the answer is yes, score that element with an S for Satisfactory (or Met for the Prerequisites). To
the extent practical, you can add comments regarding how you felt the plan met each individual
element receiving a S score (see the example at the bottom of the instructions page for the
Crosswalk in the Reference Manual).
5. If the answer is no, score that element with an N for Needs Improvement (or Not Met for the
Prerequisites). For each N score, you must (shall!) provide comment(s). comments need to provide
clear guidance to communities regarding the specific improvements they need to make to their plans.
We recommend that you first provide a brief summary of what you feel the deficiency is and then
provide a succinct description of what revisions are needed to bring this element into compliance.
See the example at the bottom of the instructions page for the Crosswalk in the Reference Manual.
6. For shall items, the revisions are listed as either Required or Recommended Revisions. For
should items, the revisions can only be listed as Recommended Revisions.
7. In all cases, it is encouraged to provide recommendations and suggestions for how to improve the
plan and/or subsequent updates. However, this type of comment needs to be always clearly
identified as Recommended Revisions.
8. For each Requirement, determine if any of the Elements received an N score. If so, the
Requirement also receives an N which is indicated in the Summary Score box at the end of each
Requirement and also on Page 2 of the Crosswalk.
9. For the plan to be approved, all of the Requirements must be either Met or S (with the exception of
the three should Requirements indicated in gray shading under Risk Assessment.

REFERENCE L I ST

Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390)
Interim Final Rule (44 CFR Part 201)
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance (formerly known
as Interim Guidance))
Hazard Identification and
Risk Assessment
Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
(http://www.fema.gov/fhm/ft_mhira.shtm)
Natural and Manmade
Hazard Mitigation Planning
State and Local Mitigation Planning How to Guides:
- Getting Started (FEMA 386-1)
- Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2)
- Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3)
- Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4)
- Integrating ManMade Hazards with Mitigation Planning
(FEMA 386-7)
(http://www.fema.gov/fima/planhowto.shtm)

FEDERAL REGISTER / VOL. 67, NO. 38 / TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2002 / RULES AND REGULATIONS

Tuesday,
February 26, 2002
Part III
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
44 CFR Parts 201 and 206
Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program; Interim Final
Rule

44 CFR Parts 201 and 206
RIN 3067AD22
Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program
AGENCY: Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule addresses State
mitigation planning, identifies new
local mitigation planning requirements,
authorizes Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP) funds for planning
activities, and increases the amount of
HMGP funds available to States that
develop a comprehensive, enhanced
mitigation plan. This rule also requires
that repairs or construction funded by a
disaster loan or grant must be carried
out in accordance with applicable
standards and says that FEMA may
require safe land use and construction
practices as a condition of grantees
receiving disaster assistance under the
Stafford Act.
DATES: Effective Date: February 26,
2002.
Comment Date: We will accept
written comments through April 29,
2002.
ADDRESSES: Please send written
comments to the Rules Docket Clerk,
Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street, SW., room 840, Washington, DC
20472, (facsimile) 2026464536, or
(email) rules@fema.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Margaret E. Lawless, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20472,
2026463027, (facsimile) 202646
3104, or (email)
margaret.lawless@fema.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
Throughout the preamble and the rule
the terms we, our and us refer to
FEMA.
Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (Stafford Act or the Act),
42 U.S.C. 5165, enacted under Section 104 the
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, (DMA
2000) P.L. 106390, provides new and
revitalized approaches to mitigation
planning. This section: (1) Continues
the requirement for a Standard State
Mitigation plan as a condition of
disaster assistance; (2) provides for
States to receive an increased
percentage of HMGP funds (from 15 to
20 percent of the total estimated eligible
Federal assistance) if, at the time of the
declaration of a major disaster, they
have in effect a FEMA-approved
Enhanced State Mitigation Plan that
meets the factors listed in this rule; (3)
establishes a new requirement for local
mitigation plans; and (4) authorizes up
to 7 percent of the HMGP funds
available to a State to be used for
development of State, tribal, and local
mitigation plans. We will give Indian
tribal governments the opportunity to
fulfill the requirements of Section 322 either as
a grantee or a subgrantee. An Indian
tribal government may choose to apply
for HMGP funding directly to us and
would then serve as a grantee, meeting
the State level responsibilities, or it may
apply through the State, meeting the
local government or subgrantee
responsibilities.
Section 322, in concert with other
sections of the Act, provides a
significant opportunity to reduce the
Nations disaster losses through
mitigation planning. In addition,
implementation of planned, preidentified,
cost-effective mitigation
measures will streamline the disaster
recovery process. The Act provides a
framework for linking pre- and postdisaster
mitigation planning and
initiatives with public and private
interests to ensure an integrated,
comprehensive approach to disaster loss
reduction. The language in the Act,
taken as a whole, emphasizes the
importance of strong State and local
planning processes and comprehensive
program management at the State level.
The new planning criteria also support
State administration of the HMGP, and
contemplate a significant State
commitment to mitigation activities,
comprehensive State mitigation
planning, and strong program
management.
The planning process also provides a
link between State and local mitigation
programs. Both State level and local
plans should address strategies for
incorporating post-disaster early
mitigation implementation strategies
and sustainable recovery actions. We
also recognize that governments are
involved in a range of planning
activities and that mitigation plans may
be linked to or reference hazardous
materials and other non-natural hazard
plans. Improved mitigation planning
will result in a better understanding of
risks and vulnerabilities, as well as to
expedite implementation of measures
and activities to reduce those risks, both
pre- and post-disaster.
Section 409 of the Stafford Act, 42
U.S.C. 5176, which required mitigation
plans and the use of minimum codes
and standards, was repealed by the
DMA 2000. These issues are now
addressed in two separate sections of
the law: mitigation planning is in
section 322 of the Act, and minimum
codes and standards are in section 323
of the Act. We previously implemented
section 409 through 44 CFR Part 206,
Subpart M. Since current law now
distinguishes the planning from the
codes and standards in separate
sections, we will address them in
different sections of the CFR. We
address the new planning regulations in
Part 201 to reflect the broader relevance
of planning to all FEMA mitigation
programs, while the minimum
standards remain in Part 206, Federal
Disaster Assistance, Subpart M. The
regulations implementing the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program are in Part
206, Subpart N. This rule also contains
changes to Subpart N, to reflect the new
planning criteria identified in section
322 of the Act.
The administration is considering
changes to FEMAs mitigation programs
in the Presidents Budget for FY 2003.
However, States and localities still
would be required to have plans in
effect, which meet the minimum
requirements under this rule, as a
condition of receiving mitigation
assistance after November 1, 2003.
Implementation Strategy. States must
have an approved hazard mitigation
plan in order to receive Stafford Act
assistance, excluding assistance
provided pursuant to emergency
provisions. These regulations provide
criteria for the new two-tiered State
mitigation plan process: Standard State
Mitigation Plans, which allow a State to
receive HMGP funding based on 15
percent of the total estimated eligible
Stafford Act disaster assistance, and
Enhanced State Mitigation Plans, which
allow a State to receive HMGP funds
based on 20 percent of the total
estimated eligible Stafford Act disaster
assistance. Enhanced State Mitigation
Plans must demonstrate that the State
has developed a comprehensive
mitigation program, that it effectively
uses available mitigation funding, and
that it is capable of managing the
increased funding. All State Mitigations
Plans must be reviewed, revised, and reapproved
by FEMA every three years.
An important requirement of the
legislation is that we must approve a
completed enhanced plan before a
disaster declaration, in order for the
State to be eligible for the increased
funding.
We will no longer require States to
revise their mitigation plan after every
disaster declaration, as under former
section 409 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 5176.
We recommend, however, that States
consider revising their plan if a disaster
or other circumstances significantly
affect its mitigation priorities. States
with existing mitigation plans, approved
under former section 409, will continue
to be eligible for the 15 percent HMGP
funding until November 1, 2003, when
all State mitigation plans must meet the
requirements of these regulations. If
State plans are not revised and
approved to meet the Standard State
Mitigation Plan requirements by that
time, they will be ineligible for Stafford
Act assistance, excluding emergency
assistance.
Indian tribal governments may choose
to apply directly to us for HMGP
funding, and would therefore be
responsible for having an approved
State level mitigation plan, and would
act as the grantee. If an Indian tribal
government chooses to apply for HMGP
grants through the State, they would be
responsible for having an approved
local level mitigation plan, and would
serve as a subgrantee accountable to the
State as grantee.
This rule also establishes local
planning criteria so that these
jurisdictions can actively begin the
hazard mitigation planning process.
This requirement is to encourage the
development of comprehensive
mitigation plans before disaster events.
Section 322 requires local governments
to have an approved local mitigation
plan to be eligible to receive an HMGP
project grant; however, this requirement
will not fully take effect until November
1, 2003. FEMA Regional Directors may
grant an exception to this requirement
in extenuating circumstances. Until
November 1, 2003, local governments
will be able to receive HMGP project
grant funds and may prepare a
mitigation plan concurrently with
implementation of their project grant.
We anticipate that the Predisaster
Mitigation program authorized by
section 203 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 5133,
will also support this local mitigation
planning by making funds available for
the development of comprehensive local
mitigation plans. Managing States that
we approve under new criteria
established under section 404 of the
Act, 42 U.S.C. 5170c(c), as amended by
section 204 of DMA 2000 will have
approval authority for local mitigation
plans. This provision does not apply to
States that we approved under the
Managing State program in effect before
enactment of DMA 2000.
Our goal is for State and local
governments to develop comprehensive
and integrated plans that are
coordinated through appropriate State,
local, and regional agencies, as well as
non-governmental interest groups. To
the extent feasible and practicable, we
would also like to consolidate the
planning requirements for different
FEMA mitigation programs. This will
ensure that one local plan will meet the
minimum requirements for all of the
different FEMA mitigation programs,
such as the Flood Mitigation Assistance
Program (authorized by sections 553
and 554 of the National Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. 4104c
and 42 U.S.C. 4104d), the Community
Rating System (authorized by section
541 of the National Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. 4022), the
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
(authorized by section 203 of the
Stafford Act), the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (authorized by section
404 of the Stafford Act), and the
mitigation activities that are based upon
the provisions of section 323 and
subsections 406(b) and (e) of the
Stafford Act. The mitigation plans may
also serve to integrate documents and
plans produced under other emergency
management programs. State level plans
should identify overall goals and
priorities, incorporating the more
specific local risk assessments, when
available, and including projects
identified through the local planning
process.
Under section 322(d), up to 7 percent
of the available HMGP funds may now
be used for planning, and we encourage
States to use these funds for local plan
development. In a memorandum to
FEMA Regional Directors dated
December 21, 2000, we announced that
this provision of section 322 was
effective for disasters declared on or
after October 30, 2000, the date on
which the Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000 became law. Regional Directors are
encouraging States to make these funds
immediately available to local and
Indian tribal governments, although the
funds can be used for plan development
and review at the State level as well.
As discussed earlier in this
Supplementary Information, subsection
323(a) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C.
5166(a), requires as a precondition to
receiving disaster assistance under the
Act that State and local governments, as
well as eligible private nonprofit
entities, must agree to carry out repair
and reconstruction activities in
accordance with applicable standards of
safety, decency, and sanitation and in
conformity with applicable codes,
specifications, and standards. In
addition, that subsection authorizes the
President (FEMA, by virtue of Executive
Order 12148, as amended) to require
safe land use and construction practices,
after adequate consultation with
appropriate State and local officials in
the course of the use of Federal disaster
assistance by eligible applicants to
repair and restore disaster-damaged
facilities.
At the same time that we implement
the planning mandates of section 322 of
the Stafford Act, we are also
implementing the Minimum Standards
for Public and Private Structures
provision of section 323 of the Act. This
rule appears at Subpart M of Part 206 of
Title 44 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. As mentioned earlier, the
section 322 planning regulations are in
Part 201, while Part 206, Subpart M
includes only the minimum codes and
standards regulations mandated in
Section 323. The rule to implement Section 323 of
the Act reinforces the link between predisaster
planning, building and
construction standards, and postdisaster
reconstruction efforts.
We encourage comments on this
interim final rule, and we will make
every effort to involve all interested
parties prior to the development of the
Final Rule.
Justification for Interim Final Rule
In general, FEMA publishes a rule for
public comment before issuing a final
rule, under the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 533 and 44 CFR
1.12. The Administrative Procedure Act,
however, provides an exception from
that general rule where the agency for
good cause finds the procedures for
comment and response contrary to
public interest. Section 322 of the
Stafford Act allows States to receive
increased post-disaster grant funding for
projects designed to reduce future
disaster losses. States will only be
eligible for these increased funds if they
have a FEMA-approved Enhanced State
Mitigation Plan.
This interim final rule provides the
criteria for development and approval of
these plans, as well as criteria for local
mitigation plans required by this
legislation. In order for State and local
governments to be positioned to receive
these mitigation funds as soon as
possible, these regulations must be in
effect. The public benefit of this rule
will be to assist States and communities
assess their risks and identify activities
to strengthen the larger community and
the built environment in order to
become less susceptible to disasters.
Planning serves as the vital foundation
to saving lives and protecting
properties, having integrated plans in
place can serve to both streamline
recovery efforts and lessen potential
future damages. Therefore, we believe it
is contrary to the public interest to delay
the benefits of this rule. In accordance
with the Administrative Procedure Act,
5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we find that there is
good cause for the interim final rule to
take effect immediately upon
publication in the Federal Register in
order to meet the needs of States and
communities by identifying criteria for
mitigation plans in order to reduce risks
nationwide, establish criteria for
minimum codes and standards in postdisaster
reconstruction, and to allow
States to adjust their mitigation plans to
receive the increase in mitigation
funding.
In addition, we believe that, under the
circumstances, delaying the effective
date of this rule until after the comment
period would not further the public
interest. Prior to this rulemaking, FEMA
hosted a meeting where interested
parties provided comments and
suggestions on how we could
implement these planning requirements.
Participants in this meeting included
representatives from the National
Emergency Management Association,
the Association of State Floodplain
Managers, the National Governors
Association, the International
Association of Emergency Managers, the
National Association of Development
Organizations, the American Public
Works Association, the National League
of Cities, the National Association of
Counties, the National Conference of
State Legislatures, the International
City/County Management Association,
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We
took comments and suggestions
provided at this meeting into account in
developing this interim final rule.
Therefore, we find that prior notice and
comment on this rule would not further
the public interest. We actively
encourage and solicit comments on this
interim final rule from interested
parties, and we will consider them in
preparing the final rule. For these
reasons, we believe we have good cause
to publish an interim final rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(ii) excludes this
rule from the preparation of an
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement, where
the rule relates to actions that qualify for
categorical exclusion under 44 CFR
10.8(d)(2)(iii), such as the development
of plans under this section.
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
We have prepared and reviewed this
rule under the provisions of E.O. 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review. Under
Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993, a significant regulatory
action is subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Executive Order defines
significant regulatory action as one
that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
Presidents priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
The purpose of this rule is to
implement section 322 of the Stafford
Act which addresses mitigation
planning at the State, tribal, and local
levels, identifies new local planning
requirements, allows Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (HMGP) funds for
planning activities, and increases the
amount of HMGP funds available to
States that develop a comprehensive,
enhanced mitigation plan. The rule
identifies local mitigation planning
requirements before approval of project
grants, and requires our approval of an
Enhanced State Mitigation plan as a
condition for increased mitigation
funding. The rule also implements
section 323 of the Stafford Act, which
requires that repairs or construction
funded by disaster loans or grants must
comply with applicable standards and
safe land use and construction practices.
As such the rule itself will not have an
effect on the economy of more than
$100,000,000.
Therefore, this rule is a significant
regulatory action and is not an
economically significant rule under
Executive Order 12866. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
reviewed this rule under Executive
Order 12866.
Executive Order 12898, Environmental
Justice
Under Executive Order 12898, Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994, we incorporate
environmental justice into our policies
and programs. The Executive Order
requires each Federal agency to conduct
its programs, policies, and activities that
substantially affect human health or the
environment, in a manner that ensures
that those programs, policies, and
activities do not have the effect of
excluding persons from participation in
our programs, denying persons the
benefits of our programs, or subjecting
persons to discrimination because of
their race, color, or national origin.
No action that we can anticipate
under the final rule will have a
disproportionately high or adverse
human health and environmental effect
on any segment of the population.
Section 322 focuses specifically on
mitigation planning to: Identify the
natural hazards, risks, and
vulnerabilities of areas in States,
localities, and tribal areas; support
development of local mitigation plans;
provide for technical assistance to local
and tribal governments for mitigation
planning; and identify and prioritize
mitigation actions that the State will
support, as resources become available.
Section 323 requires compliance with
applicable codes and standards in repair
and construction, and use of safe land
use and construction standards.
Accordingly, the requirements of
Executive Order 12898 do not apply to
this interim final rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)) and concurrent with the
publication of this interim final rule, we
have submitted a request for review and
approval of a new collection of
information, which is contained in this
interim final rule. Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, a person may
not be penalized for failing to comply
with an information collection that does
not display a currently valid Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) control
number. The request was submitted to
OMB for approval under the emergency
processing procedures in OMB
regulation 5 CFR 1320.1. OMB has
approved this collection of information
for use through August 31, 2002, under
OMB Number 30670297.
We expect to follow this emergency
request with a request for OMB approval
to continue the use of the collection of
information for a term of three years.
The request will be processed under
OMBs normal clearance procedures in
accordance with provisions of OMB
regulation 5 CFR 1320.10. To help us
with the timely processing of the
emergency and normal clearance
submissions to OMB, we invite the
general public to comment on the
collection of information. This notice
and request for comments complies
with the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)).
Collection of Information
Title: State/Local/Tribal Hazard
Mitigation Plans under Section 322 of
the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.
Abstract: Section 322 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistant Act, as amended by Section
104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000, provides new and revitalized
approaches to mitigation planning. To
obtain Federal assistance, new planning
provisions require that each state, local,
and tribal government prepare a hazard
mitigation plan to include sections that
describe the planning process, an
assessment of the risks, a mitigation
strategy, and identification of the plan
maintenance and updating process. The
Act provides a framework for linking
pre- and post-disaster mitigation
planning and initiatives with public and
private interests to ensure an integrated,
comprehensive approach to disaster loss
reduction. Under Section 322 there is a
two-tiered State mitigation plan process.
State mitigation plans must be
reviewed, revised, and submitted to us
every 3 years.
(1) A Standard State Mitigation Plan
must be approved by us in order for
States to be eligible to receive Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HGMP)
funding based on 15 percent of the total
estimated eligible Federal disaster
assistance. This plan demonstrates the
States goals, priorities, and
commitment to reduce risks from
natural hazards and serves as a guide for
State and local decision makers as they
commit resources to reducing the effects
of natural hazards.
(2) An Enhanced State Mitigation
Plan must be approved by us for a State
to be eligible to receive HMGP funds
based on 20 percent of the total
estimated eligible Federal disaster
assistance. This plan must be approved
by us within the 3 years prior to the
current major disaster declaration. It
must demonstrate that a State has
developed a comprehensive mitigation
program, is effectively using available
mitigation funding, and is capable of
managing the increased funding.
To be eligible to receive HMGP
project grants, local governments must
develop Local Mitigation Plans that
include a risk assessment and mitigation
strategy to reduce potential losses and
target resources. Plans must be
reviewed, revised, and submitted to us
for approval every 5 years.
To receive HMGP project grants, tribal
governments may apply as a grantee or
subgrantee, and will be required to meet
the planning requirements of a State or
local government.

Estimated Total Annual Burden:
Type of collection/forms 
Update state or tribal mitigation plans (standard state mitigation plans).
No. of respondents
18 
Hours per response
320 
Annual burden hours
5,760
State review of local plans 
No. of respondents
500 local plans
Hours per response
8
Annual burden hours
4,000
Type of collection/forms 
States develop Enhanced State Mitigation Plans 
No. of respondents
7
Hours per response
100 
Annual burden hours
700
Local or tribal governments develop mitigation plans 
No. of respondents
500 local plans
Hours per response
300
Annual burden hours
150,000
Total burden: 160,460

Comments: We are soliciting written
comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the
proposed data collection is necessary for
the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) evaluate the
accuracy of the agencys estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information; (c) obtain
recommendations to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
evaluate the extent to which automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques may
further reduce the respondents burden.
FEMA will accept comments through
April 29, 2002.
Addressee: Interested persons should
submit written comments to Muriel B.
Anderson, Chief, Records Management
Section, Program Services and Systems
Branch, Facilities Management and
Services Division, Administration and
Resource Planning Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street, Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You
may obtain copies of the OMB
paperwork clearance package by
contacting Ms. Anderson at (202) 646
2625 (voice), (202) 6463347 (facsimile),
or by e-mail at
muriel.anderson@fema.gov.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, Federalism,
dated August 4, 1999, sets forth
principles and criteria that agencies
must adhere to in formulating and
implementing policies that have
federalism implications, that is,
regulations that have substantial direct
effects on the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Federal agencies
must closely examine the statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States, and to the extent
practicable, must consult with State and
local officials before implementing any
such action.
We have reviewed this rule under
E.O.13132 and have concluded that the
rule does not have federalism
implications as defined by the Executive
Order. We have determined that the rule
does not significantly affect the rights,
roles, and responsibilities of States, and
involves no preemption of State law nor
does it limit State policymaking
discretion.
However, we have consulted with
State and local officials. In order to
assist us in the development of this rule,
we hosted a meeting to allow interested
parties an opportunity to provide their
perspectives on the legislation and
options for implementation of Section 322.
Stakeholders who attended the meeting
included representatives from the
National Emergency Management
Association, the Association of State
Floodplain Managers, the National
Governors Association, the
International Association of Emergency
Managers, the National Association of
Development Organizations, the
American Public Works Association, the
National League of Cities, the National
Association of Counties, the National
Conference of State Legislatures, the
International City/County Management
Association, and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. We received valuable input
from all parties at the meeting, which
we took into account in the
development of this rule. Additionally,
we actively encourage and solicit
comments on this interim final rule
from interested parties, and we will
consider them in preparing the final
rule.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
We have reviewed this interim final
rule under Executive Order 13175,
which became effective on February 6,
2001. Under the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (HMGP), Indian tribal
governments will have the option to
apply for grants directly to us and to
serve as grantee, carrying out State
roles. If they choose this option, tribal
governments may submit either a Statelevel
Standard Mitigation Plan for the
15 percent HMGP funding or a Statelevel
Enhanced Mitigation Plan for 20
percent HMGP funding. In either case,
Indian tribal governments would be able
to spend up to 7 percent of those funds
on planning. Before developing this
rule, we met with representatives from
State and local governments and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, to discuss the
new planning opportunities and
requirements of Section 322 of the Stafford
Act. We received valuable input from all
parties, which helped us to develop this
interim final rule.
In reviewing the interim final rule, we
find that it does not have tribal
implications as defined in Executive
Order 13175 because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Moreover, the interim final rule does
not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on tribal governments,
nor does it preempt tribal law, impair
treaty rights or limit the self-governing
powers of tribal governments.
Congressional Review of Agency
Rulemaking
We have sent this interim final rule to
the Congress and to the General
Accounting Office under the
Congressional Review of Agency
Rulemaking Act, Public Law 104121.
The rule is a not major rule within the
meaning of that Act. It is an
administrative action in support of
normal day-to-day mitigation planning
activities required by section 322 and
compliance under section 323 of the
Stafford Act, as enacted in DMA 2000.
The rule will not result in a major
increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions. It will
not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises. This final rule is
subject to the information collection
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, and OMB has assigned
Control No. 30670297. The rule is not
an unfunded Federal mandate within
the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 1044,
and any enforceable duties that we
impose are a condition of Federal
assistance or a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal
program.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 201 and
Part 206
Administrative practice and
procedure, Disaster assistance, Grant
programs, Mitigation planning,
Reporting and record-keeping
requirements.
Accordingly, Amend 44 CFR,
Subchapter DDisaster Assistance, as
follows:
1. Add Part 201 to read as follows:
PART 201MITIGATION PLANNING
Sec.
201.1 Purpose.
201.2 Definitions.
201.3 Responsibilities.
201.4 Standard State Mitigation Plans.
201.5 Enhanced State Mitigation Plans.
201.6 Local Mitigation Plans.
Authority: Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 51215206; Reorganization Plan No. 3
of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.,
p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979
Comp., p. 376; E.O. 12148, 44 FR 43239, 3
CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 412; and E.O. 12673, 54
FR 12571, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 214.
Section 201.1 Purpose.
(a) The purpose of this part is to
provide information on the polices and
procedures for mitigation planning as
required by the provisions of section
322 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5165.
(b) The purpose of mitigation
planning is for State, local, and Indian
tribal governments to identify the
natural hazards that impact them, to
identify actions and activities to reduce
any losses from those hazards, and to
establish a coordinated process to
implement the plan, taking advantage of
a wide range of resources.
Section 201.2 Definitions.
Grantee means the government to
which a grant is awarded, which is
accountable for the use of the funds
provided. The grantee is the entire legal
entity even if only a particular
component of the entity is designated in
the grant award document. Generally,
the State is the grantee. However, after
a declaration, an Indian tribal
government may choose to be a grantee,
or may act as a subgrantee under the
State. An Indian tribal government
acting as grantee will assume the
responsibilities of a state, as
described in this part, for the purposes
of administering the grant.
Hazard mitigation means any
sustained action taken to reduce or
eliminate the long-term risk to human
life and property from hazards.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
means the program authorized under
section 404 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C
5170c and implemented at 44 CFR Part
206, Subpart N, which authorizes
funding for certain mitigation measures
identified through the evaluation of
natural hazards conducted under
section 322 of the Stafford Act 42 U.S.C
5165.
Indian tribal government means any
Federally recognized governing body of
an Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band,
nation, pueblo, village, or community
that the Secretary of Interior
acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe
under the Federally Recognized Tribe
List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a. This
does not include Alaska Native
corporations, the ownership of which is
vested in private individuals.
Local government is any county,
municipality, city, town, township,
public authority, school district, special
district, intrastate district, council of
governments (regardless of whether the
council of governments is incorporated
as a nonprofit corporation under State
law), regional or interstate government
entity, or agency or instrumentality of a
local government; any Indian tribe or
authorized tribal organization, or Alaska
Native village or organization; and any
rural community, unincorporated town
or village, or other public entity.
Managing State means a State to
which FEMA has delegated the
authority to administer and manage the
HMGP under the criteria established by
FEMA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5170c(c).
FEMA may also delegate authority to
tribal governments to administer and
manage the HMGP as a Managing State.
Regional Director is a director of a
regional office of FEMA, or his/her
designated representative.
Small and impoverished communities
means a community of 3,000 or fewer
individuals that is identified by the
State as a rural community, and is not
a remote area within the corporate
boundaries of a larger city; is
economically disadvantaged, by having
an average per capita annual income of
residents not exceeding 80 percent of
national, per capita income, based on
best available data; the local
unemployment rate exceeds by one
percentage point or more, the most
recently reported, average yearly
national unemployment rate; and any
other factors identified in the State Plan
in which the community is located.
The Stafford Act refers to the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law
93288, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5121
5206).
State is any State of the United States,
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.
State Hazard Mitigation Officer is the
official representative of State
government who is the primary point of
contact with FEMA, other Federal
agencies, and local governments in
mitigation planning and
implementation of mitigation programs
and activities required under the
Stafford Act.
Subgrantee means the government or
other legal entity to which a subgrant is
awarded and which is accountable to
the grantee for the use of the funds
provided. Subgrantees can be a State
agency, local government, private nonprofit
organizations, or Indian tribal
government. Indian tribal governments
acting as a subgrantee are accountable to
the State grantee.
Section 201.3 Responsibilities.
(a) General. This section identifies the
key responsibilities of FEMA, States,
and local/tribal governments in carrying
out section 322 of the Stafford Act, 42
U.S.C. 5165.
(b) FEMA. The key responsibilities of
the Regional Director are to:
(1) Oversee all FEMA related pre- and
post-disaster hazard mitigation
programs and activities;
(2) Provide technical assistance and
training to State, local, and Indian tribal
governments regarding the mitigation
planning process;
(3) Review and approve all Standard
and Enhanced State Mitigation Plans;
(4) Review and approve all local
mitigation plans, unless that authority
has been delegated to the State in
accordance with Section 201.6(d);
(5) Conduct reviews, at least once
every three years, of State mitigation
activities, plans, and programs to ensure
that mitigation commitments are
fulfilled, and when necessary, take
action, including recovery of funds or
denial of future funds, if mitigation
commitments are not fulfilled.
(c) State. The key responsibilities of
the State are to coordinate all State and
local activities relating to hazard
evaluation and mitigation and to:
(1) Prepare and submit to FEMA a
Standard State Mitigation Plan
following the criteria established in
Section 201.4 as a condition of receiving
Stafford Act assistance (except
emergency assistance).
(2) In order to be considered for the
20 percent HMGP funding, prepare and
submit an Enhanced State Mitigation
Plan in accordance with Section 201.5, which
must be reviewed and updated, if
necessary, every three years from the
date of the approval of the previous
plan.
(3) At a minimum, review and, if
necessary, update the Standard State
Mitigation Plan by November 1, 2003
and every three years from the date of
the approval of the previous plan in
order to continue program eligibility.
(4) Make available the use of up to the
7 percent of HMGP funding for planning
in accordance with Section 206.434.
(5) Provide technical assistance and
training to local governments to assist
them in applying for HMGP planning
grants, and in developing local
mitigation plans.
(6) For Managing States that have
been approved under the criteria
established by FEMA pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 5170c(c), review and approve
local mitigation plans in accordance
with Section 201.6(d).
(d) Local governments. The key
responsibilities of local governments are
to:
(1) Prepare and adopt a jurisdiction-wide
natural hazard mitigation plan as
a condition of receiving project grant
funds under the HMGP, in accordance
with Section 201.6.
(2) At a minimum, review and, if
necessary, update the local mitigation
plan every five years from date of plan
approval to continue program eligibility.
(e) Indian tribal governments. Indian
tribal governments will be given the
option of applying directly to us for
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
funding, or they may choose to apply
through the State. If they apply directly
to us, they will assume the
responsibilities of the State, or grantee,
and if they apply through the State, they
will assume the responsibilities of the
local government, or subgrantee.
Section 201.4 Standard State Mitigation Plans.
(a) Plan requirement. By November 1,
2003, States must have an approved
Standard State Mitigation plan meeting
the requirements of this section, in
order to receive assistance under the
Stafford Act, although assistance
authorized under disasters declared
prior to November 1, 2003 will continue
to be made available. In any case,
emergency assistance provided under 42
U.S.C. 5170a, 5170b, 5173, 5174, 5177,
5179, 5180, 5182, 5183, 5184, 5192 will
not be affected. The mitigation plan is
the demonstration of the States
commitment to reduce risks from
natural hazards and serves as a guide for
State decision makers as they commit
resources to reducing the effects of
natural hazards. States may choose to
include the requirements of the HMGP
Administrative Plan in their mitigation
plan.
(b) Planning process. An effective
planning process is essential in
developing and maintaining a good
plan. The mitigation planning process
should include coordination with other
State agencies, appropriate Federal
agencies, interested groups, and be
integrated to the extent possible with
other ongoing State planning efforts as
well as other FEMA mitigation programs
and initiatives.
(c) Plan content. To be effective the
plan must include the following
elements:
(1) Description of the planning
process used to develop the plan,
including how it was prepared, who
was involved in the process, and how
other agencies participated.
(2) Risk assessments that provide the
factual basis for activities proposed in
the strategy portion of the mitigation
plan. Statewide risk assessments must
characterize and analyze natural
hazards and risks to provide a statewide
overview. This overview will allow the
State to compare potential losses
throughout the State and to determine
their priorities for implementing
mitigation measures under the strategy,
and to prioritize jurisdictions for
receiving technical and financial
support in developing more detailed
local risk and vulnerability assessments.
The risk assessment shall include the
following:
(i) An overview of the type and
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;
(ii) An overview and analysis of the
States vulnerability to the hazards
described in this paragraph (c)(2), based
on estimates provided in local risk
assessments as well as the State risk
assessment. The State shall describe
vulnerability in terms of the
jurisdictions most threatened by the
identified hazards, and most vulnerable
to damage and loss associated with
hazard events. State owned critical or
operated facilities located in the
identified hazard areas shall also be
addressed;
(iii) An overview and analysis of
potential losses to the identified
vulnerable structures, based on
estimates provided in local risk
assessments as well as the State risk
assessment. The State shall estimate the
potential dollar losses to State owned or
operated buildings, infrastructure, and
critical facilities located in the
identified hazard areas.
(3) A Mitigation Strategy that provides
the States blueprint for reducing the
losses identified in the risk assessment.
This section shall include:
(i) A description of State goals to
guide the selection of activities to
mitigate and reduce potential losses.
(ii) A discussion of the States pre- and
post-disaster hazard management
policies, programs, and capabilities to
mitigate the hazards in the area,
including: an evaluation of State laws,
regulations, policies, and programs
related to hazard mitigation as well as
to development in hazard-prone areas; a
discussion of State funding capabilities
for hazard mitigation projects; and a
general description and analysis of the
effectiveness of local mitigation
policies, programs, and capabilities.
(iii) An identification, evaluation, and
prioritization of cost-effective,
environmentally sound, and technically
feasible mitigation actions and activities
the State is considering and an
explanation of how each activity
contributes to the overall mitigation
strategy. This section should be linked
to local plans, where specific local
actions and projects are identified.
(iv) Identification of current and
potential sources of Federal, State, local,
or private funding to implement
mitigation activities.
(4) A section on the Coordination of
Local Mitigation Planning that includes
the following:
(i) A description of the State process
to support, through funding and
technical assistance, the development of
local mitigation plans.
(ii) A description of the State process
and timeframe by which the local plans
will be reviewed, coordinated, and
linked to the State Mitigation Plan.
(iii) Criteria for prioritizing
communities and local jurisdictions that
would receive planning and project
grants under available funding
programs, which should include
consideration for communities with the
highest risks, repetitive loss properties,
and most intense development
pressures. Further, that for nonplanning
grants, a principal criterion for
prioritizing grants shall be the extent to
which benefits are maximized according
to a cost benefit review of proposed
projects and their associated costs.
(5) A Plan Maintenance Process that
includes:
(i) An established method and
schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and
updating the plan.
(ii) A system for monitoring
implementation of mitigation measures
and project closeouts.
(iii) A system for reviewing progress
on achieving goals as well as activities
and projects identified in the Mitigation
Strategy.
(6) A Plan Adoption Process. The plan
must be formally adopted by the State
prior to submittal to us for final review
and approval.
(7) Assurances. The plan must
include assurances that the State will
comply with all applicable Federal
statutes and regulations in effect with
respect to the periods for which it
receives grant funding, in compliance
with 44 CFR 13.11(c). 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).
(d) Review and updates. Plan must be
reviewed and revised to reflect changes
in development, progress in statewide
mitigation efforts, and changes in
priorities and resubmitted for approval
to the appropriate Regional Director
every three years. The Regional review
will be completed within 45 days after
receipt from the State, whenever
possible. We also encourage a State to
review its plan in the post-disaster
timeframe to reflect changing priorities,
but it is not required.
Section 201.5 Enhanced State Mitigation Plans.
(a) A State with a FEMA approved
Enhanced State Mitigation Plan at the
time of a disaster declaration is eligible
to receive increased funds under the
HMGP, based on twenty percent of the
total estimated eligible Stafford Act
disaster assistance. The Enhanced State
Mitigation Plan must demonstrate that a
State has developed a comprehensive
mitigation program, that the State
effectively uses available mitigation
funding, and that it is capable of
managing the increased funding. In
order for the State to be eligible for the
20 percent HMGP funding, FEMA must
have approved the plan within three
years prior to the disaster declaration.
(b) Enhanced State Mitigation Plans
must include all elements of the
Standard State Mitigation Plan
identified in Section 201.4, as well as
document the following:
(1) Demonstration that the plan is
integrated to the extent practicable with
other State and/or regional planning
initiatives (comprehensive, growth
management, economic development,
capital improvement, land
development, and/or emergency
management plans) and FEMA
mitigation programs and initiatives that
provide guidance to State and regional
agencies.
(2) Documentation of the States
project implementation capability,
identifying and demonstrating the
ability to implement the plan,
including:
(i) Established eligibility criteria for
multi-hazard mitigation measures.
(ii) A system to determine the cost
effectiveness of mitigation measures,
consistent with OMB Circular A94,
Guidelines and Discount Rates for
Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal
Programs, and to rank the measures
according to the States eligibility
criteria.
(iii) Demonstration that the State has
the capability to effectively manage the
HMGP as well as other mitigation grant
programs, including a record of the
following:
(A) Meeting HMGP and other
mitigation grant application timeframes
and submitting complete, technically
feasible, and eligible project
applications with appropriate
supporting documentation;
(B) Preparing and submitting accurate
environmental reviews and benefit-cost
analyses;
(C) Submitting complete and accurate
quarterly progress and financial reports
on time; and
(D) Completing HMGP and other
mitigation grant projects within
established performance periods,
including financial reconciliation.
(iv) A system and strategy by which
the State will conduct an assessment of
the completed mitigation actions and
include a record of the effectiveness
(actual cost avoidance) of each
mitigation action.
(3) Demonstration that the State
effectively uses existing mitigation
programs to achieve its mitigation goals.
(4) Demonstration that the State is
committed to a comprehensive state
mitigation program, which might
include any of the following:
(i) A commitment to support local
mitigation planning by providing
workshops and training, State planning
grants, or coordinated capability
development of local officials, including
Emergency Management and Floodplain
Management certifications.
(ii) A statewide program of hazard
mitigation through the development of
legislative initiatives, mitigation
councils, formation of public/private
partnerships, and/or other executive
actions that promote hazard mitigation.
(iii) The State provides a portion of
the non-Federal match for HMGP and/
or other mitigation projects.
(iv) To the extent allowed by State
law, the State requires or encourages
local governments to use a current
version of a nationally applicable model
building code or standard that addresses
natural hazards as a basis for design and
construction of State sponsored
mitigation projects.
(v) A comprehensive, multi-year plan
to mitigate the risks posed to existing
buildings that have been identified as
necessary for post-disaster response and
recovery operations.
(vi) A comprehensive description of
how the State integrates mitigation into
its post-disaster recovery operations.
(c) Review and updates. (1) A State
must review and revise its plan to
reflect changes in development,
progress in statewide mitigation efforts,
and changes in priorities, and resubmit
it for approval to the appropriate
Regional Director every three years. The
Regional review will be completed
within 45 days after receipt from the
State, whenever possible.
(2) In order for a State to be eligible
for the 20 percent HMGP funding, the
Enhanced State Mitigation plan must be
approved by FEMA within the three
years prior to the current major disaster
declaration.
Section 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans.
The local mitigation plan is the
representation of the jurisdictions
commitment to reduce risks from
natural hazards, serving as a guide for
decision makers as they commit
resources to reducing the effects of
natural hazards. Local plans will also
serve as the basis for the State to
provide technical assistance and to
prioritize project funding.
(a) Plan requirement. (1) For disasters
declared after November 1, 2003, a local
government must have a mitigation plan
approved pursuant to this section in
order to receive HMGP project grants.
Until November 1, 2003, local
mitigation plans may be developed
concurrent with the implementation of
the project grant.
(2) Regional Directors may grant an
exception to the plan requirement in
extraordinary circumstances, such as in
a small and impoverished community,
when justification is provided. In these
cases, a plan will be completed within
12 months of the award of the project
grant. If a plan is not provided within
this timeframe, the project grant will be
terminated, and any costs incurred after
notice of grants termination will not be
reimbursed by FEMA.
(3) Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g.
watershed plans) may be accepted, as
appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction
has participated in the process and has
officially adopted the plan. State-wide
plans will not be accepted as multijurisdictional
plans.
(b) Planning process. An open public
involvement process is essential to the
development of an effective plan. In
order to develop a more comprehensive
approach to reducing the effects of
natural disasters, the planning process
shall include:
(1) An opportunity for the public to
comment on the plan during the
drafting stage and prior to plan
approval;
(2) An opportunity for neighboring
communities, local and regional
agencies involved in hazard mitigation
activities, and agencies that have the
authority to regulate development, as
well as businesses, academia and other
private and non-profit interests to be
involved in the planning process; and
(3) Review and incorporation, if
appropriate, of existing plans, studies,
reports, and technical information.
(c) Plan content. The plan shall
include the following:
(1) Documentation of the planning
process used to develop the plan,
including how it was prepared, who
was involved in the process, and how
the public was involved.
(2) A risk assessment that provides
the factual basis for activities proposed
in the strategy to reduce losses from
identified hazards. Local risk
assessments must provide sufficient
information to enable the jurisdiction to
identify and prioritize appropriate
mitigation actions to reduce losses from
identified hazards. The risk assessment
shall include:
(i) A description of the type, location,
and extent of all natural hazards that
can affect the jurisdiction. The plan
shall include information on previous
occurrences of hazard events and on the
probability of future hazard events.
(ii) A description of the jurisdictions
vulnerability to the hazards described in
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This
description shall include an overall
summary of each hazard and its impact
on the community. The plan should
describe vulnerability in terms of:
(A) The types and numbers of existing
and future buildings, infrastructure, and
critical facilities located in the
identified hazard areas;
(B) An estimate of the potential dollar
losses to vulnerable structures identified
in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section
and a description of the methodology
used to prepare the estimate;
(C) Providing a general description of
land uses and development trends
within the community so that mitigation
options can be considered in future land
use decisions.
(iii) For multi-jurisdictional plans, the
risk assessment section must assess each
jurisdictions risks where they vary from
the risks facing the entire planning area.
(3) A mitigation strategy that provides
the jurisdictions blueprint for reducing
the potential losses identified in the risk
assessment, based on existing
authorities, policies, programs and
resources, and its ability to expand on
and improve these existing tools. This
section shall include:
(i) A description of mitigation goals to
reduce or avoid long-term
vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.
(ii) A section that identifies and
analyzes a comprehensive range of
specific mitigation actions and projects
being considered to reduce the effects of
each hazard, with particular emphasis
on new and existing buildings and
infrastructure.
(iii) An action plan describing how
the actions identified in paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) of this section will be
prioritized, implemented, and
administered by the local jurisdiction.
Prioritization shall include a special
emphasis on the extent to which
benefits are maximized according to a
cost benefit review of the proposed
projects and their associated costs.
(iv) For multi-jurisdictional plans,
there must be identifiable action items
specific to the jurisdiction requesting
FEMA approval or credit of the plan.
(4) A plan maintenance process that
includes:
(i) A section describing the method
and schedule of monitoring, evaluating,
and updating the mitigation plan within
a five-year cycle.
(ii) A process by which local
governments incorporate the
requirements of the mitigation plan into
other planning mechanisms such as
comprehensive or capital improvement
plans, when appropriate.
(iii) Discussion on how the
community will continue public
participation in the plan maintenance
process.
(5) Documentation that the plan has
been formally adopted by the governing
body of the jurisdiction requesting
approval of the plan (e.g., City Council,
County Commissioner, Tribal Council).
For multi-jurisdictional plans, each
jurisdiction requesting approval of the
plan must document that it has been
formally adopted.
(d) Plan review. (1) Plans must be
submitted to the State Hazard Mitigation
Officer for initial review and
coordination. The State will then send
the plan to the appropriate FEMA
Regional Office for formal review and
approval.
(2) The Regional review will be
completed within 45 days after receipt
from the State, whenever possible.
(3) Plans must be reviewed, revised if
appropriate, and resubmitted for
approval within five years in order to
continue to be eligible for HMGP project
grant funding.
(4) Managing States that have been
approved under the criteria established
by FEMA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5170c(c)
will be delegated approval authority for
local mitigation plans, and the review
will be based on the criteria in this part.
Managing States will review the plans
within 45 days of receipt of the plans,
whenever possible, and provide a copy
of the approved plans to the Regional
Office.
PART 206FEDERAL DISASTER
ASSISTANCE FOR DISASTERS
DECLARED ON OR AFTER
NOVEMBER 23, 1988
2. The authority citation for part 206
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 51215206; Reorganization Plan No. 3
of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.,
p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979
Comp., p. 376; E.O. 12148, 44 FR 43239, 3
CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 412; and E.O. 12673, 54
FR 12571, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 214.
2a. Revise Part 206, Subpart M to read
as follows:
Subpart MMinimum Standards
Sec.
206.400 General.
206.401 Local standards.
206.402 Compliance.
Section 206.400 General.
(a) As a condition of the receipt of any
disaster assistance under the Stafford
Act, the applicant shall carry out any
repair or construction to be financed
with the disaster assistance in
accordance with applicable standards of
safety, decency, and sanitation and in
conformity with applicable codes,
specifications and standards.
(b) Applicable codes, specifications,
and standards shall include any disaster
resistant building code that meets the
minimum requirements of the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as well
as being substantially equivalent to the
recommended provisions of the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program (NEHRP). In addition, the
applicant shall comply with any
requirements necessary in regards to
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain
Management, Executive Order 12699,
Seismic Safety of Federal and Federally
Assisted or Regulated New Building
Construction, and any other applicable
Executive orders.
(c) In situations where there are no
locally applicable standards of safety,
decency and sanitation, or where there
are no applicable local codes,
specifications and standards governing
repair or construction activities, or
where the Regional Director determines
that otherwise applicable codes,
specifications, and standards are
inadequate, then the Regional Director
may, after consultation with appropriate
State and local officials, require the use
of nationally applicable codes,
specifications, and standards, as well as
safe land use and construction practices
in the course of repair or construction
activities.
(d) The mitigation planning process
that is mandated by section 322 of the
Stafford Act and 44 CFR part 201 can
assist State and local governments in
determining where codes,
specifications, and standards are
inadequate, and may need to be
upgraded.
Section 206.401 Local standards.
The cost of repairing or constructing
a facility in conformity with minimum
codes, specifications and standards may
be eligible for reimbursement under
section 406 of the Stafford Act, as long
as such codes, specifications and
standards meet the criteria that are
listed at 44 CFR 206.226(b).
Section 206.402 Compliance.
A recipient of disaster assistance
under the Stafford Act must document
for the Regional Director its compliance
with this subpart following the
completion of any repair or construction
activities.
Subpart NHazard Mitigation Grant
Program
3. Revise Section 206.431 to read as follows:
Section 206.431 Definitions.
Activity means any mitigation
measure, project, or action proposed to
reduce risk of future damage, hardship,
loss or suffering from disasters.
Applicant means a State agency, local
government, Indian tribal government,
or eligible private nonprofit
organization, submitting an application
to the grantee for assistance under the
HMGP.
Enhanced State Mitigation Plan is the
hazard mitigation plan approved under
44 CFR part 201 as a condition of
receiving increased funding under the
HMGP.
Grant application means the request
to FEMA for HMGP funding, as outlined
in Section 206.436, by a State or tribal
government that will act as grantee.
Grant award means total of Federal
and non-Federal contributions to
complete the approved scope of work.
Grantee means the government to
which a grant is awarded and which is
accountable for the use of the funds
provided. The grantee is the entire legal
entity even if only a particular
component of the entity is designated in
the grant award document. Generally,
the State is the grantee. However, an
Indian tribal government may choose to
be a grantee, or it may act as a
subgrantee under the State. An Indian
tribal government acting as a grantee
will assume the responsibilities of a
state, under this subpart, for the
purposes of administering the grant.
Indian tribal government means any
Federally recognized governing body of
an Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band,
nation, pueblo, village, or community
that the Secretary of Interior
acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe
under the Federally Recognized Tribe
List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a. This
does not include Alaska Native
corporations, the ownership of which is
vested in private individuals.
Local Mitigation Plan is the hazard
mitigation plan required of a local or
Indian tribal government acting as a
subgrantee as a condition of receiving a
project subgrant under the HMGP as
outlined in 44 CFR 201.6.
Standard State Mitigation Plan is the
hazard mitigation plan approved under
44 CFR part 201, as a condition of
receiving Stafford Act assistance as
outlined in Section 201.4.
State Administrative Plan for the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program means
the plan developed by the State to
describe the procedures for
administration of the HMGP.
Subgrant means an award of financial
assistance under a grant by a grantee to
an eligible subgrantee.
Subgrant application means the
request to the grantee for HMGP funding
by the eligible subgrantee, as outlined in
Section 206.436.
Subgrantee means the government or
other legal entity to which a subgrant is
awarded and which is accountable to
the grantee for the use of the funds
provided. Subgrantees can be a State
agency, local government, private nonprofit
organizations, or Indian tribal
government as outlined in Section 206.433.
Indian tribal governments acting as a
subgrantee are accountable to the State
grantee.
4. Revise Section 206.432(b) to read as
follows:
Section 206.432 Federal grant assistance.
* * * * *
(b) Amounts of assistance. The total of
Federal assistance under this subpart
shall not exceed either 15 or 20 percent
of the total estimated Federal assistance
(excluding administrative costs)
provided for a major disaster under 42
U.S.C. 5170b, 5172, 5173, 5174, 5177,
5178, 5183, and 5201 as follows:
(1) Fifteen (15) percent. Effective
November 1, 2003, a State with an
approved Standard State Mitigation
Plan, which meets the requirements
outlined in 44 CFR 201.4, shall be
eligible for assistance under the HMGP
not to exceed 15 percent of the total
estimated Federal assistance described
in this paragraph. Until that date,
existing, approved State Mitigation
Plans will be accepted.
(2) Twenty (20) percent. A State with
an approved Enhanced State Mitigation
Plan, in effect prior to the disaster
declaration, which meets the
requirements outlined in 44 CFR 201.5
shall be eligible for assistance under the
HMGP not to exceed 20 percent of the
total estimated Federal assistance
described in this paragraph.
(3) The estimates of Federal assistance
under this paragraph (b) shall be based
on the Regional Directors estimate of all
eligible costs, actual grants, and
appropriate mission assignments.
* * * * *
5. Section 206.434 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (b) through (g)
as paragraphs (c) through (h),
respectively; adding a new paragraph
(b); revising redesignated paragraphs (c)
introductory text and (c)(1); and revising
redesignated paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Section 206.434 Eligibility.
* * * * *
(b) Plan requirement. (1) For all
disasters declared on or after November
1, 2003, local and tribal government
applicants for subgrants, must have an
approved local mitigation plan in
accordance with 44 CFR 201.6 prior to
receipt of HMGP subgrant funding.
Until November 1, 2003, local
mitigation plans may be developed
concurrent with the implementation of
subgrants.
(2) Regional Directors may grant an
exception to this requirement in
extraordinary circumstances, such as in
a small and impoverished community
when justification is provided. In these
cases, a plan will be completed within
12 months of the award of the project
grant. If a plan is not provided within
this timeframe, the project grant will be
terminated, and any costs incurred after
notice of grants termination will not be
reimbursed by FEMA.
(c) Minimum project criteria. To be
eligible for the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program, a project must:
(1) Be in conformance with the State
Mitigation Plan and Local Mitigation
Plan approved under 44 CFR part 201;
* * * * *
(d) Eligible activities. (1) Planning. Up
to 7% of the States HMGP grant may be
used to develop State, tribal and/or local
mitigation plans to meet the planning
criteria outlined in 44 CFR part 201.
(2) Types of projects. Projects may be
of any nature that will result in
protection to public or private property.
Eligible projects include, but are not
limited to:
(i) Structural hazard control or
protection projects;
(ii) Construction activities that will
result in protection from hazards;
(iii) Retrofitting of facilities;
(iv) Property acquisition or relocation,
as defined in paragraph (e) of this
section;
(v) Development of State or local
mitigation standards;
(vi) Development of comprehensive
mitigation programs with
implementation as an essential
component;
(vii) Development or improvement of
warning systems.
* * * * *
6. Revise Section 206.435(a) to read as
follows:
Section 206.435 Project identification and
selection criteria.
(a) Identification. It is the States
responsibility to identify and select
eligible hazard mitigation projects. All
funded projects must be consistent with
the State Mitigation Plan. Hazard
Mitigation projects shall be identified
and prioritized through the State, Indian
tribal, and local planning process.
* * * * *
7. Revise Section 206.436 to read as follows:
Section 206.436 Application procedures.
(a) General. This section describes the
procedures to be used by the grantee in
submitting an application for HMGP
funding. Under the HMGP, the State or
Indian tribal government is the grantee
and is responsible for processing
subgrants to applicants in accordance
with 44 CFR part 13 and this part 206.
Subgrantees are accountable to the
grantee.
(b) Governors Authorized
Representative. The Governors
Authorized Representative serves as the
grant administrator for all funds
provided under the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program. The Governors
Authorized Representatives
responsibilities as they pertain to
procedures outlined in this section
include providing technical advice and
assistance to eligible subgrantees, and
ensuring that all potential applicants are
aware of assistance available and
submission of those documents
necessary for grant award.
(c) Hazard mitigation application.
Upon identification of mitigation
measures, the State (Governors
Authorized Representative) will submit
its Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
application to the FEMA Regional
Director. The application will identify
one or more mitigation measures for
which funding is requested. The
application must include a Standard
Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal
Assistance, SF 424D, Assurances for
Construction Programs, if appropriate,
and an narrative statement. The
narrative statement will contain any
pertinent project management
information not included in the States
administrative plan for Hazard
Mitigation. The narrative statement will
also serve to identify the specific
mitigation measures for which funding
is requested. Information required for
each mitigation measure shall include
the following:
(1) Name of the subgrantee, if any;
(2) State or local contact for the
measure;
(3) Location of the project;
(4) Description of the measure;
(5) Cost estimate for the measure;
(6) Analysis of the measures cost effectiveness
and substantial risk
reduction, consistent with Section 206.434(c);
(7) Work schedule;
(8) Justification for selection;
(9) Alternatives considered;
(10) Environmental information
consistent with 44 CFR part 9,
Floodplain Management and Protection
of Wetlands, and 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Considerations.
(d) Application submission time limit.
The States application may be amended
as the State identifies and selects local
project applications to be funded. The
State must submit all local HMGP
applications and funding requests for
the purpose of identifying new projects
to the Regional Director within 12
months of the date of disaster
declaration.
(e) Extensions. The State may request
the Regional Director to extend the
application time limit by 30 to 90 day
increments, not to exceed a total of 180
days. The grantee must include a
justification in its request.
(f) FEMA approval. The application
and supplement(s) will be submitted to
the FEMA Regional Director for
approval. FEMA has final approval
authority for funding of all projects.
(g) Indian tribal grantees. Indian tribal
governments may submit a SF 424
directly to the Regional Director.
Subpart HPublic Assistance
Eligibility
* * * * *
8. Revise Section 206.220 to read as follows:
Section 206.220 General.
This subpart provides policies and
procedures for determinations of
eligibility of applicants for public
assistance, eligibility of work, and
eligibility of costs for assistance under
sections 402, 403, 406, 407, 418, 419,
421(d), 502, and 503 of the Stafford Act.
Assistance under this subpart must also
conform to requirements of 44 CFR part
201, Mitigation Planning, and 44 CFR
part 206, subparts GPublic Assistance
Project Administration, IPublic
Assistance Insurance Requirements, J
Coastal Barrier Resources Act, and M
Minimum Standards. Regulations under
44 CFR part 9Floodplain Management
and 44 CFR part 10Environmental
Considerations, also apply to this
assistance.
9. Section 206.226 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs
(b) through (j) as paragraphs (c)
through (k), respectively; adding a new
paragraph (b); and revising redesignated
paragraph (g)(5) to read as follows:
Section 206.226 Restoration of damaged
facilities.
* * * * *
(b) Mitigation planning. In order to
receive assistance under this section, as
of November 1, 2003, the State must
have in place a FEMA approved State
Mitigation Plan in accordance with 44
CFR part 201.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(5) If relocation of a facility is not
feasible or cost effective, the Regional
Director shall disapprove Federal
funding for the original location when
he/she determines in accordance with
44 CFR parts 9, 10, 201, or subpart M
of this part 206, that restoration in the
original location is not allowed. In such
cases, an alternative project may be
applied for.
* * * * *
Dated: February 19, 2002.
Michael D. Brown,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 024321 Filed 22502; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 671805P

[END FEDERAL REGISTER TEXT]

MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE

To improve the guidance available to States, local jurisdictions, and Tribal governments on the
bottom line with respect to FEMA approval of the multi-hazard mitigation plans required under
the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), as the November 1, 2004 deadline approaches,
FEMA has revised the July 2002 guidance document, Interim Criteria for Mitigation planning
under DMA 2000. We want to stress, however, that the Interim Final Rule requirements for
State and local mitigation plans remain unchanged .
The updated Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, dated March 2004, incorporates
feedback and addresses issues that State and local officials and FEMA staff discussed at the
Mitigation Planning Workshops FEMA regional offices held during the spring of 2002 and 2003.
The updated Planning Guidance does:
- Clarify the distinction between the shoulds (recommended to be in the plans) and
shalls (required to be in the plans), and corrects the few discrepancies that were found
in the July 2002 guidance relative to the Interim Final Rule,
- Improve explanations of the plan requirements,
- Improve the sample plan text to illustrate distinctions between plan approaches that
would and would not meet DMA 2000 requirements,
- Revise some of the reviewers comments on the sample plan text to track more closely
with the rule requirements, and
- Reformat the Plan Review Crosswalks (Standard State, Enhanced State, and Local) by
breaking the requirements into elements where appropriate, to help plan writers and
reviewers ensure that plans include the necessary information.
The updated Planning Guidance does not:
* Change the requirements of the Interim Final Rule
* Establish new or additional planning requirements, or
* Necessitate a change in approach for planning currently underway, or for plans already
approved.
The Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance is being posted at www.fema.gov/fima/planning.
For more information, please contact your FEMA regional office.

Comprehensive List of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
March 18, 2003

Question 1: Are HMGP planning grants subject to a benefit-cost analysis in order to be eligible
for funding?
Answer: The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 authorizes up to 7% of the HMGP ceiling to be
used for the development of State, Indian Tribal, and/or local mitigation plans that meet the
planning criteria outlined in 44 CFR Part 201. A benefit-cost analysis is not required for the use
of the 7% planning funds.

Question 2: Are annual EMPG funds contingent upon a State meeting the Section 322
planning requirements?
Answer: No, EMPG funding will not be withheld from a State that does not update its mitigation
plan in compliance with 44 CFR Part 201. However, FEMA does emphasize the need to
encourage planning assistance and training with the EMPG funds. A State may choose to use
the funding they receive under the EMPG to develop specific pieces of their plan as they relate
to all hazards.

Question 3: What should be the role of private nonprofit organizations in the development,
review, and approval of local mitigation plans?
Answer: Private nonprofit organizations, especially those that may be eligible applicants for
mitigation projects, should participate in the development of the local mitigation plan. If they
have fully participated in the development and review of the local plan, it is not necessary for
them to approve/adopt the plan, as long as it is adopted by the local jurisdiction. Note: the
issues related to private nonprofits that cover a wide geographic area, such as rural electric
cooperatives or levee districts, will be addressed in a separate FAQ.

Question 4: Are separate plans required from State agencies when they are subgrantees to
the State agency serving as the grantee to FEMA?
Answer: Not usually. State agency issues should be addressed in the State Mitigation Plan,
and potential projects or funded activities should be included in the plan. The State has two
options for addressing other State agency mitigation issues in a plan. The preferred option is to
ensure participation in the State mitigation planning process by requiring each participating
agency to sign-off on the State Mitigation Plan as a condition of mitigation project grant funding.
State agencies should identify issues of particular interest to them, summarizing any specific
projects, activities, or mitigation commitments in a brief document that can be an addendum to
the State Mitigation Plan. The second option is: if agencies do not participate in the Statewide
planning process, then they must prepare a separate plan in order to be eligible for mitigation
project grant funding.

Question 5: What is the policy to prevent a conflict of interest when a contractor has the
potential to be involved in the preparation of a mitigation plan and that same company is used to
assist FEMA in plan reviews?
Answer: If the contractor has been involved at all in the preparation of a plan, or any portion of
the plan, they will not be able to participate in the plan review. This does not apply to general
data collection that may be generated as part of post-disaster recovery activities.

Question 6: The planning criteria outlined in 44 CFR Part 201 discuss the development of
countywide or multi-jurisdictional plans (which must be adopted by all jurisdictions included),
since many issues are better resolved by evaluating hazards in a more comprehensive fashion.
If a jurisdiction within the boundaries of a multi-jurisdictional planning area does not participate
in the planning process and/or does not formally adopt the plan, what are the implications to the
other participating jurisdictions within that multi-jurisdictional plan?
Answer: When a multi-jurisdictional plan is prepared, any participating entity/jurisdiction must
adopt the plan if they wish to be eligible for future project grant funding from FEMA. If they do
not want to sign off on the plan, that will not prevent any of the other jurisdictions from approving
the plan and being eligible for project grants. For instance, if there was a countywide plan, and
town A did not adopt the plan, but the county and other towns/cities did adopt it, the only one
adversely affected would be town A. We expect, however, that the multi-jurisdictional plan
would address any issues that crossed over jurisdictional lines to as great a degree as possible.

Benefit-Cost Analysis for Projects

Question 7: What level of detail should be provided in mitigation plans with respect to benefit-cost calculations for projects?
Answer: According to DMA interim final regulations [44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(iii)] local mitigation
plans must contain a strategy (or action plan) whereby Prioritization shall include a special
emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a benefit-cost review of
the proposed projects and their associated costs.
This is not intended to require a full-blown benefit-cost calculation for inclusion within the plan
document. However, one key aspect of the many considerations in deciding what type of
mitigation action(s) to pursue is an economic assessment of the particular action. This (and the
other considerations) should be debated and discussed as part of the planning teams and/or
larger communitys decision-making process. A possible result of these local discussions could
be the decision to complete a formal benefit-cost evaluation of the various mitigation
approaches that are technically appropriate for the situation. However, this is not required to be
included in the plan. As long as the economic considerations are summarized in the plan
document as part of the communitys analysis of the comprehensive range of specific mitigation
actions of projects being considered [44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(ii)], that would be sufficient.
Once funding is being sought for the particular mitigation action, the detailed benefit-cost
calculation would be required, as described under the various grant program regulations.

Demonstration of Effective Program Management

Question 8: What is the length of time necessary for a State to demonstrate a track record of
effective program management? (Enhanced Plan requirement)
Answer: A State must show one year (4 quarters) of demonstrated effective program
management. This demonstration will be between the FEMA Regional Office and the State to
determine. Examples of effective program management include, but are not limited to: meeting
grant application time frames with complete, technically feasible, and eligible project
applications; preparing and submitting accurate environmental reviews and benefit-cost
analyses and timely submission of quarterly financial and progress reports; demonstrated work-
in-progress throughout the period of performance; and completed closeout of grants within 90
days of end of performance periods.

Level of Detail for Risk Assessments

Question 9: What level of detail is necessary for a Risk Assessment?
Answer: The short answer to this question is: It depends.
As stated in 44 CFR 201.6(c)(2), the risk assessment should provide enough information to
enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions. The risk
assessment must include a description of the vulnerability that includes the potential impact of
each hazard on the community. This type of information can be portrayed in many ways, but
must be based on best available data. The following provides examples of the variety of ways
vulnerability can be depicted; each of the examples below could meet DMA criteria if it is
determined that the approaches and data used represent the communitys best-faith efforts to
obtain the most recent, accurate data available.
Communities A, B, and C each contain 5,000 households and 100 businesses (based on
Census data and the local community plan). The communities each have a 100-year floodplain
running through them, but there is no detailed information as to how many buildings lie in the
floodplain, nor is there detailed information on what the depth of the 100-year flood would be at
the buildings. The communities can demonstrate their vulnerability in the following ways:

Scenario 1: Community As planning team obtains the tax maps (containing parcel-level
information) for the community and transfers the FIRM boundaries onto it. It then counts the
number of homes and businesses within the floodway and floodplain boundaries. The planning
team determines that there are 500 households and 28 businesses within the floodplain, 100 of
which are within the floodway. The planning team obtains the backup information from the
FIRM used by the study contractor that performed their currently effective Flood Insurance
Study. They then determine that the average 100-year flood depth in the floodway is 9 feet, and
the average 100-year floodplain depth is 6 feet. They also determine that there are areas of
high flow velocity in certain reaches of the stream, indicating that localized erosion may be a
problem.
Scenario 2: Community B does not have detailed flood mapping; they have flood boundary
information. The planning team estimates that, based upon the density and pattern of
development in the community, approximately 15% of the housing and 20% of the businesses in
the community lie in the 100-year floodplain. This is estimated visually by transferring the FIRM
boundaries onto a land use map previously developed by the planning department. By
multiplication, they determine that approximately 750 homes and 20 businesses are in the
floodplain. The team then takes a USGS quadrangle map and estimates the average ground
elevations within the floodway, and within the floodplain, and compares them with the average
base flood elevation obtained from the FIRM. They determine that the average depth in the
floodplain is 5 feet.
As the vulnerability assessment is completed, it is noted that given the zoning designation of
currently vacant land within the floodplain, there is the potential for an additional 100 houses to
be built in the floodplain. This is brought to the attention of the planning director.
Scenario 3: Community C works with the local university to have students do a windshield
survey of the homes and businesses located in the floodplain. The students first obtain Q3
flood boundaries from www.hazardmaps.gov, and transfer them onto a new street map. They
then use an old tax map to begin counting structures within the flood boundaries. Lastly, they
take to the streets to visually count the number of homes and businesses that likely lie within the
flood boundaries delineated on their street map. They determine there are 425 homes and 22
businesses within the flood boundaries.
In the examples above, each community arrived at the number of structures within the floodplain
in a different manner, using the best data available to them, and using methods that matched
the resources of the community. None of these communities used GIS, a tool often used in risk
assessment activities.

Environmental Assessment and Data Collection Requirements

Question 10: Do the States have to prepare environmental assessments and collect data?
Answer: The regulations for enhanced plans at 201.5(b)(2)(iii) require "Demonstration that the
State has the capability to effectively manage the HMGP as well as other mitigation grant
programs, including a record of the following(B) Preparing and submitting accurate
environmental reviews.
The States are not required to prepare the formal environmental documents, but FEMA does
expect them to perform much of the data gathering and coordination necessary to support
the environmental review process.
FEMAs environmental regulations at 44 CFR Part 10.7 discuss FEMAs overall approach to
integrating National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) considerations with mitigation planning
and project development. Paragraph 10.7(a) directs the FEMA Regional Director to integrate
the NEPA process with other planning at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning
decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to head off
potential conflicts.
To facilitate compliance with this approach, FEMA sets out its expectations for applicants for
FEMA assistance, generally States, Tribal and local governments, in Paragraph 10.7(c)(2):
(2) To facilitate compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section,
applicants and other non-federal entities are expected to:
(i) Contact the Regional Director as early as possible in the planning process for
guidance on the scope and level of environmental information required to be submitted
in support of their application;
(ii) Conduct any studies which are deemed necessary and appropriate by FEMA to
determine the impact of the proposed action on the human environment;
(iii) Consult with appropriate federal, regional, State, and local agencies and other
potentially interested parties during preliminary planning stages to ensure that all
environmental factors are identified;
(iv) Submit applications for all federal, regional, State, and local approvals as early as
possible in the planning process;
(v) Notify the Regional Director as early as possible of all other federal, regional, State,
local, and Indian Tribal actions required for project completion so that FEMA may
coordinate all federal environmental reviews; and
(vi) Notify the Regional Director of all known parties potentially affected by or interested
in the proposed action.
[45 FR 41142, June 18, 1980, as amended at 47 FR 13149, Mar. 29, 1982]

Plan Detail on Critical Facilities

Question 11: What level of detail is needed in the plans identification of critical facilities?
Answer: The plan should provide enough information regarding critical facilities to enable the
jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions.
However, some information may be deemed as highly sensitive and should not be made
available to the public. Such information that the jurisdiction considers sensitive should be
treated as an addendum to the mitigation plan so that it is still a part of the plan, but access can
be controlled. For more information on protecting sensitive information see How-To #7
Integrating Human-Caused Hazards into Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-7).

Acquisition Project Addresses

Question 12: Are potential acquisition project property addresses required to be noted in the
plan?
Answer: No. A list of potential properties or areas that are being considered for acquisition
should be prepared in advance, as part of the mitigation strategy, but the specifics regarding
property addresses should remain at the project level.

33 
Unit 2: Local Plan Review  Prerequisites and Planning Process 

34 
Prerequisite(s) 

What is the purpose of this portion of the Plan Review Requirements? 

Prerequisites are intended to confirm the commitment of the state, tribe or local community to follow through with the 
implementation of the plan. 

This commitment is confirmed through the approval and adoption of the plan by local officials, and demonstrated by 
their submittal of formal resolutions of adoption. 

35 
Prerequisite(s)  Single Jurisdiction 
IFR Requirement:  201.6 (c) (5) Adoption by the Local Governing Body (1/3) 

A. Has the local governing body adopted the plan? 

B. Is supporting documentation, such as a (signed and sealed) resolution, included? 

Key Words and Issues 

local governing body  i.e., the one that could be an HMGP subgrantee, such as a town's Board of Selectmen or Town Council, a 
City Council, County Commissioners, a Tribal Council, etc. 

36 
Prerequisite(s)  Single Jurisdiction 
IFR Requirement:  201.6 (c) (5) Adoption by the Local Governing Body  (contd) 

Key Words and Issues (continued) 

adopted versus approved  the local governing body must adopt the plan, 
the approval of the plan by the hazard mitigation team or another 
appointed body such as a planning commission is not enough 

proof versus assertions  this is one of the few requirements where proof of
compliance (i.e., a signed and sealed resolution) must be provided 

37 
Prerequisite(s)  Multi-Jurisdictional 
IFR Requirement:  201.6 (c) (5) Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption (2/3) 

A. Does the plan indicate the specific jurisdictions represented in the plan? 
B. For each jurisdiction, has the local governing body adopted the plan? 
C. Is supporting documentation, such as a (signed and sealed) resolution, included for each participating jurisdiction? 

Key Words and Issues 
Multi-Jurisdictional hazard mitigation plans can be pursued in a number of 
different ways but at the end of the process, each of the individual 
jurisdictions must adopt the plan to preserve their HMGP eligibility. 

38 
Prerequisite(s)  Multi-Jurisdictional 
IFR Requirement:  201.6 (c) (5) Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption (2/3 continued) 

What if? 
If a multi-jurisdictional plan identifies that a county and five constituent municipalities are covered by the plan but the 
submittal only includes resolutions of adoption from the county and four of the communities, is this requirement satisfied? 

What if the fifth community never submits the resolution of adoption? 

39 
Prerequisite(s)  Multi-Jurisdictional 
 IFR Requirement:  201.6 (a) (3) Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation (3 of 3) 

A. Does the plan describe how each jurisdiction participated in the plans development? 

Key Words and Issues 
how versus how well  the former is quantitative (revisions can be required) 
and the latter is qualitative (revisions can only be recommended) 

also note the potential overlap of this requirement with  201.6 (c) (1) 
Documentation of Planning Process (slide 41) 

40 
Planning Process 

What is the purpose of this portion of the Plan Review Requirements? 

DMA 2000 is based on the premise that the hazard mitigation 
planning process needs to be as inclusive as possible. 

The intent is to ensure that community values are expressed 
and that available information, expertise and resources are 
brought to bear on the communitys issues to the extent possible. 

41 
Planning Process 
IFR Requirement:  201.6 (c) (1) Documentation of Planning Process (1 / 1) 

A. Does the plan provide a narrative description of the process followed to prepare the plan? 
B. Does the plan indicate who was involved in the planning process? 

Key Words and Issues 
the process may not always be defined or described in one tidy location in the plan 

who can be satisfied by identifying organizations and/or agencies; names of
individuals are not required 

42 
Planning Process 
IFR Requirement:  201.6 (c) (1) Documentation of Planning Process (1 / 1 contd) 

C. Does the plan indicate how the public was involved? 
D. Was there an opportunity for neighboring communities, agencies, businesses, academia, nonprofits, and other interested 
parties to be involved in the planning process? 

Key Words and Issues 
opportunity can be broadly interpreted and has both quantitative and
qualitative aspects  relative success should be noted for review of Plan 
Maintenance Process 

and versus or 

43 
Planning Process 
IFR Requirement:  201.6 (c) (1) Documentation of Planning Process (1 / 1 contd) 

E. Does the planning process describe the review and incorporation, if 
appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports and technical information? 

Key Words and Issues 
appropriate is in the eyes of the beholder 

how will the reviewer know what, if anything is existing? 

44 
Small Group Working Session  
Prerequisites and Planning Process 

This session covers pages 3 and 4 of the Crosswalk. 

The end product is a completed plan review of the Prerequisite and 
Planning Process for the City of Darwin, Iowa plan. 

45 
Small Group Results 
Prerequisites and Planning Process 

Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Group 5	Group 6	Group 7	Group 8	Group 9	Group 10

Element	
201.6 (c) (5) Adoption by the Local Governing Body	
A. Adoption	
B. Supporting documentation

201.6 (c) (1) Documentation of Planning Process	
A. Description of the process followed to prepare the plan 
B. Who was involved in the planning process	
C. How the public was involved 
D. How neighboring communities, agencies, businesses, academia, nonprofits, other interested parties had the opportunity to be involved in the process	  
E. How existing plans, studies, reports and technical information were reviewed and incorporated in the plan (if appropriate)

DARWIN, IOWA
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CITY OF DARWIN, IOWA
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Table of Contents
Purpose of Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Planning Process
Community Profile
Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment
Community Hazard Mitigation Goals and Alternatives
Implementation
Evaluation Schedule
Appendices
A. Community Profile
B. Flood
C. Tornado-Extreme Winds
D. Thunderstorms  Lightning and Hail
E. Winter Storms
F. Drought
G. Earthquake
H. Hazardous Materials

[END TABLE OF CONTENTS]

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
for
Darwin, Iowa

Purpose of Hazard Mitigation Plan
This hazard mitigation plan is being developed to assess the ongoing mitigation activities in the
community, to evaluate mitigation measures that should be undertaken, and to outline a
strategy for implementation of mitigation projects.
This Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted on January 13, 2003
Authority: City of Darwin, Iowa
Public Meeting Date(s): January 13, 2003

The Planning Process
In 2002 the Darwin Department of Emergency Services (DES) was awarded a hazard mitigation
planning grant by the State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA). After receiving the grant,
DES formed the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) to develop the Darwin Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
A Project Initiation Meeting was held September 23, 2002 and was attended by the HMPC,
consisting of seven agency representatives and SEMA representatives. The HMPC decided to
create several sub-committees to work with the community and ensure they had adequate input
into the Hazard Mitigation Plan. These sub-committees are the Risk Assessment Committee,
the Agency Coordinating Committee, and the Public Outreach Committee. The HMPC hosted a
series of working meetings to educate stakeholders about their risks, involve them in identifying
issues, and educate them about alternative mitigation actions.
The HMPC meetings were held on the following days and are summarized as follows:
* September 23, 2002  Project Initiation Meeting; this meeting was attended by several
agency representatives and SEMA Representatives. The planning project was introduced
and DMA 2000 requirements were explained. The planning process and project timeline
were established.
* February 5, 2003  Planning Team Workshop; attended by agency representatives and
SEMA representatives. The hazard mitigation planning methodology and results for the
draft hazard identification and vulnerability assessment were presented. A brief training
session was given on involving the public in the planning process.
* February 24, 2003  Planning Workshop; attended by agency representatives. The results
of the draft vulnerability assessment and preliminary hazard mitigation plan were presented.
The participants were given materials and instruction on how to best review and provide
feedback on the results. Information was also presented on how to select appropriate
mitigation actions for the identified vulnerabilities. Preliminary goals and objectives were
established.
* March 13, 2003  HMPC Committee Briefing; attended by members of the HMPC and Subcommittee
Chairs. This meeting provided an overview and discussion of the hazard
mitigation planning process, a review of the work accomplished to-date, and an outline of
next steps.
* April 14, 2003  Working Meeting; attended by HMPC and agency representatives. The
agency representatives brought questions and comments from their constituents on the
planning work completed to-date. Corrections to the maps were noted.
* April 15, 2003  Public Information Meeting; attended by people representing the non-profit,
public service, community development, private institutions, and utility sectors. Information
on the draft vulnerability assessment, work accomplished to-date, and next steps were
presented.
* July 1, 2003  Working Meeting; attended by agency representatives. Reviewed the work-to-
date on their review and field verification of the vulnerability assessment.
* September 15, 2003  Working Meeting; attended by agency representatives. Draft
mitigation recommendations for the identified vulnerabilities were handed out for review.
* October 27, 2003  Draft Plan Review Meeting; attended by the HMPC and sub-committee
representatives. The review comments from the 1st draft of the plan were discussed.
Revisions to the plan were completed by November 15, 2003, and distributed for final review
and comments.
* December 2, 2003  Final Draft Plan Review Meeting; attended by the HMPC and subcommittee
representatives. The review comments from the final draft of the plan were
discussed. Final revisions to the plan were completed by December 15, 2003, and
distributed for public review.
* January 6, 2004  A public hearing was held to collect general public feedback. Revisions
to the plan were completed by January 19, 2004, and the plan went for final production on
January 27, 2004.
The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee informed participants about these meetings through
various means, including newsletters, letters, and newspaper ads.

COMMUNITY PROFILE
CONTENTS
Location 
Iowa Map
County Map
Township Map
History 
Transportation 
Climate 
Population Profile 
Housing Profile 
Housing Occupancy
Housing Characteristics
Education 
Economic Profile 
Business and Industry Profile 
Community Services 
Water System
Sanitary Sewer System
Emergency Services
Utilities
Medical Services
Critical Facilities
Other Plans
Major Rivers/Watersheds 

[END TABLE OF CONTENTS]

Community Profile

Location
The City of Darwin is located in southeastern Beagle County. The community is 10 miles from Interstate
80, 18 miles from Newton, and 43 miles from Des Moines.
MAP OF THE STATE OF IOWA
MAP OF BEAGLE COUNTY
MAP OF THE CITY OF DARWIN

History
Darwin lies along an old wagon train road called "The Diamond Trail." The county commissioners laid off
Lynn Grove township, where the town of Darwin is located, on May 14, 1846. Lynn Grove was one of the
three original townships. The other two were Fairview and Elk Creek. Elk Creek Township adjoins Lynn
Grove Township on the west.
Early settlers of the area played an important part in the development of the town. Records show that
trustees and a clerk carried on township business as early as 1973. When several businesses and a
number of homes were constructed in the area, the residents concluded that a town should be plated.
This historic event occurred on August 3, 1882. In 1883, Alfred Darwin, a railroad magnate, built a
railroad through Lynn Grove Township and influenced the establishment of a depot that was named in his
honor.
The town was incorporated on February 23, 1901. The population at that time was 150. Since then, the
town has grown into to 904. With its well-kept houses, yards and flowers, parks and business district,
Darwin is often described as a "picture book town."
Source: City Clerk, City of Darwin

Transportation
Highway/Interstate
The Interstate 80 interchange is 15 minutes north of Darwin. State Highway 223 runs along the northern
edge of the community.
Air
Newton's general aviation airport is located about 20 miles northwest of the City. The airport has a 5,600
ft. runway and full service capability. The airport routinely handles both prop and jet aircraft with up to a
16 passenger capacity.
The Des Moines International Airport is located 50 miles northwest. Airlines serving the Des Moines
Airport are American, America West, Northwest, TWA, United, Skyway, Vanguard, Com Air-Delta
Connection, Chicago Express and US Air Express.
Rail
There is no rail service to the community.
Surface Water Systems/Topography
Darwin is located on a high ridge between the North and South Skunk Rivers within the North and South
Skunk watersheds. No water bodies run through the community.

Climate
Average Monthly Temperatures

Month 
Jan Avg. High 27F Avg. Low 8F Mean 17F Avg. Precip. 1.20 in. Record High 60F (1956) Record Low -34F (1974)
Month 
Feb Avg. High 33F Avg. Low 13F Mean 23F Avg. Precip. 1.28 in. Record High 74F (1930) Record Low -35F (1996)
Month 
Mar Avg. High 46F Avg. Low 24F Mean 35F Avg. Precip. 2.40 in. Record High 90F (1910) Record Low -17F (1962)
Month 
Apr Avg. High 59F Avg. Low 34F Mean 47F Avg. Precip. 3.58 in. Record High 92F (1980) Record Low 1F (1982)
Month 
May Avg. High 70F Avg. Low 45F Mean 58F Avg. Precip. 4.31 in. Record High 98F (1925) Record Low 22F (1907)
Month 
Jun Avg. High 80F Avg. Low 56F Mean 68F Avg. Precip. 4.64 in. Record High 102F (1911) Record Low 35F (1993)
Month 
Jul Avg. High 84F Avg. Low 61F Mean 73F Avg. Precip. 4.09 in. Record High 106F (1911) Record Low 29F (1920)
Month 
Aug Avg. High 82F Avg. Low 58F Mean 70F Avg. Precip. 4.41 in. Record High 107F (1930) Record Low 36F (1950)
Month 
Sep Avg. High 75F Avg. Low 49F Mean 62F Avg. Precip. 3.55 in. Record High 101F (1925) Record Low 21F (1984)
Month 
Oct Avg. High 63F Avg. Low 37F Mean 50F Avg. Precip. 2.73 in. Record High 95F (1963) Record Low 2F (1925)
Month 
Nov Avg. High 46F Avg. Low 25F Mean 36F Avg. Precip. 2.41 in. Record High 82F (1968) Record Low -15F (1976)
Month 
Dec Avg. High 32F Avg. Low 14F Mean 23F Avg. Precip. 1.47 in. Record High 69F (1998) Record Low -32F (1985)
Source: Weather Channel

Population/Age
The 2000 census reported a population of 904 compared to a 1990 population of 841 an increase of
7.49%. 28.5% of the population is under 18, 51.5% between 18 and 65, and 20% 64 and over. The
median age is 38.7 years. 99.8% of the population identified themselves as white, 0.2% identified
themselves as Asian.

Darwin Iowa, Population Characteristics

Listed in order of Subject, Number, Percent

Total Population 904 100.0
SEX 
Male 439 48.6
Female 465 51.4

AGE
Under 5 years 62 6.9
5 to 19 years 219 24.3
20 to 34 years 121 13.4
35 to 54 years 238 26.3
55 to 74 years 175 19.4
75 and over 89 9.8

Median age (years) 38.7 

18 years and over 
Total 646 71.5
Male 312 34.5
Female 334 36.9

65 years and over 
Total 181 20.0
Male 75 8.3
Female 106 11.7

RACE
One race 904 100.0
White 902 99.8
Asian 2 0.2
Korean 2 0.2

RELATIONSHIP
Total population 904 100.0
In households 904 100.0
In group quarters 0 0.0

HOUSEHOLDS
Total households 348 100.0
Family households (families) 271 77.9
Nonfamily households 77 22.1
Households with individuals under 18 years 126 36.2
Households with individuals 65 years and over 121 34.8

Average household size 2.6 
Average family size 3.03 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000

Housing Occupancy
The total number of housing units identified in the 2000 census Housing Occupancy/Tenure category was
360. The occupancy rate was 96.7% (348 unites). The number of owner-occupied housing units was
294 (84.5%) and the number of renter-occupied housing units 54 (15.5%). The average household size
of owner-occupied units was reported as 2.76 and the average household size of renter-occupied units
was 1.74.

Housing Characteristics
The City has experienced growth in new residential real estate and projects continued growth. The 2000
Census reported 33 units (9.1 %) were built between 1990 and March 2000. No new housing permits
have been issued since 2000. North Slope Addition is the most recent housing development with the final
plat approved October 1995. All eight (8) lots in this addition are sold with two (2) remaining vacant at this time.

In the category Selected Housing Characteristics, the 2000 Census reported 362 total housing units. 4
(1.1 %) housing units were built between January 1999 and March 2000. 20 (5.5%) were built between
1995 and 1998. 9 (2.5%) were built between 1990 and 1995. 50 (13.8%) units were built during the
1980s, 82 (22.7) during the 1970s, and 43 (11.9) during the 1960s. 67 (42.5%) units were built between
1940 and 1959 and 87 units (24.0%) in 1939 or earlier. The median room size was reported as 6 rooms.
The median value of owner-occupied houses was reported as $81,800. The following table displays
Selected Housing Characteristics reported in the 2000 Census.

Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000

Listed in order of Subject, Number, Percent

Total housing units 362 100.0
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
1-unit, detached 315 87.0
1-unit, attached 9 2.5
2 units 12 3.3
3 or 4 units 16 4.4
5 to 9 units 10 2.8

YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT
1999 to March 2000 4 1.1
1995 to 1998 20 5.5
1990 to 1994 9 2.5
1980 to 1989 50 13.8
1970 to 1979 82 22.7
1960 to 1969 43 11.9
1940 to 1959 67 18.5
1939 to earlier 87 24.0

ROOMS
1 room 2 0.6
2 rooms 2 0.6
3 rooms 9 2.5
4 rooms 49 13.5
5 rooms 82 22.7
6 rooms 73 20.2
7 rooms 64 17.7
8 rooms 43 11.9
9 or more rooms 38 10.5

Median (rooms) 6.0 

HOUSE HEATING FUEL
Utility gas 175 50.3
Bottled, tank, or LP gas 30 8.6
Electricity 105 30.2
Fuel oil, kerosene, etc. 34 9.8
No fuel used 2 0.6
Specified owner-occupied units 275 100.0

VALUE
Less than $50,000 22 8.0
$50,000 to $99,999 166 60.4
$100,000 to $149,999 73 26.5
$150,000 to $199,999 12 4.4
$200,000 to $299,999 2 0.7
Median (dollars) 81,800 

MORTGAGE STATUS AND SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS
With a mortgage 131 47.6
Less than $300 0 0.0
$300 to $499 8 2.9
$500 to $699 32 11.6
$700 to $999 48 17.5
$1,000 to $1,499 38 13.8
$1,500 to $1,999 5 1.8
Median (dollars) 844
Not mortgaged 144 52.4
Median (dollars) 278
Specified renter-occupied units 46 100.0

GROSS RENT
Less than $200 6 13.0
$200 to $299 6 13.0
$300 to $499 13 28.3
$500 to $749 17 37.0
$750 to $999 2 4.3
No cash rent 2 4.3
Median (dollars) 442 

GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1999
Less than 15 percent 13 28.3
15 to 19 percent 11 23.9
20 to 24 percent 4 8.7
25 to 29 percent 2 4.3
30 to 34 percent 11 23.9
35 percent or more 3 6.5
Not computed 2 4.3
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000

Education
Darwin is part of the Lynnville-Darwin Community School District, which includes Darwin and Lynnville.
The district serves appropriately 541 students. The Elementary, Middle, and High School are located at
12476 Highway 225E.
The Darwin Christian School is a K-8 school that is run by the Christian School Society. The school has a
total of 150 students.

School Enrollment  Population 3 Years and Over

Listed in order of Subject, Number, Percent

Population 3 years and over enrolled in school 341 100.0
Nursery school, preschool 17 21
Kindergarten 18 7.5
Elementary school (grades 1-8) 129 53.5
High school (grades 9-12) 61 25.3
College or graduate school 16 6.6
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000

Education Attainment.
Of the 580 residents over 25, 77.1% have attained a high school diploma or higher and 12.9% have
attained a bachelors degree or higher. The following summarized the 2000 census data:

Education Attainment

Listed in order of Subject, Number, Percent
Population 25 years and over 580 100.0
Less than 9th grade 115 19.8
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 18 3.1
High school graduate (includes equivalency) 274 47.2
Some college, no degree 65 11.2
Associate degree 33 5.7
Bachelors degree 51 8.6
Graduate or professional degree 24 4.1
Percent high school graduate or higher 77.1
Percent bachelors degree or higher 12.9 
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000

Economic Characteristics
The following table provides a summary of the 2000 Census Profile of Selected Economic
Characteristics:

Listed in order of Subject, Number, Percent

EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Population 16 years and over 674 100.0
In labor force 455 67.5
Civilian labor force 455 67.5
Employed 441 65.4
Unemployed 14 2.1
Percent of civilian labor force 3.1 
Not in labor force 219 32.5
Females 16 years and over 344 100.0
In labor force 200 58.1
Civilian labor force 200 58.1
Employed 190 55.2
Own children under 6 years 80 100.0
All parents in family in labor force 63 78.8

COMMUTING TO WORK
Workers 16 years and over 440 100.0
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone 336 76.4
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled 27 6.1
Walked 45 10.2
Other means 5 1.1
Worked at home 27 6.1
Mean travel time to work (minutes) 17.0 
Employed civilian population 16 years and over 441 100.0

OCCUPATION
Management, professional, and related occupations 108 24.5
Service occupations 44 10.0
Sales and office occupations 125 28.3
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 2 0.5
Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 64 14.5
Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 98 22.2

INDUSTRY
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 23 5.2
Construction 40 9.1
Manufacturing 116 26.3
Wholesale trade 11 2.5
Retail trade 38 8.6
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 30 6.8
Information 9 2.0
Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 22 5.0
Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste
management services 18 4.1
Educational, health and social services 70 15.9
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 14 3.2
Other services (except public administration) 39 8.8
Public administration 11 2.5

CLASS OF WORKER
Private wage and salary workers 371 84.1
Government workers 39 8.8
Self-employed workers in own not incorporated business 31 7.0

INCOME IN 1999
Households 338 100.0
Less than $10,000 15 4.4
$10,000 to $14,999 6 1.8
$15,000 to $24,999 23 6.8
$25,000 to $34,999 58 17.2
$35,000 to $49,999 78 23.1
$50,000 to $74,999 95 28.1
$75,000 to $99,999 43 12.7
$100,000 to $149,999 16 4.7
$150,000 to $199,999 2 0.6
$200,000 or more 2 0.6
Median household income (dollars) 47,344 

With earnings 262 77.5
Mean earnings (dollars) 50,963 
With Social Security income 123 36.4
Mean Social Security income (dollars) 12,854 
With Supplemental Security Income 10 3.0
Mean Supplemental Security Income (dollars) 5,910 
With public assistance income 6 1.8
Mean public assistance income (dollars) 300 
With retirement income 45 13.3
Mean retirement income (dollars) 10,913 

Families 267 100.0
Median family income (dollars) 54,018 
Per capita income (dollars) 19,506 
Median earnings (dollars):
Male full-time, year-round workers 36,563 
Female full-time, year-round workers 25,446 

POVERTY STATUS IN 1999 (below poverty level)
Families 3 
Percent below poverty level  1.1
Families with female householder, no husband present 2 
Percent below poverty level  14.3
Individuals 17 
Percent below poverty level  1.9
18 years and over 15 
Percent below poverty level  2.4
65 years and over 4 
Percent below poverty level  2.2
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000

Business and Industry

Darwin's business community includes over 60 businesses within one square mile. Basic services are
provided by such businesses as the grocery store, service stations, bank, restaurants, insurance office,
flower store, hardware and lumber stores, barber and hair stylists, and satellite offices of doctors, dentist,
lawyers, and accountants. Several businesses provide supplies and services specifically for the
agricultural community. There are also several trucking firms in and around the area that transport
livestock, fuel, fertilizer, feed and grain.
The Darwin Co-op Exchange is the largest single employer. The cooperative is divided into three units.
The elevator department provides seed, feed, fertilizer, grain storage and marketing. The oil department
provides fuel, lubricant, tires, propane and a full service shop for cars, pickups, trucks, and tractors. The
lumber department provides lumber and related products and provides planning and construction for
farm, light commercial, and residential buildings.
Source: City of Darwin

Community Services, Facilities and Infrastructure

Water System
The municipal well and water treatment plant use reverse osmosis for water purification. The Capacity of
the water plant is 215,000 gallons. Average consumption is 75,000 gallons per day and peak
consumption is 125,000 gallons per day.

Wastewater Treatment
The municipal wastewater treatment plant has been upgraded to provide the City with a state of the art
facility that meets State requirements.

Sanitary Sewer System
In the past the City experienced stormwater infiltration resulting in damage to the sanitary sewer system
and back-up into basements. The City conducted smoke and camera testing throughout the system and
instituted a repair/replacement program. In addition, the City passed and enforces a city ordinance
prohibiting residential property owners from connecting their residential drainage systems (sump pumps,
gutters) into the sanitary sewer system.

Emergency Services

Law Enforcement:
The Darwin police chief is available 24-hour a day. The community has a contract with the county
to provide back-up officers and coverage when the full time staff is not available. In addition, the
community participates in the Beagle County Selective Enforcement Response Team (SERT)
and the Beagle/Poweshiek County Drug Task Force. Jail and dispatcher services are provided by
the County Sheriff's office located in Newton. The E-911 system is countywide.

Fire-Ambulance
The Darwin Rural Fire and Ambulance Department provide fire and ambulance services. 19
volunteers staff the department. 15 are certified as EMT -D's and 2 as EMT -A's. The department
is housed in a fire station that was completed in 1992. The station includes parking for the
vehicles, wash bays, storage room, offices, bathrooms, and a training and meeting room.
Equipment used by the fire department includes two pumpers, one tanker, quick attack unit,
equipment van and a well equipped ambulance.
The fire and ambulance services are tax supported and also receive contributions for equipment
purchased.

Emergency Management
The Beagle County Emergency Management Coordinator, in coordination with a local emergency
manager, provides emergency management system (mitigation, preparedness, response, and
recovery) services for the community.
Utilities
* Telephone: Darwin Telephone Company
* Natural Gas: Alliant Energy
* Water: City
* Sanitation: City
* Electricity: Alliant Energy

Medical Services
The nearest hospital is the Skiff Medical Center. Skiff Medical Center is a 68-bed primary care hospital
located in Newton. The Center provides 24-hour emergency medical services, kidney dialysis, home care,
surgery, obstetrics, intensive care, acute care, rehabilitation therapies, women's health services, and
alternative health services. In addition, a wide range of medical services are available in Des Moines,
Grinnell, and Pella.
The Darwin Family Health Center provides medical services for Darwin.
The Family Dentistry group provides dental services.

Other Plans
Darwin Strategic Plan, November 1992

Critical Facilities
Critical facilities are structures and infrastructure that the community places a priority on protecting.
Damage to these facilities can impact the delivery of vital services, cause greater damages to other
sections of the community, or can put special, vulnerable populations at risk. The Planning Committee
identified the following critical facilities: (See Appendix A for Critical Facilities Map)
Facilities essential to the health and welfare of the entire population, especially following a hazard
event:
-  City HaIl/Emergency Operations Center
-  Fire Station
-  Medical Clinics
-  City Maintenance Building
-  Emergency Shelters (School/Churches)
Transportation systems:
-  State Highway 225
Lifeline Utility systems:
-  Wastewater Treatment Plant
-  Water Plant
-  City Wells
Vulnerable Population Centers:
-  School
-  Retirement Home

Major Rivers/Watersheds
A watershed is the area of land where all of the water that is under it or drains off of it goes into the same
place. John Wesley Powell, scientist geographer, put it best when he said that a watershed is:
"that area of land, a bounded hydrologic system, within which all living things are inextricably linked
by their common water course and where, as humans settled, simple logic demanded that they
become part of a community."
Watersheds come in all shapes and sizes. They cross county, state, and national boundaries. No matter
a community is located it is in a watershed. The EPA's Office of Water, along with many local groups and
State agencies, has been emphasizing the importance of organizing water quality improvement efforts on
a watershed basis.

Figure: Sketch of Watershed Components
Source: http://www.epa.gov

Because watersheds are defined by natural hydrology, they represent the most logical basis for managing
water resources. The resource becomes the focal point and managers are able to gain a more complete
understanding of overall conditions In an area and the stresses that affect those conditions.
Traditionally, water quality improvements have focused on specific sources of pollution, such as sewage
discharges, or specific water resources, such as a river segment or wetland. While this approach may be
successful in addressing specific problems, it often fails to address the more subtle and chronic problems
that contribute to a watershed's decline. For example, pollution from a sewage treatment plant might be
reduced significantly after a new technology is installed and yet the local river may still suffer if other
factors in the watershed, such as habitat destruction or polluted runoff, go unaddressed.
Watershed management can offer a stronger foundation for uncovering the many stresses that affect a
watershed. The result is management better equipped to determine what actions are needed to protect or
restore the resource. Major features of a Watershed Protection Approach are: targeting priority problems,
promoting a high level of stakeholder involvement, integrated solutions that make use of the expertise
and authority of multiple agencies, and measuring success through monitoring and other data gathering.

Darwin Watershed
Darwin is located in the South Skunk and North Skunk Watersheds. There is no surface water in the City
of Darwin.

Figure: Map of Beagle County Waterways 
Figure Map of Darwin Waterways
Source: EnviroMapper

South Skunk Watershed
Rivers and Streams in this Watershed: 16
Lakes in the watershed: 213 Total
Number of watershed acres: 1838.3
River and stream miles:
* 2319.5 total river miles
* 982.1 perennial river miles
* No data available: % of total rivers
and streams have been surveyed
* No data available: miles meet all
designated uses

Figure: Map of South Skunk Watershed

Aquifers:
Mississippian aquifers, 619 Sq. Miles.  Rock Type:  Sandstone and carbonate-rock aquifers.
No Principal Aquifer, 1245 Sq. Miles.  

North Skunk Watershed
Rivers and Streams in this Watershed: 13
(provided by EPAs first River Reach File)
Lakes in the watershed: 113
Total number of watershed acres: 1561.9
River and stream miles:
* 1292 total river miles
* 553.3 perennial river miles
* No data available: % of total rivers and
streams have been surveyed
* No data available: miles meet all
designated uses

Figure: Map of North Skunk Watershed

Aquifers
Mississippian aquifers, 542 Square Miles.  Rock Type: Sandstone and carbonate-rock aquifers.
No Principal Aquifer 321 Square Miles.  

APPENDIX A
COMMUNITY PROFILE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Beagle County Topography Map  USGS
City of Darwin Topography Map  USGS
City of Darwin Critical Facilities
City of Darwin 2000 Census

[END TABLE OF CONTENTS]

Figure:
BEAGLE COUNTY
TOPOGRAPHY MAP

Figure:
DARWIN, IOWA
TOPOGRAPHY MAP

Figure:
City of Darwin -- Critical Facilities

Essential Facilities
1. Community Center/City Hall/Emergency Operations Center
2. Fire Station
3. City Maintenance Building
4. Medical Clinic
5. Emergency Shelters (Churches)

Lifeline Utility Systems
6. Wastewater Plant
7. Water Plant
8. City Wells

Transportation System: Highway 225

Vulnerable populations
9. Schools
10. Retirement Home

Figure: Picture of Tables DP-1 through DP-4 from  Census 2000. Same information presented in Darwin Community Profile.

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION VII
Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa
March 31, 2004 Version 1
Local Mitigation Plan Review and Approval Status
Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa
Title of Plan: Hazard Mitigation Plan 
Date of Plan: January 13, 2003
Local Point of Contact:
Title:
Agency:
Address:
Phone Number:
E-Mail:
State Reviewer:
Title: 
Date:
FEMA Reviewer: 
Title: 
Date:
Date Received in FEMA Region VII
Plan Not Approved
Plan Approved
Date Approved
NFIP Status*
Jurisdiction: Y = Participating N = Not Participating N/A = Not Mapped CRS Class
1. City of Darwin, Iowa

LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY

The plan cannot be approved if the plan has not been formally adopted.
Each requirement includes separate elements. All elements of the requirement must be rated
Satisfactory in order for the requirement to be fulfilled and receive a score of Satisfactory.
Elements of each requirement are listed on the following pages of the Plan Review Crosswalk.
A Needs Improvement score on elements in brackets (recommended but not required) will
not preclude the plan from passing. Reviewers comments must be provided for requirements
receiving a Needs Improvement score.

SCORING SYSTEM
Please check one of the following for each requirement.
N  Needs Improvement: The plan does not meet the minimum for the requirement.
Reviewers comments must be provided.
S  Satisfactory: The plan meets the minimum for the requirement. Reviewers comments are
encouraged, but not required.
Prerequisite(s) (Check Applicable Box) 
Adoption by the Local Governing Body: NOT MET
201.6(c)(5) OR
Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption: 201.6(c)(5)
AND 
Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation:
201.6(a)(3) N/A
Planning Process 
Documentation of the Planning Process: 201.6(b)
and 201.6(c)(1) -N
Risk Assessment 
Identifying Hazards: 201.6(c)(2)(i) -S
Profiling Hazards: 201.6(c)(2)(i) -N
Assessing Vulnerability: Overview: 201.6(c)(2)(ii) S

{Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures:
201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A) -N

Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential
Losses: 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) -N

Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development
Trends: 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C) -N }

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment:
201.6(c)(2)(iii) N/A

Mitigation Strategy 
Local Hazard Mitigation Goals: 201.6(c)(3)(i) S

Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions:
201.6(c)(3)(ii) -N

Implementation of Mitigation Actions:
201.6(c)(3)(iii) -N

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions:
201.6(c)(3)(iv) -N/A

Plan Maintenance Process 
Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan:
201.6(c)(4)(i) -N

Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms:
201.6(c)(4)(ii) -N

Continued Public Involvement: 201.6(c)(4)(iii) -N

Additional State Requirements* 
Insert State Requirement
Insert State Requirement
Insert State Requirement

LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN APPROVAL STATUS
PLAN NOT APPROVED 

*States that have additional requirements ca n add them in the appropriate sections of
the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance or create a new section and modify
this Plan Review Crosswalk to record the score for those requirements.
See Reviewers Comments

PREREQUISITE(S)
Adoption by the Local Governing Body

Requirement 201.6(c)(5): [The local hazard mitigation plan shall include] documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of
the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council).

Element
A. Has the local governing body adopted the plan? 
Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Inside Cover
Element
B. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution,
included?
Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Not in the Plan 
No copy was found in the plan.
Required Revisions:
* Include a copy of the formal resolution in the plan.
For more information about adopting the mitigation plan, see
Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4), Step 1.
SUMMARY SCORE NOT MET

Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption
Requirement 201.6(c)(5): For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted.
Element
A. Does the plan indicate the specific jurisdictions
represented in the plan?
Element
B. For each jurisdiction, has the local governing body
adopted the plan?
Element
C. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution,
included for each participating jurisdiction?
SUMMARY SCORE N/A

Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation
Requirement 201.6(a)(3): Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated
in the process  Statewide plans will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional plans.
Element
A. Does the plan describe how each jurisdiction
participated in the plans development?
SUMMARY SCORE N/A

PLANNING PROCESS: 201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan.
Documentation of the Planning Process
Requirement 201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include:
(1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval;
(2) An opportunity for neighboring jurisdictions, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to
regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and
(3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.

Requirement 201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the
process, and how the public was involved.

Element
A. Does the plan provide a narrative description of the
process followed to prepare the plan?
Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
No Page Number
Reviewers Comments 
Recommended Revisions:
* Number the pages in this section of the plan (e.g., i, ii, etc.).
SCORE S

Element
B. Does the plan indicate who was involved in the
planning process? (For example, who led the
development at the staff level and were there any
external contributors such as contractors? Who
participated on the plan committee, provided
information, reviewed drafts, etc.?) 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
No Page Number

Reviewers Comments 
The plan indicates that a Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee with sub-committees was formed, involving the
representation of various City agencies. However, there is no
mention of the name of these agencies.

Required Revisions:
* Describe who was involved in the planning process.

Recommended Revisions:
* Include in the description how each member contributed to
the process. Describe who led the development of the plan
at the staff level, whether there were external contributors
(such as a contractor), and what other interested parties
were involved.
For more information on identifying the stakeholders and
building the planning team, see Getting Started (FEMA 386-1),
Step 2.
SCORE N

Element
C. Does the plan indicate how the public was involved?
(Was the public provided an opportunity to comment
on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to the
plan approval?)
Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
No Page Number
SCORE S

Element
D. Was there an opportunity for neighboring jurisdictions,
agencies, businesses, academia, nonprofits, and
other interested parties to be involved in the planning
process?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
No Page Number 

Reviewers Comments 
Although the plan states that a Public Information Meeting was
held with the participation of non-profit organizations, private
institutions, community development organizations, etc., it is
not clear which organizations were represented in the meeting
and how they were involved in the process.
The plan does not indicated whether or not opportunities were
given to neighboring communities to participate in the process.

Required Revisions:
* Discuss how local, State and Federal agencies, neighboring
jurisdictions, local businesses, community leaders,
educators, and other relevant private and nonprofit interest
groups participated in the plan development.

Recommended Revisions:
* Include the names of the organizations involved in the
process.
For more ideas on identifying stakeholders, enlisting partners,
and choosing an appropriate public participation model, see
Getting Started (FEMA 386-1), Steps 2 and 3.

Element
E. Does the planning process describe the review and
incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies,
reports, and technical information?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Not in the Plan 

Reviewers Comments 
The plan makes no reference to the review, analysis, and
incorporation of existing documents consulted in the
development of the plan.

Required Revisions:
* Describe how the jurisdiction reviewed and integrated
information in the plan from existing plans, studies, reports,
and technical documents.
SUMMARY SCORE -N

46 
Assessment 
Unit 3: Local Plan Review  Risk 

47 
Risk Assessment 

What is the purpose of this portion of the Plan Review Requirements? 

DMA 2000 places a strong emphasis on a sound and comprehensive risk assessment as the foundation for a 
coherent hazard mitigation plan. 

The intent is to ensure that the community is focusing available resources where they will be most effective in 
reducing exposure and risk. 

48 
Risk Assessment 
IFR Requirement:  201.6 (c) (2) (i) Identifying Hazards (1 of 7) 

A. Does the plan include a description of the types of all natural hazards that affect the jurisdiction? 

Key Words and Issues 
descriptions vary in terms of what constitutes a hazard  e.g., are hurricanes a hazard? 
= water (= coastal erosion; coastal flooding; and inland flooding) and 
= wind (= wind borne debris; structural failures) 

how will the reviewer know what constitutes all natural hazards? 

manmade versus natural hazards = not required by DMA 2000 
= official FEMA language), aka human-caused 
= accidental and/or intentional technological events, terrorism, etc. 

49 
Risk Assessment 
IFR Requirement:  201.6 (c) (2) (i) Identifying Hazards (1 of 7 continued) 

What if? 
What if a hazard is not mentioned at all but the rest of the plan is basically satisfactory? 
What does that mean for subsequent reviews of the plan? 

50 
Risk Assessment 
IFR Requirement:  201.6 (c) (2) (i) Profiling Hazards (2 of 7) 

Does the risk assessment identify the 
A. location (e.g., hazard area) 
B. extent (e.g., magnitude, severity) 
C. previous occurrences 
D. probability of future events (e.g., high/medium/low at a minimum of each hazard addressed in the plan)? 

Key Words and Issues 
how can the communities (and the reviewers) handle data deficiencies (in this and subsequent requirements)? 

51 
Risk Assessment 
IFR Requirement:  201.6 (c) (2) (i) Profiling Hazards (2 of 7 continued) 

What if? 
What if the plan identifies that the best available data (b.a.d.!?) 
was used but adequate information is not currently available 
 (aka data deficiencies) 

and is specific about the data that is needed but not present 

but subsequent sections of the plan do not outline steps for 
gathering data and completing the assessment over the next 
planning cycle as a mitigation action? 

Should this requirement be scored as satisfactory? 

52 
Risk Assessment 
IFR Requirement:  201.6 (c) (2) (ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview (3/7) 

A. Does the plan include an overall summary description of the 
jurisdictions vulnerability to each hazard? 

What if? 
Would an overall summary description of vulnerable assets that 
only mentions generalized land use zones (residential, commercial, 
industrial) satisfy this Element? 

Would the same description with quantities (buildings, people, etc.) 
derived from global data such as the U.S. Census satisfy this Element? 

53 
Risk Assessment 
IFR Requirement:  201.6 (c) (2) (ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview (3/7 contd) 

B. Does the plan address the impact of each hazard on the jurisdiction? 

What if? 
would expressing the impact only in terms of the areas within the 
community that would be affected without the number of vulnerable 
assets by hazard and without addressing the value and/or 
percentage of damage anticipated for those assets, and/or the 
number of the population at risk (per Understanding Your Risk 
 (FEMA 386-2) meet this element? 

54 
Risk Assessment 
IFR Requirement [should]: 
 201.6 (c) (2) (ii) (A) Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Assets (4 of 7) 

A. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and 
numbers of existing buildings, infrastructure and critical facilities 
located in the identified hazard areas? 

B. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and 
numbers of future buildings, infrastructure and critical facilities
located in the identified hazard areas? 

Key Words and Issues 
future buildings, etc. cannot be reliably predicted in the absence of a 
community master plan, comprehensive plan or some type of development projections 

55 
Risk Assessment 
IFR Requirement [should]: 
 201.6 (c) (2) (ii) (B) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Loss (5 of 7) 

A. Does the plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures? 
B. Does the plan describe the methodology used to prepare the loss estimate? 

Key Words and Issues 
it is not unusual to see potential dollar losses expressed in terms of total 
property value, i.e., a building in a flood zone that is assumed to be a 100% loss 

descriptions of methodology may not be very satisfying but may still clear the bar 
-refinements may only be identifiable as recommended revisions 

56 
Risk Assessment 
IFR Requirement [should]: 
 201.6 (c) (2) (ii) (B) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Loss (5/7 contd) 

What if? 
What if the results are inherently flawed due to low quality 
data inputs but the methodology is scientifically based? 

57 
Risk Assessment 
IFR Requirement [should]: 
 201.6 (c)(2)(ii)(C) Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends (6 of 7) 

A. Does the plan describe land uses and development trends? 

What if? 
If the plan only includes a description of existing land use and an 
anecdotal assessment of growth trends (ala we got houses and 
businesses and factories and we expect to get some more 
someday), would this meet the requirement? 

58 
Risk Assessment 
IFR Requirement: 
 201.6 (c)(2)(iii) Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment (7 of 7) 

A. Does the plan include a risk assessment for each participating 
jurisdiction as needed to reflect unique or varied risks? 

Key Words and Issues 
unique and varied risks is open to interpretation  it is important to focus on 
making sure that multi-jurisdictional plans do not paint the risks with too 
broad a brush  it is also important to note that as a reviewer, you will only 
know what they tell you in most cases if - there is a risk assessment in the 
plan, how will you know if it is or is not reflecting unique conditions? 

59 
Small Group Working Session  Risk Assessment 

This session covers pages 5, 6 and the top half of page 7 of the Crosswalk. 

The end product is a completed plan review of the Risk Assessment for 
the City of Darwin, Iowa plan. 

60 
Small Group Results 
Risk Assessment 

Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Group 5	Group 6	Group 7	Group 8	Group 9	Group 10
Element	
 201.6 (c) (2) (i) Identifying Hazards
A. Description of all natural hazards that affect
 
 201.6 (c) (2) (i) Profiling Hazards	
A. Location of hazards 
B. Extent of hazards 
C. Information on previous occurrences 
D. Probability of future hazard events included

 
 201.6 (c) (2) (iii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview

A. Overall summary of jurisdiction's vulnerability to each hazard
B. Impact of each hazard on jurisdiction addressed	

61 
Small Group Results 
Risk Assessment (continued) 

Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Group 5	Group 6	Group 7	Group 8	Group 9	Group 10

Element	
 201.6 (c) (2) (ii) (A) Assessing Vulnerability:  Identifying Structures
A. Description of types and number of existing buildings et al
B. Description of types and number of future buildings et al	 

 201.6 (c) (2) (ii) (B) Assessing Vulnerability:  Estimating Potential Loss	
A. Estimate of potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures
B. Description of methodology used to prepare loss estimate

 201.6 (c) (2) (ii) (C) Assessing Vulnerability:  Analyzing Development Trends	
A. Description of land uses and development trends

HAZARD ANALYSIS  RISK ASSESSMENT
CONTENTS
Introduction 
Flood 
Tornado/Extreme Wind 
Thunderstorm (Lightning and Hail) 
Winter Storm (Snow and Ice) 
Drought 
Earthquake 
Hazardous Materials 
Summary 
Rankings
Ratings
Asset Inventory
[END TABLE OF CONTENTS]

HAZARD ANALYSIS AND RISK ASSESSMENT
Before a community can assess ongoing mitigation activities, evaluate mitigation measures that should
be undertaken or outline a strategy for implementing mitigation projects; it must be aware of those
hazards which, if they occur, could harm the community.
The hazard analysis identifies potential hazards that could affect the City of Darwin for the purposes of
mitigation planning. It is important to note that the focus of mitigation is on reducing long-term risks of
damage or threats to public health and safety caused by hazards and their effects. Thus, in some cases
the hazards identified for mitigation will not include all of or the same hazards identified for preparedness, response or recovery.

The potential hazards identified for the City of Darwin are:
* Flooding
* Tornado/High Wind Events
* Severe Thunderstorms
* Winter Storms
* Earthquake
* Drought
* Hazardous Materials

The risk assessment identifies how people, properties, and structures will be damaged by the event. If the
hazard can harm people or damage their homes and other structures, they are vulnerable. Finding the
weak points in the system, for example, identifying building types that are vulnerable to damage and
anticipating the loss in high risk areas, will help the community decide what mitigation measure should be
undertaken and how to implement the activities they select.
In making their hazard analysis and risk assessment, the Darwin Planning Committee considered the
following
* Historical Occurrence
* Probability
* Vulnerability
* Maximum Threat
* Severity of Impact
* Speed of Onset

The following tables define each factor and the rating scale the Planning Committee used to assess the
hazards risk to the community.
Historical Occurrence  Number of times that a hazard has occurred in the community in the past
Listed in order of Rating, Number of Historical Occurrences
1-3 Less than 4 occurrences
3-5 4 to 7 occurrences
5-7 8 to 12 occurrences
7-9 More than 12 occurrences

Probability  Likelihood of the hazard occurrence, sometimes without regard to hazard history
Listed in order of Rating, Likelihood, and Frequency of occurrence
1-3, Unlikely, Less than 1% probability in the next 100 years
3-5, Possible, Between 1 and 10% probability in the next year, or at least one
chance in the next 100 years
5-7, Likely, Between 10 and 100% probability in next year, or at least one
chance in the next 10 years
7-9, Highly Likely, Near 100% chance in the next year

Vulnerability  Measure of the percentage of people and property that would be affected by the hazard
event
Listed in order of Rating, Magnitude, and Percentage of people and property affected
1-3, Negligible, Less than 10%
3-5, Limited, 10 to 25%
5-7, Critical, 25 to 50%
7-9, Catastrophic, More than 50%

Maximum Threat  Spatial extent of the community that might be impacted
Listed in order of Rating, Magnitude, and Percentage of jurisdiction that can be affected
1-3, Negligible, Less than 10%
3-5, Limited, 10 to 25%
5-7, Critical, 25 to 50%
7-9, Catastrophic, More than 50%

Severity of Impact  Assessment of the severity in terms of fatalities, injuries, property losses, and
economic losses
Rating 1-3, Likelihood Negligible, 
Characteristics
Few if any injuries or illness.
Minor quality of life lost with little or no property damage.
Brief interruption of essential facilities and services for less than four
hours.
Rating 3-5, Likelihood Limited, 
Characteristics
Minor injuries and illness.
Minor or short tern property damage which does not threaten
structural stability.
Shutdown of essential facilities and services for 4 to 24 hours.
Rating 5-7, Likelihood Critical, 
Characteristics
Serious injury and illness.
Major or long term property damage, which threatens structural
stability.
Shutdown of essential facilities and services for 24 to 72 hours.
Rating 7-9, Likelihood Catastrophic, 
Characteristics
Multiple deaths.
Property destroyed or damaged beyond repair.
Complete shutdown of essential facilities and services for 3 days or
more.

Speed of Onset  Potential amount of warning time available before the hazard occurs.
Listed in order of Rating and Probable amount of warning time
1-3 More than 24 hours warning time.
3-5 12 to 24 hours warning time.
5-7 5 to 12 hours warning time.
7-9 Minimal or no warning time.

Natural Hazard: Flood
Definition :
Riverine Flood: A rising and overflowing of rivers and streams onto normally dry land.
The most common type of flood event. The primary causes of Riverine flooding are
rainfall, melting snow, or a combination of rainfall and melting snow.

Flash Flood: A flood that rises and falls very quickly and is usually characterized by
high flow velocities. Flash floods often result from intense rainfall over a small area.

Description: 
The extent of flood damage is influenced by six characteristics: depth or elevation of
flooding, flow velocity, flood frequency, rate of rise and fall, duration, and debris
impact. (See Appendix for a discussion of these characteristics.)
Riverine Flooding. The volume of water in the floodplain is a function of the size of the
contributing watershed and topographic characteristics such as watershed shape and
slope, and climatic and land-use characteristics. (See Community Profile).
Flash Flooding. In urban areas, flash flooding is an increasingly serious problem due to
the removal of vegetation, paving and replacement of ground cover by impermeable
surfaces that increase runoff, and construction of drainage systems that increase the
speed of runoff.
Of all the natural hazards occurring in the U.S., flooding occurs most often; at least
90% of disasters in the U.S. are floods. In Iowa, it is estimated that flooding causes
annual damages exceeding $543 million.
FEMA has not identified a special flood hazard area in the City.

Historical Occurrence:
Historically, Darwin has not experienced riverine flooding within the corporate limits.
During the 1960s, there was frequent flash flooding, Darwin experienced flash flooding
in low-lying areas and infiltration into the sanitary sewer system. However, in 1996 the
City did a storm sewer project to mitigate the flooding problems.
During periods of heavy rains ponding occurs at a few intersections if storm water
intakes have become blocked by debris (sticks, leaves, etc.) washed down with the
rain. There have been no damages or traffic interruptions.
The Committee estimates that flash flooding currently occurs every 4 to 6 years.

Probability:
No special flood hazard areas have been identified in Darwin. Historically, moderate
flash flooding occurs approximately every four to six years.

Vulnerability: 
The Committee estimates that riverine flooding would not impact the community. The
City is aware that if annexation occurs into areas identified as part of the County
floodplain or areas that are regulated under State Law, this situation could change.
FEMA has not identified any Special Flood Hazard Areas in unincorporated areas
adjacent to Darwin.
The City monitors annexation and new developments and construction within the new
developments. Any annexed areas would be incorporated into the Citys zoning
ordinances.
Flash flooding impacts less than 5% of the people and property in the community.

Maximum Threat
None of the area within the current City limits is threatened by riverine flooding. The
Committee estimates that flash flooding impacts less than 5% of the jurisdiction.

Severity of Impact
There are no interruptions of essential services due to the flash flooding. Property
damage is limited to minor basement and landscaping damage. Estimated cost of
basement damage from flooding and sewer back-up ranges from $500 to $1200.
Street flooding may occur for short periods of time.
The City has taken steps to lessen the impact of flash flooding by enforcing ordinances
to prevent home owners from tying gutter-drain spouts and sump pumps into the storm
water system, upgrading the Citys stormwater drainage system, and conducting
testing (smoke tests and camera) of the sewer system to identify vulnerable areas that
may need repair. In addition, the City has implemented a maintenance program to
clean and inspect vulnerable portions of the sanitary sewer main line each year.

Speed of Onset
The Committee estimates that they have more than 24 hours of warning time of
conditions that could result in flash flooding.

Natural Hazard: Tornado/Extreme Wind
Definition 
Tornado: A violently rotating column of air extending from a thunderstorm to the
ground.
Extreme Wind: High straight line winds (58 miles per hour or greater) and microbursts
(powerful downdrafts).

Description 
Each year approximately 1,000 tornadoes are spawned by severe thunderstorms.
Although most tornadoes remain aloft, in an average year, 800 tornadoes are reported
nationwide, resulting in 80 deaths and over 1,500 injuries. Over the past 20 years, 106
Federal disaster declarations included damage associated with tornadoes.
Tornadoes follow the path of least resistance. People living in valleys, which normally
are the most highly developed areas, have the greatest exposure. The most violent
tornadoes are capable of tremendous destruction and wind speeds can approach 300
miles per hour.
Tornadoes have been known to lift and move huge objects, destroy or move whole
buildings long distances and siphon large volumes from bodies of water. Damage
paths can be in excess of one mile wide and 50 miles long.
The Fujita Tornado Scale measures tornado damage severity. The scale assigns
numerical values based on wind speeds and categorizes tornadoes from 0 to 5. The
original Fujita wind damage scale had two sections added to further categorize
tornadoes by the lengths and widths of their damage paths. (Fujita-Pearson Scale).
Considering path length and width as welt as wind speeds provides a more
comprehensive estimation of damages. (See Fujita-Pearson Scale below)
Extreme winds other than tornadoes are experienced in all regions of the U.S. It is
difficult to separate the various wind components that cause damage from other wind-related
natural events that often occur with or generate windstorms. The three primary
sources of extreme winds are: hurricanes and tropical storms, severe thunderstorms,
and winter storms. Windstorms and wind-related events caused 63 fatalities in 1993.
Over the past 20 years, 193 Federal disaster declarations involved wind-induced
damage.

Historical Occurrence
In Iowa, most tornadoes occur in the spring and summer months in the late afternoon to
evening hours, but they can occur in every month of the year and at any time of the
day. Between 1950 and 1995, Iowa averaged 31 tornadoes per year. Of these
approximately 11 were rated as "strong-violent" (F2 or higher).
Between January 1950 and April 30, 2002, 17 tornadoes were reported in Beagle
County, none of the reported tornadoes occurred prior to August of 1965. During the
same time period, 85 high wind events were reported. (See Appendix for historical
data.)
No tornadoes have been reported in Darwin. Two extreme wind events have been
reported, both in June 1998. Winds speeds of 65 and 70 knots per hour were reported.
Total reported property damages were $195,000. Typical damages included roof
damage, broken windows, and damages to trees.

Probability 
According to FEMA, Iowa is within the "moderate risk" area for tornadoes and "high
risk" area for winds. The Uniform Building Code wind risk map shows 80 miles per
hour as Darwin/jasper County's 50-year return period fastest mile speed. According to
NOAA records, Darwin is in an area experiencing 25-30 significant (F-2 or greater)
tornadoes in a 100-year period (4 year frequency) and 1.5-1.75 high wind days (75
miles per hour or greater) per year.

Vulnerability 
Following the 1999 tornadoes in Oklahoma and Kansas, FEMA assessed the
performance of buildings during the tornadoes. They found that manufactured homes
and those that did not meet established building codes sustain the greatest damages.
Other vulnerable segments of the population include:
* People in automobiles
* People in camp grounds
* People who do not understand the meaning of warnings, particularly if there
are language barriers
* People who do not hear the warning sirens (outside the coverage area).
* People who are unable to reach shelter areas due to distance of shelter or
physical limitations
* The elderly and the very young.
People living in manufactured homes (mobile homes) are particularly vulnerable to
extreme winds, particularly if building codes do not cover manufactured homes.
There are no mobile homes in Darwin.
Older homes in deteriorating condition are also vulnerable. The Committee noted that
homes in Darwin are well maintained and, thus, less susceptible to damage. The
Planning Committee felt that homes built between 1940 and 1959 were more
vulnerable to those constructed prior to 1939 due to building practices and material
availability during this period of time.
67 (18.5%) of the housing units in Darwin were built between 1940 and 1959 and 87
(24%) were built prior to 1939. The majority of these homes are multi-level, with
basements and well maintained. However, the Committee agreed these homes would
probably be the most vulnerable to damage.
The value of 60.4% of the owner-occupied units is between $50,000 and $99,000.
26.5% of the owner-occupied homes are valued between $100,000 and $149,000. The
median value of owner-occupied units is $81,000.
The Community Center houses City Hall and serves as the Emergency Operations
Center. All fire-emergency response equipment is housed in one location. Therefore, a
direct "hit" on the Community Center and/or fire station could result in a loss of
essential services. Neighboring communities could provide emergency services
through existing agreements; however, the financial loss would be catastrophic for the
community.

Maximum Threat
The path width of a tornado is usually less than .6 of a mile. The path length can range
from a few hundred feet to over a mile. A tornado typically moves at speeds between
40 and 125 miles per hour. The lifespan of a tornado is seldom longer than 30 minutes.
The threat can be substantially increased by accompanying thunderstorms, lightning
and hail. In some cases, a thunderstorm may generate multiple tornadoes. Because a
tornado or high winds can strike anywhere, the entire community is at risk.

Severity of Impact
A tornado typically moves at speeds between 40 and 125 miles per hour and can
generate internal winds exceeding 300 miles per hour. In Beagle County, one of the
reported tornadoes was an F4, two were F3's, four were F2's and the remainder were
FO's.
Potential impact/damages range from roof damage and minor property damage
resulting from flying debris to total destruction and loss of life.
Although residents could find shelter in basements, if the basements are exposed due
to upper level damage, residents would be in danger from flying debris and projectiles.
Flying debris could result in injuries. Structures could also sustain damage from trees
falling on the structure.
The Planning Committee reviewed the potential impact/damage table below and
agreed the most likely impact would be moderate damage to residential and
commercial properties; and brief interruptions in essential services. They agreed
severe high-wind and tornado events could result in deaths and property damaged
beyond repair and interruption or delay of essential services for 2 to 3 days.

Speed of Onset
Tornado and severe weather watches provide warning that conditions are favorable for
the development of a tornado. Recent advances tracking storms and disseminating
storm information have improved warning times. However, tornadoes can develop
rapidly and often are characterized by rapid changes in direction.
Citizens in Darwin, receive warning via sirens and NOAA weather radio. County and
City officials closely monitor severe weather and have identified vulnerable segments
of the population that may need assistance. The fire department delivers warning
directly to vulnerable areas of the population.
The NWS reported the citizens had 25 minutes warning (time between the first severe
weather warning and the event) for a recent (March 2002) Beagle County event.

Fujita-Pearson Scale 

Scale --- 
Fujita Wind Speed 
0  40 mph 
Pearson Path Length 
Less than 0.3 miles 
Width
Less than 6 yards

Scale 0 
Fujita Wind Speed 
40  72 mph 
Pearson Path Length 
0.3  0.9 miles 
Width
6  17 yards 

Scale 1 
Fujita Wind Speed 
73  112 mph 
Pearson Path Length 
1.0  3.1 miles 
Width
18  55 yards

Scale 2 
Fujita Wind Speed 
113  157 mph 
Pearson Path Length 
3.2  9.9 miles 
Width
56  175 yards

Scale 3 
Fujita Wind Speed 
158  206 mph 
Pearson Path Length 
10  31 miles 1 
Width
76  566 yards

Scale 4 
Fujita Wind Speed 
207  260 mph 
Pearson Path Length 
32  99 miles 
Width
0.3  0.9 miles

Scale 5 
Fujita Wind Speed 
261  318 mph 
Pearson Path Length 
100  315 miles 
Width
1.0  3.1 miles

TORNADO- POTENTIAL IMPACT AND DAMAGE

Managing Risk 
The threat to property and
personal safety can be
minimized through
compliance with up-to-date
model building codes and
engineering standards. 

Fujita Scale 
F0 
Description of Damage
Some damage can be seen to poorly maintained
roofs. Unsecured lightweight objects, such as
trashcans, are displaced.

Fujita Scale 
F1
Description of Damage
Minor damage to roofs and broken windows
occur. Larger and heavier objects become
displaced. Minor damage to trees and
landscaping can be observed.

Managing Risk 
Property and personal
protection can be improved
through wind hazard
mitigation techniques not
normally required by current
building codes.

Fujita Scale 
F2
Description of Damage
Roofs are damaged, including the loss of shingles
and some sheathing. Manufactured homes on
nonpermanent foundations can be shifted off their
foundations. Trees and landscaping either snap or
are blown over. Medium-sized debris becomes
airborne, damaging other structures.

Fujita Scale 
F3
Description of Damage
Roofs and some walls, especially unreinforced
masonry, are torn form structures. Small ancillary
buildings are often destroyed. Manufactured
homes on nonpermanent foundations can be
overturned. Some trees are uprooted.

Managing Risk 
Personal protection can
only be achieved through
use of a specially designed
extreme wind refuge area,
shelter, or safe room.

Fujita Scale 
F4
Description of Damage
Well-constructed homes, as well as manufactured
homes, are destroyed, and some structures are
lifted off their foundations. Automobile-sized
debris is displaced and often tumbles. Trees are
often uprooted and blown over.

Fujita Scale 
F5
Description of Damage
Strong frame houses and engineered buildings
are lifted from their foundations or are significantly
damaged or destroyed. Automobile-sized debris is
moved significant distances. Trees are uprooted
and splintered.
Source: FEMA Publication 320

Natural Hazard: Severe Thunderstorm (Lightning and Hail)

Definition 
Thunderstorm: Weather systems accompanied by strong winds, lightning, heavy rain
or hail, and possible tornadoes. The National Weather Service classifies a
thunderstorm as severe if its winds reach or exceed 53 mph, it produces a tornado, or
it drops surface hail of at least 0.75 inches in diameter.

Description 
Thunderstorms affect relatively small areas compared to other atmospheric hazards
such as hurricanes and winter storms. The typical thunderstorm is 15 miles in diameter
and lasts an average of 30 minutes. However, weather-monitoring reports indicate
thunderstorm systems can travel intact for distances in excess of 600 miles. About 10
percent of the 100,000 thunderstorms that occur each year are classified as severe.
Lightning occurs with all thunderstorms and can strike anywhere. Lightning is
generated by the buildup of charged ions in a thundercloud. The discharge of a
lightning bolt interacts with the best conducting object or surface on the ground. The air
in the channel of a lightning strike reaches temperatures of over 50,000 degrees
Fahrenheit. The rapid heating and cooling of the air near the channel causes a shock
wave that produces thunder.
In the U.S., an average of 93 people are killed and 300 injured each year by lightning.
Most lightning casualties occur in the summer months during the afternoon and early
evening.
Hailstorms occur when updrafts (strong rising currents of air within a storm) carry water
droplets to a height where freezing occurs. When the ice particles become too heavy
to be supported by the updraft, they fall to the ground. The size of the hailstone
depends on the severity and size of the storm. Hailstones may be as small as 
Inches in diameter and as large as golf balls. The larger the hailstone, the faster they
fall to the earth. Large hailstones can fall at speeds over 100 mph.
Hailstorms cause nearly $1 billion in property and crop damage annually. Long
stemmed vegetation is particularly vulnerable to hail damage. Hailstorms can also
cause considerable damage to buildings and automobiles, but rarely result in loss of
life.

Historical Occurrence
4 Lightning events were reported in Beagle County between January 1950 and May
2002. One lightning event, with $1,000 in property damage was reported in Darwin.
Lightning struck a tree near a house in Darwin. The lightning traveled through one of
the roots of the tree and blew a whole in the driveway and curled up the metal trim on
the garage. All of the brooms and tools within the garage were knocked onto the floor.
In another event, reported by the Committee (but NOT reported in the NWS data) a
Darwin woman was struck by lightning. The woman survived but suffered severe
burns.
55 hail events were reported between January 1950 and May 2002. Four events were
reported in Darwin. All reported events occurred in 2001. Reported damages ranged
from $0 (0.75 inch diameter) to $25,000 (1.75 inch diameter).

Probability 
On average, Beagle County experiences between 40 and 50 thunder events per year.
A thunder event is composed of lightning and rainfall and can intensify into a severe
thunderstorm with damaging hail, high winds, tornadoes, and flash flooding. The
average number of hailstorm days per year 4-5. According to NOAA, an individual's
chance of being struck by lightning are estimated to be in 600,000.

Vulnerability 
Lightning presents the greatest immediate threat during a thunderstorm. People who
are outdoors, especially under or near tall trees, in or on water, or on or near hilltops
are most vulnerable. While lightning could occur anywhere within the community, the
impact, damage would be confined to property that was struck and its occupants.
The greatest damage from hail occurs to property, especially automobiles and mobile
homes. People or animals unable to reach shelter may also be at risk. Hail events
have the potential of impacting the entire community.

Maximum Threat
In Iowa, the average length of thunderstorms is between 60 and 70 minutes; however,
severe thunderstorms are often faster moving and shorter in duration. The area
impacted is usually between 5 and 15 minutes. The entire community is at risk. One
cannot predict where lightning may strike and hailstorms move through the community.

Severity of Impact
In an average year, lightning kills more people in the U.S. than the number of persons
killed from tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes combined. Lightning can also result in
property damage and fires.
The greatest threat from hail is property damage, particularly to cars and homes.
Broken windows and roof damage are common during hailstorms. Typical hail damage
does not threaten the structural integrity of buildings.

Speed of Onset
Advances in weather prediction and surveillance have increased warning times. The
National Weather Service watches and warnings are broadcast over NOAA Weather
Alert radios and local television and radio stations.
Darwin has NOAA Weather Alert system coverage as well as warning sirens that cover
the entire City. If residents understand and heed the National Weather Service
warnings they usually have time to seek shelter and take appropriate action.

Natural Hazard: Winter Storm (Snow and Ice)

Definition 
Winter storms consist of extreme cold weather and heavy concentrations of snowfall or
ice. There are three categories of winter storm: blizzard, heavy snowfall, and ice
storms.

Description 
Winter storms are most likely to occur between late October and late March. In the
Midwestern and Great Plains states winter storms usually begin as mid-latitude
depression weather systems originating in Canada and the Arctic.
Blizzards, the most dangerous of winter storms, combine low temperatures, heavy
snowfall, and high winds that blow the snow into drifts and reduce visibility. The
National Weather Service describes a blizzard as large amounts of falling or blowing
snow and winds of at least 35 miles per hour that are expected to last for several
hours. A severe blizzard is characterized by considerable falling or blowing snow,
winds of at least 45 miles per hour, and temperatures of 10 degrees Fahrenheit or
lower lasting for several hours.
A heavy snowstorm is one that drops four or more inches of snow in a 12-hour period
or six or more inches in a 24-hour period. Often high winds accompany the storm,
blowing the snow into drifts and causing poor visibility.
Ice storms occur when a significant amount of moisture falls from clouds and freezes
immediately upon impact. Ice storms make driving and even walking extremely
hazardous.

Historical Occurrence
According to NOAA, Beagle County experienced 32 reported snow and ice events
between January 1993 and April 30, 2002. These storms resulted in 6 deaths, total
property damage of $58,856 million and total crop damage of $65 million.
Probability Snow level measurements provide the probability and frequency of occurrence
associated with severe winter storms. In Beagle County, snow depths with a 5%
chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year are between 50 and 75 centimeters
(19.5 and 29.25 inches).

Vulnerability 
Large snowstorms, ice storms, and severe blizzards have a substantial impact on
utilities and transportation systems and can result in loss of life due to accidents or
hypothermia. People can become stranded at home, often without utilities or other
services.
The most vulnerable segments of the population are people in automobiles, people
who work outdoors or whose work require them to travel, and people who are most
susceptible to the dangers of extreme cold weather  the very young, the elderly, and
those with health conditions such as heart and respiratory diseases. People living in
poorly insulated homes are more susceptible. This includes homes built prior to 1970
that have not been retrofitted/weatherized.

Heavy snowfall and blizzards can trap motorists in their cars. Ice storms result in
particularly hazardous driving conditions. The leading cause of death is automobile
accidents. Ice storms can also break power lines.
Extreme cold weather may cause water mains to freeze. If the storm lasts more than
one or two days, the possibility of utility failures and interruption of services increases
greatly.
Emergency services ability to respond quickly may also be impacted. Fire presents a
great danger because water supplies may freeze and firefighting equipment may not
be able to get to the fire.

Maximum Threat
Since winter storms are generally large, due to the compact size of Darwin, the entire
community could be impacted.

Severity of Impact
The severity of the impact depends on the type of storm, the intensity of the storm, the
duration of the storm, the community's ability to respond, and the degree the public
understands and responds to weather advisories.
Heavy ice and snow may disrupt power distribution. A very intense storms and/or
storms lasting for more than one or two days may impact the utility company's ability to
restore power and the City's ability to remove ice and/or snow from roads and
highways. Power and transportation disruption could impact emergency services.
In Darwin, the impact of winter storms has been limited to transportation problems or
power failures. The impacts from major storms usually diminish within 2 to 3 days.

Speed of Onset
National Weather Service weather advisories (winter storm watch, winter storm
warning, ice storm warning, heavy snow warning, blizzard warning, and travelers
advisories) are widely distributed via the NOAA weather alert system and local radio
and television. Winter storms are tracked several days in advance. As a result City and
County emergency services staff and the general public are kept well informed and
prepared for the event.

Natural Hazard: Drought

Definition 
A water shortage caused by a deficiency of rainfall.

Description 
A drought occurs when there is a natural reduction in the amount of precipitation
expected over an extended period of time, usually a season or more in length. High
temperatures, prolonged high winds, and low relative humidity can intensify the
severity of a drought.
Drought differs from other natural hazards in three ways:
* A droughts onset and end are difficult to determine because the effects
accumulate slowly and may linger after the apparent end of the event.
* There is no precise and universally accepted definition. This causes confusion
about whether a drought exists and, if it does, its severity.
* The impacts of drought are less obvious and are spread over larger
geographic area.
These differences have hindered the development of accurate, reliable, and timely
estimates of drought severity and effects. Thus making hazard analysis and risk
assessment more difficult.
Three types of drought relevant to Iowa are:
* Meterologic drought, which is defined solely on the degree actual precipitation,
differs from tile expected average or normal amount.
* Hydrologic drought which is related to the effects of precipitation shortfalls on
streamflows and reservoir, lake, and ground water levels.
* Agricultural drought which is defined principally in terms of soil moisture
deficiencies relative to water demands of crops.

Historical Occurrence
During the 20th Century two severe droughts impacted the Midwest (the 1930's Dust
Bowl drought and the 1976-77 drought). Between January 1950 and August 2001, 4
drought events were reported for Beagle County. All events were reported after 1995.
The August 1995 event resulted in reported crop damages of $109.9 million. The July
1999 event resulted in reported crop damages of $150.1 million. The August and
September 2000 events resulted in a reported $161.0 million in crop damages.

Probability 
The most reliable information available was historical. Historical occurrence indicates
that the probability of a severe drought in as least one chance in 100 years. The
likelihood of a less severe drought is much higher with four short-term events occurring
in a 6-year period.

Vulnerability 
A severe drought would impact the entire community. The agricultural sector would be
most severely impacted. Agricultural production could be damaged by loss of crops or
livestock. Increased demand for water and electricity could result in shortages and
rationing. The number and severity of wild fires may also increase.
A short-term drought could result in limiting water usage such as watering lawns. The
community may also be exposed to greater risk from fire resulting in burning
restrictions.

Maximum Threat
Severe droughts generally impact large geographical areas. Thus, a drought impacting
Darwin would most likely impact much of Iowa.

Severity of Impact
Severe drought would have the greatest impact on agricultural crops, livestock, wildlife
and streamflows. Although drought seldom results in the loss of life, a severe drought
would have substantial economic impacts. In the mid-1970's drought, 40 separate
drought relief programs administered by 16 Federal agencies provided nearly $8 billion
in relief.

Speed of Onset
Droughts develop over wide geographical areas over extended period of time. During
the past decade, research efforts, such as those at the University of Nebraska Drought
Center, attempts to predict droughts and develop policy on preparedness, mitigation,
and warnings have increased. However, this research is in its early stages and
accurate, consistent drought warning/prediction methodology is not readily available.

Natural Hazard: Earthquake

Definition 
A wave like movement of the earth's surface that results from the sudden
shifting of rock beneath the earth's crust.

Description 
The earth's crust and upper part of the mantle are constantly pushing and moving
against one another along what are known as fault lines. When rock masses slip along
a fault, the energy of an earthquake is released in seismic waves. Earthquakes can
also be produced by volcanic eruptions.
The damage caused by an earthquake depends on its intensity. Today geologists use
the Modified Mercalli (MM) intensity scale to measure the intensity of ground shaking
at a particular site.
The MM scale has 12 graduations. Quakes of intensity I-IV are minor and often not
even noticed. By intensity V nearly everyone senses the movement, and earthquakes
of intensities greater than VII are considered major.

Historical Occurrence
Iowa has experienced only minor earthquake activity since 1803. The New Madrid
earthquakes of 1811-1812 were the first reported felt in Iowa. Since 1867, 12
earthquakes with epicenters in Iowa have occurred. None have been located in Beagle
County. The last reported earthquake in Iowa occurred in Oxford on April 20, 1948.

Probability 
Darwin is located in Seismic Zone 0, the lowest risk zone in the United States. It is
unlikely an earthquake event would occur in Darwin.

Vulnerability 
Although Darwin is in the lowest risk zone, this does not guarantee an earthquake
would never impact the area. Current earthquake research indicates that if a significant
earthquake occurred along the New Madrid fault, the impact on Beagle County would
be less than a MMV.

Maximum Threat
Darwin would experience minor damage, if any. At MMV most people would feel the
earthquake. Many would be awakened. Some dishes and windows may be broken and
unstable objects could be overturned

Severity of Impact
There would be few, if any injuries and little or no property damage. Essential services
would not experience interruption.

Speed of Onset
Currently there are no reliable warning systems.

Technological Hazard: Hazardous Materials

Definition 
Hazardous materials are substances or materials that, because of their chemical,
physical, or biological nature, pose a potential risk to life, health, or property if they are
released.

Description 
Cities, counties, and towns where hazardous materials fabrication, processing, and
storage sites are located and those where hazardous waste treatment storage or
disposal facilities operate are at risk for HAZMAT incidents.
The storage and use of hazardous materials does not occur only in and around
chemical manufacturing plants. In addition, facilities such as service stations and
hospitals store and use hazardous materials and many hazardous materials are
located in homes
In addition to large quantities of hazardous materials maintained in communities,
hazardous materials are transported daily by air, water, road, rail, and pipeline. Of the
1.5 billion tons of materials transported each year, more than half move by trucks
along the nation's highways.
Of the 6,774 HAZMAT events that occur on average each year, 5,517 are highway
events, 991 are railroad events, and 266 are due to other causes.
Rains, high winds, and fires can worsen conditions surrounding HAZMAT events
making it even more difficult to contain releases and deter the short and long term
effects. Burning fuels or chemicals entering sewers or drains that are not completely
filled with stormwater runoff have caused underground fires. Fires involving certain
types of HAZMAT may generate more toxic gas or smoke than would otherwise
normally evolve.
The City is located 10 miles south of Interstate 80. State Highway 225 forms the
northern boundary of the City.

Historical Occurrence
The Beagle County Emergency Management Risk Assessment dated December 2000,
reported 12 major hazardous materials events and 3 injuries between 1985 and
December 2000. The analysis estimated an average of 75-80 annual incidents.
A tractor-trailer owned by Darwin Transport parked at the Darwin Coop Exchange
anhydrous plan storage facility was damaged (split tank). Anhydrous ammonia was
released and the downtown area evacuated.

Probability 
The Planning Committee felt that based on past history, it is highly likely (nearly 100%)
that a hazardous materials incident may occur in any given year.

Vulnerability 
People living in close proximity to transportation routes or fixed facilities classified as
302 facilities would be most vulnerable to injury from a HAZMAT event.
There are 12 EPA reporting facilities in Darwin. In addition, several trucking firms are
located near the community. The Committee felt the greatest threat is from an
anhydrous plant storage facility located in the center of town. Trailers are loaded at this
area and frequently are parked in the area over night. The Committee estimates that
up to 50% of the population could be impacted by an event. (See Appendix H for
location map)

Maximum Threat
The Beagle County Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) has an in-depth
hazard analysis identifying HAZMAT facilities, their locations, and the stored
chemicals. The analysis indicates there is a moderate risk of release of hazardous
materials that would not impact more than a  mile radius. The Committee estimated
that 30% of the Community is within  mille of HAZMAT facilities. The number of
people impacted would be greater during the day when businesses are open.

Severity of Impact
A well-trained, well-equipped response team in close proximity to the location of an
incident substantially reduces the severity of the impact. The Fire Department
employees are trained in HAZMAT response. City trained response personnel are on call
7 days a week, 24 hours a day. In addition, The Beagle County Hazardous
Materials Response Team is located in Newton, Iowa. The team provides 7 day a
week, 24 hour a day response capabilities. The estimated response time is .5 to 1
hour.
Immediate dangers from HAZMAT include fires, explosion, and the possible
contamination of the community's air, land, and water. Direct contact with skin may
cause painful and damaging burns. Contamination of air, ground, or water may harm
fish, wildlife, livestock, and crops.

Speed of Onset
It is impossible to predict when a HAZMAT incident may occur.

Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Summary

Hazard Ranking
After completing the hazard analysis, the Planning Committee assigned ratings to each hazard. Following
is a list of the hazards, their ratings, and the Committee's ranking.
1. Snow and Ice 38
2. Extreme Wind 37
3. Tornado 36
4. Hazardous Materials 33
5. Thunderstorm-Hail 32
6. Thunderstorm-Lightning 24
7. Drought 22
8. Flood 11
9. Earthquake 14

After discussing the criteria and the threat to the City, the Committee ranked flood higher than
earthquake. The Committee noted the earthquake rating of 14 was a result of the speed of onset and that
the community was more vulnerable to the impacts of occasional flash flooding.

Ratings by Criteria

Snow-Ice: 
Historical 8
Probability 8
Vulnerability 7
Max Threat 7
Severity 3
Onset 5
TOTAL 38

Tornado:
Historical 1
Probability 6
Vulnerability 7
Max Threat 6
Severity 8
Onset 8
TOTAL 36

Wind:
Historical 2
Probability 7
Vulnerability 8 
Max Threat 8
Severity 5
Onset 7
TOTAL 37 

HAZMAT:
Historical 3
Probability 7
Vulnerability 7 
Max Threat 5
Severity 3
Onset 8
TOTAL 33

Thunderstorm Hail: 
Historical 3
Probability 7
Vulnerability 6 
Max Threat 7
Severity 4
Onset 5
TOTAL 32

Thunderstorm Lightning:
Historical 1
Probability 6
Vulnerability 3 
Max Threat 4
Severity 5
Onset 5
TOTAL 24

Drought: 
Historical 1
Probability 5
Vulnerability 6 
Max Threat 6
Severity 3
Onset 1
TOTAL 22

Earthquake:
Historical 1
Probability 1
Vulnerability 1 
Max Threat 1
Severity 1
Onset 1
TOTAL 14

Flood:
Historical 3
Probability 3
Vulnerability 1
Max Threat 1
Severity 4
Onset 2
TOTAL 11

Asset Inventory
The City is currently in the process of conducting an inventory of community assets. Following is a
summary of the City's preliminary inventory.

Hazards: Snow/Ice, Tornado, Wind, Thunderstorm (Hail, Lightning). 
Entire Community is Hazard Area

Type of Structure: Residential

Number of Structures 
# in City 362
# in Hazard Area 362
% in Hazard Area 100

Type of Structure: Commercial

Number of Structures 
# in City 60
# in Hazard Area 60
% in Hazard Area 100

Type of Structure: Combined Residential and Commercial

Value of Structures 
$ in City 34,956,475
$ in Hazard Area 34,956,465
% in Hazard Area 100

Number of People 
# in City 904
# in Hazard Area 904
% in Hazard Area 100

Type of Structure: Industrial 

Number of Structures 
# in City 0
# in Hazard Area 0
% in Hazard Area 0
Value of Structures 
$ in City 0
$ in Hazard Area 0
% in Hazard Area 0
Number of People 
# in City 0
# in Hazard Area 0
% in Hazard Area 0

Type of Structure: Agriculture 

Number of Structures 
# in City 0
# in Hazard Area 0
% in Hazard Area 0
Value of Structures 
$ in City 0
$ in Hazard Area 0
% in Hazard Area 0
Number of People 
# in City 0
# in Hazard Area 0
% in Hazard Area 0

Type of Structure: Religious/Non-Profit 
Number of Structures 
# in City 3
# in Hazard Area 3
% in Hazard Area 100

Type of Structure: Government 

Number of Structures 
# in City 3
# in Hazard Area 3
% in Hazard Area 100
Value of Structures 
$ in City 1,000,000
$ in Hazard Area 1,000,000
% in Hazard Area 1,000,000

Type of Structure: Education 

Number of Structures 
# in City 2
# in Hazard Area 2
% in Hazard Area 100
Number of People 
# in City 764
# in Hazard Area 764
% in Hazard Area 764

Type of Structure: Utilities 
Number of Structures 
# in City 3
# in Hazard Area 3
% in Hazard Area 3

Residential/Commercial Value = Assessed value
Government = Community Center (7,200 sq ft), fire station, maintenance building
Education = Staff and students at public school grades kindergarten  12 and private school grades 1-8
Utilities = Wastewater treatment plant, water plant and city wells

Other hazards:
HAZMAT: Risk area = structures and people within  mile (3-4 blocks) of facilities. See Map in
Appendix H.
Riverine flooding: No flood hazard area
Flash flooding: Low lying areas, scattered throughout community
See hazard tables for estimate of the % of People and Property and % (spatial area) of City at risk in an
event. The Committee referred to the Fujita-Pearson Scale to estimate risk. For example, the entire
community is a tornado risk area; however, a F-2 event has an estimated width of 56 -- 175 yards (1 mile
= 1,760 years).

APPENDIX B
FLOOD OVERVIEW

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Flood Overview Narrative 
Beagle County Flood Events (47) 
Floodplain Management in Iowa 
Beagle County Floodplains 
National Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panels (FEMA)
Beagle County Floodplain Map (Beagle County  USGS) 
[END TABLE OF CONTENTS]

FLOODING
Of all the natural hazards that occur in the U.S., flooding occurs most often; at least 90% of disasters in
the U.S. are floods. In Iowa, it is estimated that flooding causes annual damages exceeding $534 million.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) defines flooding as:
A partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from:
1. The overland flood of a lake, river, stream, ditch, etc.
2. The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of stream waters.
3. Mudflows or the sudden collapse of shoreline land.
Riverine flooding is usually the result of heavy or prolonged rainfall or snowmelt occurring in upstream
inland watersheds. Melting snow can combine with rain in the winter and early spring; severe
thunderstorms can bring heavy rain in the spring or summer. Intense rainfall over a short period of time,
or an ice or debris jam can also cause a river or stream to overflow. Riverine floodwaters can occur
quickly and move rapidly, as in a flash flood, or waters can rise slowly over a period of hours or even a
few days as they often do where the land is gently sloping or flat.
Flooding can also be caused by inadequate or improper drainage systems including storm sewers,
culverts, and drainage ditches. These systems are usually designed to carry up to a specific amount of
water (design capacity). When heavy rainfall causes the design capacity of the systems to be exceeded,
water will begin to back up and fill low-Iying areas near system inlets and along open ditches. This is most
common in urban areas. As land is converted from fields or woodlands to roads and parking lots, it looses
its ability to absorb rainfall. Urbanization increases runoff two to six times over what would occur on
natural terrain.
The extent of damage caused by floods is determined by many factors including depth, frequency,
velocity, rate of rise, duration and the potential presence of ice and debris. These factors also determine
which mitigation methods will work best.
Depth is the primary factor in evaluating the potential for flood damage. Every floodplain is unique in
terms of the different levels of flooding that can be expected.
* Very shallow flooding, usually defined as a depth of one foot or less, is not life threatening, but
can still cause considerable amounts of damage to a building.
* Shallow flooding of one to three feet in depth can result in significant amounts of damage both to
structures and their contents.
* Moderate flooding, depths of three to six feet, can destroy buildings and threaten lives because of
the large flood forces involved.
* Deep flooding, depths exceeding six feet, are the most destructive and dangerous.
Frequency, or how often the flooding occurs, is usually the second factor considered. All floodplains are
subject to floods of differing depths, with the lower depths occurring more often, or frequently, than higher
levels. Although historical flood depths provide some indication of the level of risk, there is no certain
method to predict future flood levels.
A method of estimating flood frequencies has been developed to determine the statistical probability of
specific flood levels. For example, the flood that has a 1-percent (1 in 100) probability of being equaled or
exceeded in any year is referred to as the 100-year flood event. However, this does not mean that a 100-
year event is one that happens every 100 years or that once a 100-year event happens it will not occur
again for another 100 years. This is only a statistical tool used to estimate the risk of certain flood levels.
The 100-year flood is known as the base flood elevation or BFE. Once a BFE has been established, it is
published on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). These maps delineate areas of a specific community
that are subject to the base flood.
Velocity is the speed at which floodwaters move.
* Slow moving floodwaters are usually defined as those having a velocity of less than three feet per
second and they usually do not present substantial problems.
* Faster moving floodwaters, those moving over five feet per second, can quickly erode or scour
the soil leading to foundation failure or even moving the house off its foundation.
Historical information from past flood events is often the best source of determining potential flood
velocities even though it is possible to hydraulically calculate theoretical velocities.
The speed floodwaters rise, or Rate of Rise, is the primary factor in determining the amount of warning
time. In steep topography or when large amounts of rainfall occur within a short period of time, flash
floods can occur. In low, flat areas the warning time can be several hours or even days.
The rate of rise is also important because of the effects of hydrostatic pressure. For example, if the water
rises quickly, water may not be able to flow into the building fast enough for the pressure inside to rise as
quickly as the level outside. When the internal and external pressures (pressure of the water inside the
building and the water outside the building) are significantly different, it could cause serious structural
damage and even collapse.
The duration of the flood is how long it lasts. Often duration is related to rate of rise and rate of fall.
Usually water that rises and falls rapidly will recede more rapidly and water that rises and falls slowly will
recede more slowly. How long the structural members, interior finishes, service equipment, and building
contents are affected by floodwaters is related to how much damage will occur. Duration also determines
how long buildings remain uninhabitable.
Ice and/or debris can often pose a greater danger than the floodwater itself. For example ice floes,
caused by ice breakup, can often strike a building causing serious damage or the ice may form around a
flooded building causing uplift and structural damage. Floodwaters can carry all types of debris, including
trees, portions of flood damaged buildings, storage tanks, mobile homes, as well as dirt and other
substances such as oil, gasoline, sewage and chemicals. At low velocities the debris can cause damage
and pose a health and safety threat, at higher velocities it can destroy structures, including buildings and
bridges.

47 FLOOD EVENT(S) WERE REPORTED IN Beagle County, Iowa between 
01/01/1950 and 06/30/2002. 

Mag: Magnitude
Dth: Deaths
Inj: Injuries
PrD: Property Damage
CrD: Crop Damage

Location or County 
1 IAZ026>030 - 035>042 -
045>054 - 056>064 - 070>079 -
080>099 
Date 03/02/1993
Time 1200
Type Flooding
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 50K
CrD0

Location or County 
2 IAZ002>011 - 013>054 -
056>064 - 070>074 - 080>084 -
090>096
Date 05/07/1993
Time 1800
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5.0M
CrD5.0M

Location or County 
3 BEAGLE 
Date 08/11/1993
Time 1900
Type Flash Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 50K
CrD 50K

Location or County 
4 IAZ005>011 - 024>030 -
036>042 - 049>054 - 061>064 -
075>078 - 086>089 - 098 - 099 
Date 08/14/1993
Time 2400
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5.0M
CrD 5.0M

Location or County 
5 IAZ002>005 - 013>015 -
022>026 - 033>037 - 045>050 -
058>064 - 071>078 - 083 - 088 -
095>099
Date 08/16/1993
Time 0600
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5.0M
CrD 5.0M

Location or County 
6 IAZ002>011 - 013>054 -
056>064 - 070>078 - 080>099
Date 08/29/1993
Time 0300
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5.0M
CrD 5.0M

Location or County 
7 All Of Iowa 
Date 09/01/1993
Time 0000
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 500K
CrD 500K

Location or County 
8 IAZ034>040 - 046>052 -
058>064 - 072>078 - 083>089 -
095>099
Date 09/14/1993
Time 0600
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 500K
CrD 500K

Location or County 
9 IAZ028>030 - 040>054 -
056>064 - 070>078 - 080>099
Date 09/25/1993
Time 1400
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5.0M
CrD 5.0M

Location or County 
10 Central And 
Date 10/01/1993
Time 0000
Type Flooding
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 50K
CrD 50K

Location or County 
11 Central Iowa 
Date 10/09/1993
Time 0600
Type Flooding
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
12 Much Of Iowa
Date 02/19/1994
Time 0600
Type Flooding
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 500K
CrD 0

Location or County 
13 IAZ001>099 
Date 06/22/1994
Time 2330
Type Flooding
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 500K
CrD 500K

Location or County 
14 IAZ004>006 - 015 - 048>050 -
061>064 - 074>078 - 082>089 -
094>099
Date 04/10/1995
Time 0900
Type Flooding
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 10K
CrD 0

Location or County 
15 IAZ004>006 - 015 - 035>037 -
048>052 - 061>064 - 074>078 -
085>089 - 097>099
Date 04/26/1995
Time 1500
Type Flooding
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 25K
CrD 0

Location or County 
16 IAZ033 - 006 - 045>052 -
057>068 - 070>078 - 081>089 -
092>099
Date 05/07/1995
Time 1200
Type Flooding
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 200K
CrD 10K

Location or County 
17 IAZ004>011 - 015>019 -
023>030 - 035>042 - 047>054 -
060>068 - 074>078 - 084>089 -
095>099
Date 06/06/1995
Time 2300
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 50K
CrD 100K

Location or County 
18 IAZ046>050 - 059>062 -
074>075
Date 02/09/1996
Time 06:00 AM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 50K
CrD 0

Location or County 
19 IAZ060>062 - 072>075 -
081>086 - 092>097
Date 05/19/1996
Time 06:00 AM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 100K
CrD 50K

Location or County 
20 Newton 
Date 05/09/1996
Time 09:00 PM
Type Urban/sml Stream Fld
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 50K
CrD 0

Location or County 
21 IAZ057>062 - 070>075 -
081>086 - 092>097
Date 05/23/1996
Time 03:00 PM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 250K
CrD 75K

Location or County 
22 IAZ057>062 - 070>075 -
081>086 - 092>097
Date 05/26/1996
Time 12:00 PM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 400K
CrD 100K

Location or County 
23 IAZ029 - 033>039 - 045>050 -
058>062 - 074>075
Date 06/17/1996
Time 03:00 AM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 500K
CrD 1.0M

Location or County 
24 IAZ036 - 047>048 - 061 - 075 
Date 06/17/1996
Time 04:00 AM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 1.0M
CrD 500K

Location or County 
25 IAZ034>039 - 044>050 -
057>062 - 070>075 - 081>086 -
092>097
Date 02/18/1997
Time 06:00 PM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 750K
CrD 0

Location or County 
26 IAZ024>028 - 035>039 -
048>049 - 061 - 075
Date 06/21/1997
Time 03:00 PM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 60K
CrD 100K

Location or County 
27 IAZ061 - 074>075 - 083>084 -
095>096
Date 05/07/1998
Time 01:00 AM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 175K
CrD 70K

Location or County 
28 Colfax 
Date 05/19/1998
Time 05:15 PM
Type Urban/sml Stream Fld
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 30K
CrD 2K

Location or County 
29 IAZ061 - 074>075 - 083>084 
Date 05/24/1998
Time 06:00 AM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 125K
CrD 50K

Location or County 
30 IAZ027 - 037 - 049>050 -
059>061 - 074>075
Date 06/08/1998
Time 06:00 PM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 450K
CrD 90K

Location or County 
31 Newton 
Date 06/14/1998
Time 04:00 PM
Type Urban/sml Stream Fld
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 50K
CrD 30K

Location or County 
32 IAZ034 - 037 - 045>046 -
048>050 - 057>061 - 070 -
074>075 - 083>084
Date 06/14/1998
Time 09:00 AM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5.4M
CrD 655K

Location or County 
33 IAZ023>024 - 027 - 035 - 037 -
047>050 - 059>061 - 072>075
Date 06/18/1998
Time 02:00 AM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 8.7M
CrD 460K

Location or County 
34 IAZ016>017 - 027 - 037 -
049>050 - 061 - 074>075
Date 06/21/1998
Time 06:00 AM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 900K
CrD 180K

Location or County 
35 Newton 
Date 06/29/1998
Time 01:00 PM
Type Urban/sml Stream Fld
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 50K
CrD 10K

Location or County 
36 IAZ034 - 037>038 - 045>046 -
049 - 058>062 - 073>075
084>086 - 095
Date 07/06/1998
Time 03:00 AM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 900K
CrD 1.8M

Location or County 
37 Galesburg 
Date 02/26/1999
Time 10:45 PM
Type Urban/sml Stream Fld
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 1K
CrD 0

Location or County 
38 IAZ004>006 - 016 - 023 -
025>027 - 033>037 - 071>073 -
048>049 - 058>061 - 071>073 -
075 - 083>086 - 095
Date 04/06/1999
Time 06:00 PM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 210K
CrD 0

Location or County 
39 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -
023>027 - 033>037 - 045>046 -
048>049 - 058>061 - 071>072 -
075 - 083>086 - 095
Date 04/22/1999
Time 06:00 AM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 
Inj 00
PrD 370K
CrD 0

Location or County 
40 IAZ004>006 - 016>017 -
023>028 - 035>039 - 045>046 -
048>049 - 058>061 - 072>075 -
083>085 - 095
Date 05/16/1999
Time 09:00 PM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 7.6M
CrD 875K

Location or County 
41 IAZ004>006 - 016>017 -
023>028 - 035 - 037>039 -
045>046 - 048>049 - 058>061 -
071>075
Date 05/21/1999
Time 03:00 PM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 1.4M
CrD 280K

Location or County 
42 IAZ004>007 - 016>017 -
023>028 - 033>039 - 045>049 -
057>062 - 074>075 - 083>084 -
094>095
Date 06/09/1999
Time 06:00 AM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 1.8M
CrD 2.7M

Location or County 
43 IAZ026>027 - 038 - 061 -
074>075 - 083>086 - 094>095 -
097
Date 06/24/2000
Time 03:00 AM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 650K
CrD 975K

Location or County 
44 IAZ046>050 - 057>062 -
023>028 - 033>039 - 044>050 -
057>062 - 070>075 - 081>086 -
092>097
Date 03/15/2001
Time 03:00 PM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 260K
CrD 0

Location or County 
45 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -
023>028 - 033>039 - 044>050 -
057>062 - 070>075 - 081>086 -
092>097
Date 03/23/2001
Time 06:00 PM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 383K
CrD 0

Location or County 
46 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -
023>026 - 033>038 - 045>046 -
048>049 - 059>061 - 073>075 -
083>086 - 094>095
Date 06/12/2001
Time 03:00 PM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 825K
CrD 1.7M

Location or County 
47 IAZ061>062 - 074>075 
Date 06/13/2002
Time 04:00 PM
Type Flood
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 40K
CrD 80K

TOTALS: 
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 60.819M
CrD 33.947M

Floodplain Management in Iowa
As part of an effort to stem the increase in flood damages sustained after a number of devastating flood
events in the 1940's, the Iowa General Assembly created the Iowa Natural Resources Council in 1949.
Originally, the Council's power over floodplain activities was advisory in nature. Its regulatory functions
were established by 1957 and 1965 amendments. After a number of state reorganizations, Iowa's
floodplain regulatory authority now resides with the Water Resource Section of the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources (IDNR).
Iowa's floodplain program is different from most states in that its authority extends to virtually all floodplain
construction within the state and is not limited to FEMA regulatory floodplains. Regulatory thresholds of
rural development in watersheds draining ten square miles or more, and urban developments in
watersheds draining two square miles or more require a permit from the IDNR. Other developments
below these thresholds have relatively minor impacts and are not considered.
Iowa law allows IDNR to delegate States floodplain regulatory functions to a local government that has a
flood study identifying the regulatory floodway and floodway fringe along the 100-year flood profile and a
floodplain management ordinance meeting certain minimum requirements. The State allows communities
with delegated floodplain management authority to issue floodplain development permits in lieu of the
IDNR. The State has delegated floodplain authority to approximately 135 NFIP participating communities.
As part of the delegation process, the State retains the right to concur or deny with the granting of any
variance from the communitys floodplain management regulations.
Although the State of Iowa's criteria for new floodplain development is similar to the minimum NFIP
criteria in most respects, there are some important differences, for example:
* The lowest floor of new structures must be elevated an additional 1.0 foot above the 100-year
(base) flood.
* Iowa does not allow new residential structures in the floodway.
* Residential structures must have wheeled vehicular access during the 100-year flood.
* The substantial improvement threshold is reached with an additional 25% or more of flood area.
* All post-Firm (Flood Insurance Rage Map) additions are considered cumulative improvements in
the determination of increase in flood area.
(Source: FEMA Region VII and IDNR)

Beagle County Floodplains
The Beagle County Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) contains four panels (see following page). FEMA
has not identified Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) in the portion of the County NOT included within
these four panels. Thus, substantial portions of Beagle County, including unincorporated areas along the
North Skunk River, are classified as No Special Flood Hazard Areas (NSFHA). Floods of greater than the
100-year flood, flooding caused by local drainage problems, and flash flooding may damage structures in
these areas.
There are five mapped communities in Beagle County: Colfax, Kellogg, Newton, Reasnor, and Mingo.
Colfax, Kellogg, Newton, and Reasnor participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Mingo does
not participate. Flood insurance is not available and no direct Federal assistance can be legally provided
for the acquisition or construction of buildings in non-participating communities.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) classifies Beagle County and all mapped communities
within the County as "minimally flood-prone" areas. In these areas, the Flood Hazard Boundary Map was
converted to Flood Insurance Rate Map by letter, no change in flooding is shown on the map, and no
elevations are shown on the map.
Construction within the state and is not limited to FEMA regulatory floodplains. Regulatory thresholds of
rural development in watersheds draining ten square miles or more, and urban developments in
watersheds draining two square miles or more require a permit from the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR). (Refer to "Floodplain Management in Iowa" for more information.)
(Source: National Flood Insurance program Community Status Booklet, State of Iowa)

Figure:
BEAGLE COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MAP PANELS

APPENDIX C
TORNADO-EXTREME WINDS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tornado-Extreme Winds Overview 
Tornadoes in Iowa 
Tornado Risk  Wind Risk 
Tornado Activity  Wind Zones  Risk Table 
Fujita-Pearson Scale 
Tornado Events in Beagle County 
Knots to Miles Per hour Conversion Chart 
Thunderstorms and High Wind in Beagle County 

[END TABLE OF CONTENTS]

Tornadoes- Extreme Winds
Tornadoes
Each year approximately 1,000 tornadoes are spawned by severe thunderstorms. Although most
tornadoes remain aloft, those that touch ground are forces of destruction. Tornadoes have been
known to lift and move huge objects, destroy or move whole buildings long distances, and siphon
large volumes from bodies of water. Tornadoes generate a tremendous amount of debris, which often
becomes airborne shrapnel that causes additional damage. Tornadoes are almost always
accompanied by heavy precipitation. Over the past 20 years, 106 Federal disaster declarations
included damage associated with tornadoes.
Tornadoes follow the path of least resistance. People living in valleys have the greatest exposure.
People living in manufactured or mobile homes are most exposed to damage from tornadoes. Even if
anchored, mobile homes do not withstand high wind speeds as well as some permanent, site-built
structures.

Mitigation Measures
* Attention to the type of structure used in tornado-prone areas, particularly avoiding highly
susceptible manufactured or mobile homes.
* Quality construction and reinforcement of walls, floors, and ceilings provides, the greatest
protection.
- Proper anchoring of walls to foundations and roofs to walls
- Code adoption, compliance, and inspection of new homes
* Seeking shelter in basements, small interior rooms, or hallways and avoiding rooms with
large roof spans.
* Constructing reinforced, in-residence tornado shelter.
* Constructing community shelters; mobile home part shelters.
* Equipping gathering places with weather radios with an audible alert.
* Testing response and preparedness plans.
* Making special efforts to inform mobile home residents about the impacts of tornadoes and
locations of safe shelters.

Extreme Winds
Extreme winds other than tornados are experienced in all regions of the United States. It is
difficult to separate the various wind components that cause damage from other wind-related
natural events that often occur with or generate windstorms. The three primary sources of
extreme winds are hurricanes and tropical storms, severe thunderstorms, and winter storms.
Windstorms and wind-related events caused 63 fatalities in 1993. Over the past 20 years, 193
Federal disaster declarations involved wind-induced damage.

Mitigation Measures
* Similar to tornado mitigation. Quality construction and reinforcement of walls, floors, and
ceilings provide the greatest protection (See above).
* See wind mitigation checklist.

Iowa Tornadoes
In Iowa, most tornadoes occur in the spring and summer months in the late afternoon to evening hours,
but they can occur in every month of the year and at any time of the day. Between 1950 and 1995, Iowa
average 31 tornadoes per year. Of these approximately 11 are rated as strong-violent (F2 or higher on
the Fujita Scale). The following maps summarize tornado activity in Iowa between 1950 and 1995.

Figure: Map of the United States showing Annual Average Number of Tornadoes between 1950 and 1995 in each state.

Figure: Map of the United States showing Annual Average Number of Tornadoes per 10,000 Square Miles by State between 1950 and 1995.

Figure: Map of the United States showing Annual Average Number of Strong-Violent (F2-F5) Tornadoes between 1950 and 1995 in each state.

Figure: Map of the United States showing Annual Average Number of Strong-Violent (F2-F5) Tornadoes per 10,000 Square Miles by State

Figure: Map of Iowa showing number of tornadoes reported in Iowas 99 counties from 1950 through 1995.

Highest counties: Story and Scott (35 tornadoes)
Lowest county: Allamakee (6 tornadoes)
Statewide average: 16.2 tornadoes

NOTE: Harry Hillaker, the states climatologist, said the counties that are more populated are more likely to spot
tornadoes and have tornado damage. Hillaker said there were fewer tornadoes reported in the 1950s and 1960s
because multiple tornadoes in different parts of the state were often counted as one storm. Theoretically, Hillaker
said, southwest Iowa should be the most prone to tornadoes because its closest to Oklahoma and Kansas, states
that are in Tornado Alley, where heat and humidity generate the nations highest number of tornadoes.

TORNADO RISK MAPS
Figure: Map of the United States showing tornado risk areas in the conterminous United States.
Source: fema.gov 

Figure: Map of the United States showing F2 or greater tornado days 1921-1995
Source: NOAA

EXTREME WIND RISK MAPS
Figure: Map of the United States showing wind speeds (from the Uniform Building Code)
Source: fema.gov 

Figure: Map of the United States showing wind of 65 kts or more by days per year, 1980-1994
Source: NOAA

Tornado Activity
Figure: Map of the United States showing tornado activity

Wind Zones
Figure: Map of the United States showing wind zones

Risk Table
Figure: Table showing low, medium and high risk zones by number of tornadoes per 1,000 square miles

FUJITA-PEARSON SCALE
The original wind damage scale developed by T. Theodore Fujita, which bares his name, had two
additional sections added to further categorize tornadoes by the lengths and widths of their damage
paths. Both ratings were the products of researcher Allen Pearson, director of the National Weather
Service's National Severe Storms Forecast Center, in 1971. The P - for Pearson - scale was accepted for
use by NSSFC in 1973, creating the Fujita-Pearson Scale, or "FPP" Scale, which is still mentioned in
some literature. In practice, the Pearson Scales are not as widely used today.
For an example of the Fujita-Pearson scale, Tom Grazulis writes in his book Significant Tornadoes: 1680-
1991 that "the Sardorus, Ill;, tornado of March 20, 1976 leveled homes, had a path length or 63 miles, and
had a path width of 800 yards (2,400 feet, or just under a half mile)." Using the Table below, the tornado's
rating was F ,P ,P 4,4,4: a Fujita Intensity Scale rating of F-4, a Pearson Path Length Scale rating of P-4,
and a Pearson Path Width Scale rating of P-4.

Fujita-Pearson Scale 

Scale --- 
Fujita Wind Speed 
0  40 mph 
Pearson Path Length 
Less than 0.3 miles 
Width
Less than 6 yards

Scale 0 
Fujita Wind Speed 
40  72 mph 
Pearson Path Length 
0.3  0.9 miles 
Width
6  17 yards 

Scale 1 
Fujita Wind Speed 
73  112 mph 
Pearson Path Length 
1.0  3.1 miles 
Width
18  55 yards

Scale 2 
Fujita Wind Speed 
113  157 mph 
Pearson Path Length 
3.2  9.9 miles 
Width
56  175 yards

Scale 3 
Fujita Wind Speed 
158  206 mph 
Pearson Path Length 
10  31 miles 1 
Width
76  566 yards

Scale 4 
Fujita Wind Speed 
207  260 mph 
Pearson Path Length 
32  99 miles 
Width
0.3  0.9 miles

Scale 5 
Fujita Wind Speed 
261  318 mph 
Pearson Path Length 
100  315 miles 
Width
1.0  3.1 miles

Source: Significant Tornadoes: 1680

17 TORNADO(s) were reported in Beagle County, Iowa between 01/01/1950 and 10/31/2002. 
Mag: Magnitude
Dth: Deaths
Inj: Injuries
PrD: Property Damage
CrD: Crop Damage

Location or County 
Date 
Time 
Type 
Mag 
Dth 
Inj 
PrD 
CrD 

Location or County 
1 BEAGLE 
Date 08/26/1965
Time 1858
Type Tornado
Mag F2
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 25K
CrD 0

Location or County 
2 BEAGLE 
Date 10/14/1966
Time 1432
Type Tornado
Mag F3
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 25K
CrD 0

Location or County 
3 BEAGLE 
Date 03/30/1968
Time 1900
Type Tornado
Mag F0
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 3K
CrD 0

Location or County 
4 BEAGLE 
Date 04/03/1968
Time 1600
Type Tornado
Mag F2
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 25K
CrD 0

Location or County 
5 BEAGLE 
Date 06/04/1973
Time 1435
Type Tornado
Mag F2
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 250K
CrD 0

Location or County 
6 BEAGLE 
Date 09/16/1978
Time 1935
Type Tornado
Mag F3
Dth 2
Inj 2
PrD 250K
CrD 0

Location or County 
7 BEAGLE
Date 08/19/1979
Time 2032
Type Tornado
Mag F0
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0K
CrD 0

Location or County 
8 BEAGLE 
Date 08/26/1979
Time 1730
Type Tornado
Mag F1
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 25K
CrD 0

Location or County 
9 BEAGLE 
Date 05/08/1986
Time 1600
Type Tornado
Mag F1
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 25K
CrD 0

Location or County 
10 BEAGLE 
Date 09/28/1986
Time 1648
Type Tornado
Mag F4
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 2.5M
CrD 0

Location or County 
11 BEAGLE 
Date 05/08/1988
Time 1104
Type Tornado
Mag F1
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 250K
CrD 0

Location or County 
12 BEAGLE 
Date 06/13/1990
Time 2333
Type Tornado
Mag F0
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 3K
CrD 0

Location or County 
13 BEAGLE 
Date 06/16/1990
Time 0607
Type Tornado
Mag F0
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 3K
CrD 0

Location or County 
14 Baxter 
Date 05/12/1997
Time 04:48 PM
Type Tornado
Mag 0
Dth F0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
15 Kellogg 
Date 07/09/1998
Time 05:05 PM
Type Tornado
Mag F0
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 1K

Location or County 
16 Prairie City
Date 04/08/1999
Time 04:46 PM
Type Tornado
Mag F2
Dth 0
Inj 1
PrD 1.0M
CrD 0

Location or County 
17 Colfax 
Date 04/11/2001
Time 02:40 PM
Type Tornado
Mag F1
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 10K
CrD 0

TOTALS: 
Dth 2
Inj  3
PrD 4.393M
CrD 
500

Figure:
Knots to Miles Per Hour Conversion Chart
Surface Weather Observations  METAR always have wind speeds recorded in knots. The conversion
below will provide a quick conversion for winds from calm to 99 knots. The converted values are all
rounded to the nearest integer. For a more accurate conversion use the following formula:
1 KNOT = 1.5155 MILES PER HOUR

Land Beaufort Scale
The Beaufort Scale was originally developed in 1805 by Sir Francis Beaufort as a system for estimating
wind strength without the use of instruments. It is currently still in use for this same purpose as well as to
tie together various components of weather (wind strength, sea-state, observable effects) into a unified
picture.

Force 0 Speed knots <1 mph <1 Land Conditions
Calm, smoke rises vertically
Force 1 Speed knots 1-3 mph 1-3 Land Conditions Light air, direction of wind shown by smoke drift only
Force 2 Speed knots 4-6 mph 4-7 Land Conditions Light breeze, wind felt on face, leaves rustle, vanes moved by wind
Force 3 Speed knots 7-10 mph 8-12 Land Conditions Gentle breeze, leaves and small twigs in constant motion, wind extends light flag
Force 4 Speed knots 11-16 mph 13-18 Land Conditions Moderate breeze, raises dust, loose paper, small branches move
Force 5 Speed knots 17-21 mph 19-24 Land Conditions Fresh breeze, small trees in leaf begin to sway
Force 6 Speed knots 22-27 mph 25-31 Land Conditions Strong breeze, large branches in motion, umbrellas used with difficulty
Force 7 Speed knots 28-33 mph 32-38 Land Conditions Near gale, whole trees in motion, inconvenience felt walking against the wind
Force 8 Speed knots 34-40 mph 39-46 Land Conditions Gale, breaks twigs off trees, impedes progress
Force 9 Speed knots 41-47 mph 47-54 Land Conditions Strong gale, slight structural damage occurs
Force 10 Speed knots 48-55 mph 55-63 Land Conditions Storm, trees uprooted, considerable damage occurs
Force 11 Speed knots 56-63 mph 64-73 Land Conditions Violent storm, widespread damage
Force 12 Speed knots 64+ mph 74+ Land Conditions Hurricane, extreme destruction

86 THUNDERSTORM & HIGH WIND event(s) were reported in Beagle 
County, Iowa between 01/01/1950 and 06/30/2002. 
Mag: Magnitude 
Dth: Deaths 
Inj: Injuries
PrD: Property Damage
CrD: Crop Damage

Location or County 
Date 
Time 
Type 
Mag 
Dth 
Inj 
PrD 
CrD 

Location or County 
1 BEAGLE 
Date 07/08/1955
Time 1100
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
2 BEAGLE 
Date 05/31/1958
Time 1345
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
3 BEAGLE 
Date 09/26/1959
Time 1000
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
4 BEAGLE 
Date 05/07/1962
Time 1730
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
5 BEAGLE 
Date 07/05/1966
Time 1710
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
6 BEAGLE 
Date 04/12/1970
Time 1730
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
7 BEAGLE 
Date 05/13/1974
Time 0630
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
8 BEAGLE 
Date 06/14/1974
Time 1635
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
9 BEAGLE 
Date 06/22/1974
Time 0300
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
10 BEAGLE 
Date 05/10/1979
Time 1415
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 61 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0 

Location or County 
11 BEAGLE 
Date 04/03/1981
Time 1940
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
12 BEAGLE
Date 04/03/1981
Time 1940
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
13 BEAGLE 
Date 04/03/1981
Time 2010
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
14 BEAGLE 
Date 07/02/1983
Time 0220
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 0 kts. 
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
15 BEAGLE 
Date 09/09/1984
Time 1725
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
16 BEAGLE 
Date 10/16/1984
Time 1604
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
17 BEAGLE 
Date 09/22/1985
Time 2015
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
18 BEAGLE 
Date 07/28/1986
Time 2140
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
19 BEAGLE 
Date 07/28/1986
Time 2150
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
20 BEAGLE 
Date 08/14/1986
Time 1715
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 50 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
21 BEAGLE 
Date 08/14/1986
Time 1732
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 50 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
22 BEAGLE 
Date 05/24/1989
Time 0030
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 50 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
23 BEAGLE 
Date 07/10/1989
Time 1955
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 50 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
24 BEAGLE 
Date 08/05/1989
Time 0845
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
25 BEAGLE 
Date 08/05/1989
Time 0852
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 50 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
26 BEAGLE 
Date 06/02/1990
Time 1030
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
27 BEAGLE 
Date 06/02/1990
Time 1041
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 56 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
28 BEAGLE 
Date 03/22/1991
Time 1730
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 50 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
29 BEAGLE 
Date 09/12/1991
Time 1450
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 50 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
30 IAZ002>009 - 013>019 -
022>028 - 031>039 -
043>051 - 056>063 -
070>076 - 081>087 -
093>099 -
Date 03/09/1993
Time 2230
Type High Winds
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 500K
CrD 0

Location or County 
31 All of Iowa 
Date 04/14/1994
Time 2200
Type High Winds
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 500K
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
32 Most of Iowa 
Date 04/26/1994
Time 0900
Type High Winds
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 3
PrD 5.0M
CrD 0

Location or County 
33 Newton 
Date 07/01/1994
Time 0200
Type Tstm Winds
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 1K

Location or County 
34 BEAGLE 
Date 08/03/1994
Time 1300
Type Tstm Winds
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 50K

Location or County 
35 IAZ001>068 - 070>078 -
083>089
Date 11/18/1994
Time 0230
Type High Winds
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 
CrD 200K
0

Location or County 
36 All Of Iowa 
Date 02/10/1995
Time 0000
Type High Winds
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 100K
CrD 0

Location or County 
37 IAZ004>011 - 015>019 -
023>030 - 033>042 -
044>054 - 057>068 -
070>078 - 081>089 -
092>099
Date 04/03/1995
Time 1300
Type High Winds
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 125K
CrD 0

Location or County 
38 IAZ004>011 - 015>019 -
023>030 - 033>042 -
044>054 - 057>068 -
070>078 - 081>089 -
092>099
Date 04/18/1995
Time 0700
Type High Winds
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 500K
CrD 0

Location or County 
39 Prairie City 
Date 07/04/1995
Time 1714
Type Tstm Winds
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 10K
CrD 2K

Location or County 
40 Newton 
Date 07/04/1995
Time 1730
Type Tstm Winds
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 20K
CrD 1K

Location or County 
41 Much Of Iowa 
Date 10/23/1995
Time 1300
Type High Winds
Mag 0 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 100K
CrD 0

Location or County 
42 IAZ004>011 - 015>019 -
023>029 - 033>039 -
044>050 - 057>062 -
070>075 - 081>086 -
092>097
Date 01/17/1996
Time 09:00 PM
Type High Wind
Mag 55 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 250K
CrD 0

Location or County 
43 IAZ004>011 - 015>019 -
023>029 - 033>039 -
044>050 - 057>062 -
070>075 - 081>086 -
092>097
Date 02/10/1996
Time 12:00 PM
Type High Wind
Mag 56 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 350K
CrD 0

Location or County 
44 IAZ004>011 - 015>019 -
023>029 - 033>039 -
044>050 - 057>062 -
070>075 - 081>086 -
092>097
Date 03/24/1996
Time 05:00 PM
Type High Wind
Mag 54 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 300K
CrD 0

Location or County 
45 IAZ004>011 - 015>019 -
023>029 - 033>039 -
044>050 - 057>062 -
070>075 - 081>086 -
092>097
Date 04/25/1996
Time 09:30 AM
Type High Wind
Mag 59 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 750K
CrD 0

Location or County 
46 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -
023>028 - 033>039 -
044>050 - 057>062 -
070>075 - 081>086 -
092>097
Date 10/29/1994
Time 11:00 AM
Type High Wind
Mag 57 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 500K
CrD 100K

Location or County 
47 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -
023>028 - 033>039 -
044>050 - 057>062 -
070>075 - 081>086 -
092>097
Date 04/06/1997
Time 09:00 AM
Type High Wind
Mag 55 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 1.8M
CrD 0

Location or County 
48 IAZ049>050 - 061>062 -
074>075 - 084>086 -
095>097
Date 04/30/1997
Time 12:00 PM
Type High Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 100K
CrD 0

Location or County 
49 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -
023>028 - 033>039 -
044>050 - 057>062
Date 05/05/1997
Time 12:30 PM
Type High Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 1
PrD 75K
CrD 0

Location or County 
50 Newton 
Date 08/14/1997
Time 11:36 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 10K
CrD 0

Location or County 
51 Colfax 
Date 08/15/1997
Time 12:45 AM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 65 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 40K
CrD 10K

Location or County 
52 Lynnville 
Date 08/16/1997
Time 08:44 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 65 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 15K
CrD 3K

Location or County 
53 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -
023>028 - 033>039 -
044>050 - 057>062 -
070>075 - 081>086 -
092>097
Date 4/12/1998
Time 08:00 AM
Type High Wind
Mag 54 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 2.6M
CrD 0

Location or County 
54 Newburg 
Date 06/11/1998
Time 01:00 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 56 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 35K
CrD 2K

Location or County 
55 Colfax 
Date 06/11/1998
Time 12:38 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 65 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 15K
CrD 0

Location or County 
56 Colfax 
Date 06/11/1998
Time 12:45 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD0

Location or County 
57 Baxter 
Date 06/11/1998
Time 12:50 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 50 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 3K
CrD 0

Location or County 
58 Colfax 
Date 06/18/1998
Time 01:10 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 61 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 40K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
59 Newton 
Date 06/18/1998
Time 01:39 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 0

Location or County 
60 Monroe 
Date 06/18/1998
Time 01:47 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 50 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 3K
CrD 0

Location or County 
61 Darwin 
Date 06/18/1998
Time 02:00 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 65 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 75K
CrD 10K

Location or County 
62 Newton 
Date 06/18/1998
Time 11:00 AM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 50 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 3K
CrD 0

Location or County 
63 Monroe 
Date 06/27/1998
Time 11:15 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 10K
CrD 0

Location or County 
64 Colfax 
Date 06/29/1998
Time 01:15 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 3K
CrD 0

Location or County 
65 Prairie City 
Date 06/29/1998
Time 01:16 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 56 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 30K
CrD 2K

Location or County 
66 Newton 
Date 06/29/1998
Time 01:22 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 65 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 60K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
67 Monroe 
Date 06/29/1998
Time 01:30 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 15K
CrD 0

Location or County 
68 Lynnville 
Date 06/29/1998
Time 12:42 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 56 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 40K
CrD 0

Location or County 
69 Darwin 
Date 06/29/1998
Time 12:46 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 70 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 120K
CrD 25K

Location or County 
70 Colfax 
Date 07/06/1989
Time 09:18 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 3K
CrD 0

Location or County 
71 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -
023>028 - 033>039 -
044>050 - 057>062 -
070>075 - 081>086 -
092>097
Date 11/10/1998
Time 02:00 AM
Type High Wind
Mag 61 kts.
Dth 1
Inj 0
PrD 17.3M
CrD 260K

Location or County 
72 IAZ028 - 038>039 -
049>050 - 061>062 -
072>075 - 081>086 -
092>097
Date 03/08/2000
Time 11:00 AM
Type High Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 230K
CrD 0

Location or County 
73 Colfax 
Date 05/08/2000
Time 04:00 AM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 7K
CrD 0

Location or County 
74 Kellogg 
Date 05/08/2000
Time 04:20 AM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 56 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 0

Location or County 
75 Kellogg 
Date 11/01/2000
Time 01:25 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 15K
CrD 0

Location or County 
76 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -
023>028 - 033>039 -
044>050 - 057>062 -
070>075 - 081>086 -
092>097
Date 04/07/2001
Time 04:00 AM
Type High Wind
Mag 72 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 4
PrD 3.2M
CrD 0

Location or County 
77 Prairie City 
Date 06/12/2001
Time 07:47 AM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 2K
CrD 0

Location or County 
78 Colfax 
Date 07/22/2001
Time 03:30 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 57 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 25K
CrD 50K

Location or County 
79 Prairie City 
Date 09/07/2001
Time 08:28 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 0

Location or County 
80 Prairie City 
Date 09/07/2001
Time 08:40 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 3K
CrD 0

81 Newton 
Date 09/07/2001
Time 08:46 PM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 61 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 15K
CrD 4K

Location or County 
82 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -
023>028 - 033>039 -
044>050 - 057>062 -
070>075 - 081>086 -
092>097
Date 03/09/2002
Time 06:00AM
Type High Wind
Mag 54 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 2.6M
CrD 0

Location or County 
83 Newton Muni Arpt
Date 03/09/2002
Time 12:09 AM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 87 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 1.5M
CrD 0

Location or County 
84 Colfax 
Date 03/09/2002
Time 12:10 AM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 0

Location or County 
85 Newton Muni Arpt 
Date 03/09/2002
Time 12:12 AM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 55 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 0

Location or County 
86 Monroe 
Date 06/02/2002
Time 03:15 AM
Type Tstm Wind
Mag 52 kts.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 10K
CrD 0

TOTALS: 
Dth 1
Inj 8
PrD 38.847M
CrD 530K

APPENDIX D
THUNDERSTORMS - LIGHTNING AND HAIL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Thunderstorms - Lightning and Hail Overview 
Lightning Casualties and Damages 
Lightning Events in Beagle County 
Hail Days Per Year 
Hail Events in Beagle County 

[END TABLE OF CONTENTS]

Thunderstorms -Lightning and Hail Overview
The National Weather Service estimates that over 100,000 thunderstorms occur each year on the U.S.
mainland. Approximately 10 percent are classified as "severe." Thunderstorms can produce tornadoes,
hailstorms, and extreme winds. The NWS classifies a thunderstorm as severe if its winds reach or exceed
58 mph," it produces a tornado, or it drops surface hail at least 0.75 inches in diameter.
Thunderstorms are responsible for significant structural damage to buildings, forest and wildfires, downed
power lines and threes, and loss of life.

Lightning
Thunderstorms and lightning are often called the underrated killer" events of the mainland U.S.
Lightning occurs during all thunderstorms and can strike anywhere. Significant thunderstorm activity
occurs during different months, but mostly from spring until early winter.
NOAA reports that in 1993 lightning strikes cause 43 deaths and $32.5 million in damage. Most
lightning related deaths and injuries occur when people are outdoors during summer afternoons and
evening.

Hail
Hailstorms develop from severe thunderstorms. Although they occur in every State on the mainland,
hailstorms occur primarily in the Midwestern States. Hailstorms occur more frequently during the late
spring and early summer. This period coincides with the peak agricultural season. Besides crop
damage, hailstorms cause damage to buildings and automobiles, but they rarely result in loss of life.
The Midwest hailstorm and tornado event in April 1004 lasted 4 days. According to Property Claims
Services in Rahway, NJ, It produced 300,000 damage claims.

Mitigation Approaches
Thunderstorm, windstorm, and hail mitigation approaches are similar. They include:
1. Building Codes
2. Public Awareness
3. Weather warning system improvements and modernization
Grounding techniques for buildings have proven effective lightning mitigation.

Figure: Lightning Casualties (Deaths and Injuries).
Map of rates of lightning deaths and injuries in the United States, ranked by state, from 1959 to 1994.
Iowa ranks between 21 and 30.

Figure: Lightning Damage Reports. 
Map of rates of lightning damage reports in the United States, ranked by state, from 1959 to 1994.
Iowa ranks between 11 and 20.

4 LIGHTNING event(s) were reported in Beagle County, Iowa between 01/01/1950 and 10/31/2002. 

Mag: Magnitude
Dth: Deaths
Inj: Injuries
PrD: Property Damage
CrD: Crop Damage

Location or County 
Date 
Time 
Type 
Mag 
Dth 
Inj 
PrD 
CrD 

Location or County 
1 Newton 
Date 04/10/1995
Time 0925
Type Lightning
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 200K
CrD 0

Location or County 
2 Newton 
Date 06/13/2000
Time 01:00 PM
Type Lightning
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 1K
CrD 0

Location or County 
3 Darwin 
Date 07/10/2000
Time 05:00 AM
Type Lightning
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 1K
CrD 0

Location or County 
4 Newton 
Date 07/26/2000
Time 09:50 AM
Type Lightning
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 12K
CrD 0

TOTALS: 
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD  214K
CrD 0

Figure: Hail days per year. Map showing number of hail days per year in the United States between 1995 and 1999

60 HAIL event(s) were reported in Beagle County, Iowa between 01/01/1950 and 10/31/2002.

Mag: Magnitude
Dth: Deaths
Inj: Injuries
PrD: Property Damage
CrD: Crop Damage

Location or County 
1 BEAGLE 
Date 09/28/1972
Time 1330
Type Hail
Mag 1.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
2 BEAGLE 
Date 06/18/1974
Time 2210
Type Hail
Mag 1.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
3 BEAGLE 
Date 06/14/1975
Time 1350
Type Hail
Mag 1.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
4 BEAGLE 
Date 05/28/1976
Time 1643
Type Hail
Mag 0.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
5 BEAGLE 
Date 07/30/1977
Time 1930
Type Hail
Mag 0.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
6 BEAGLE 
Date 06/17/1978
Time 1530
Type Hail
Mag 1.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
7 BEAGLE 
Date 09/09/1984
Time 1715
Type Hail
Mag 1.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

8 Location or County 
BEAGLE 
Date 06/16/1985
Time 0800
Type Hail
Mag 0.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

9 Location or County 
BEAGLE 
Date 06/23/1985
Time 1639
Type Hail
Mag 1.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
10 BEAGLE 
Date 08/17/1987
Time 1839
Type Hail
Mag 1.50 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
11 BEAGLE 
Date 05/08/1988
Time 1123
Type Hail
Mag 2.00 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
12 BEAGLE 
Date 04/26/1989
Time 1555
Type Hail
Mag 1.50 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
13 BEAGLE 
Date 04/26/1989
Time 1637
Type Hail
Mag 1.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
14 BEAGLE 
Date 05/24/1989
Time 0345
Type Hail
Mag 0.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
15 BEAGLE 
Date 07/18/1989
Time 0046
Type Hail
Mag 1.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
16 BEAGLE 
Date 04/12/1991
Time 1010
Type Hail
Mag 1.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
17 BEAGLE 
Date 06/01/1991
Time 1035
Type Hail
Mag 1.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
18 Prairie City 
Date 04/08/1995
Time 2127
Type Hail
Mag 1.50 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 40K
CrD 0

Location or County 
19 Newton 
Date 06/05/1997
Time 03:00 PM
Type Hail
Mag 1.00 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 35K

Location or County 
20 Colfax 
Date 04/13/1998
Time 04:24 AM
Type Hail
Mag 0.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 1K
CrD 0

Location or County 
21 Colfax 
Date 05/19/1998
Time 03:24 PM
Type Hail
Mag 1.00 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 10K
CrD 10K

Location or County 
22 Prairie City 
Date 05/18/2000
Time 11:20 AM
Type Hail
Mag 1.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
23 Prairie City 
Date 05/18/2000
Time 11:23 AM
Type Hail
Mag 3.00 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 20K
CrD 10K

Location or County 
24 Prairie City 
Date 05/18/2000
Time 11:25 AM
Type Hail
Mag 1.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 20K
CrD 2K

Location or County 
25 Newton 
Date 05/18/2000
Time 11:28 AM
Type Hail
Mag 2.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 50K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
26 Monroe 
Date 05/18/2000
Time 11:40 AM
Type Hail
Mag 2.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 10K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
27 Kellogg 
Date 05/18/2000
Time 11:43 AM
Type Hail
Mag 1.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
28 Newton 
Date 05/18/2000
Time 11:43 AM
Type Hail
Mag 1.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 10K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
29 Reasnor 
Date 05/18/2000
Time 11:43 AM
Type Hail
Mag 2.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 35K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
30 Newton 
Date 05/30/2000
Time 08:48 PM
Type Hail
Mag 0.88 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 2K
CrD 3K

Location or County 
31 Newton 
Date 05/30/2000
Time 08:50 PM
Type Hail
Mag 1.50 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 8K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
32 Newton 
Date 05/30/2000
Time 09:44 PM
Type Hail
Mag 0.88 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 3K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
33 Kellogg 
Date 05/30/2000
Time 10:00 PM
Type Hail
Mag 1.00 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
34 Galesburg 
Date 05/30/2000
Time 11:10 PM
Type Hail
Mag 0.88 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 2K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
35 Baxter 
Date 07/26/2000
Time 09:30 AM
Type Hail
Mag 0.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 5K

Location or County 
36 Baxter 
Date 07/26/2000
Time 09:35 AM
Type Hail
Mag 1.00 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
37 Kellogg 
Date 07/26/2000
Time 09:35 AM
Type Hail
Mag 1.00 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 3K
CrD 10K

Location or County 
38 Newton 
Date 07/26/2000
Time 09:42 AM
Type Hail
Mag 0.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 10K

Location or County 
39 Monroe 
Date 04/08/2001
Time 06:37 PM
Type Hail
Mag 1.00 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 0

Location or County 
40 Reasnor 
Date 04/08/2001
Time 06:41 PM
Type Hail
Mag 0.88 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 2K
CrD 0

Location or County 
41 Newton 
Date 05/10/2001
Time 05:52 PM
Type Hail
Mag 1.00 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 0

Location or County 
42 Newton 
Date 05/10/2001
Time 06:00 PM
Type Hail
Mag 1.00 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 0

Location or County 
43 Reasnor 
Date 05/10/2001
Time 06:17 PM
Type Hail
Mag 1.00 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 0

Location or County 
44 Darwin 
Date 05/10/2001
Time 06:29 PM
Type Hail
Mag 1.00 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 0

Location or County 
45 Prairie City 
Date 05/10/2001
Time 06:36 PM
Type Hail
Mag 0.88 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 3K
CrD 0

Location or County 
46 Darwin 
Date 05/10/2001
Time 06:48 PM
Type Hail
Mag 0.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
47 Darwin 
Date 05/10/2001
Time 06:50 PM
Type Hail
Mag 1.25 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 10K
CrD 0

Location or County 
48 Baxter 
Date 06/12/2001
Time 01:00 PM
Type Hail
Mag 1.00 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
49 Newton 
Date 06/12/2001
Time 06:05 AM
Type Hail
Mag 0.88 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 2K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
50 Baxter 
Date 06/12/2001
Time 08:59 AM
Type Hail 
Mag 1.00 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 2K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
51 Galesburg 
Date 06/12/2001
Time 09:20 AM
Type Hail
Mag 1.25 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
52 Darwin 
Date 06/12/2001
Time 09:40 AM
Type Hail
Mag 1.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 25K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
53 Lynnville 
Date 06/12/2001
Time 09:55 AM
Type Hail
Mag 1.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 25K
CrD 10K

Location or County 
54 Reasnor 
Date 04/18/2002
Time 06:42 PM
Type Hail
Mag 0.88 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 3K
CrD 0

Location or County 
55 Newton 
Date 04/18/2002
Time 07:06 PM
Type Hail
Mag 0.88 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 3K
CrD 0

Location or County 
56 Colfax 
Date 05/29/2002
Time 03:46 PM
Type Hail
Mag 1.00 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
57 Colfax 
Date 06/26/2002
Time 04:13 PM
Type Hail
Mag 1.00 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
58 Colfax 
Date 06/26/2002
Time 04:31 PM
Type Hail
Mag 1.00 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 5K
CrD 5K

Location or County 
59 Colfax 
Date 06/26/2002
Time 04:57 PM
Type Hail
Mag 0.75 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 5K

Location or County 
60 Colfax 
Date 07/28/2002
Time 07:54 PM
Type Hail
Mag 0.88 in.
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 2K
CrD 5K

TOTALS: 
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 366K
CrD 200K

APPENDIX E
WINTER STORMS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Winter Storm Overview 
Snow and Ice Events in Beagle County 

[END TABLE OF CONTENTS]

Winter Storms
Winter storms consisting of extreme cold and heavy concentrations of snowfall or ice can last for several
days. The occurrence of large snowstorms, ice storms, and severe blizzards has a substantial impact on
utilities and transportation systems, and can result in loss of life due to accidents or hypothermia. People
can become stranded at home, often without utilities or other services.
A winter storm can range from moderate snowfall over a few hours to blizzard conditions. Many winter
storms are accompanied by low temperatures and heavy and/or blowing snow. The leading cause of
death is automobile accidents. Deaths also occur as a result of hypothermia and heart attacks due to over
exertion.
Businesses may experience severe financial loss because of reduced productivity during unscheduled
downtime and customers' inability to reach the facility. Accumulation of ice can cause damage to power
lines and disruption of service and ice can pose hazards to motorists and pedestrians. Extremely cold
weather may cause water mains to breeze. Agricultural interests are also impacted. Not only are crops
vulnerable to extreme temperatures, but also livestock losses can occur.

Mitigation
1. Weatherize homes. Properly insulating homes conserves electricity and reduce power demands.
Caulking and weather stripping doors and windowsills keep out cold air. These actions allow the
inside temperatures to stay warmer.
2. Protect pipes to avoid freezing.
3. Install snow fences to reduce drifting in roads and paths.
4. Educate the public about winter storm hazards. This is particularly important if the community has
a population that emigrated from more moderate climates and has little experience with winter
weather.
5. Promote NOAA weather radios and educate the public about the different National Weather
Service announcement.
6. Establish tree-trimming programs that remove branches near power lines.
7. Identify vulnerable populations who may require special assistance.
8. Enact building codes with snow load requirements.
9. Require buried power lines in new subdivisions.

APPENDIX F
DROUGHT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Drought Overview 
Palmer Drought Severity Index, 1985- 1995 
Drought Events in Iowa and Beagle County 

[END TABLE OF CONTENTS]

Drought
Drought is the consequence of a natural reduction in the amount of precipitation expected over an
extended period of time, usually a season or more in length. Other climatic factors such as high
temperatures, prolonged high winds, and low relative humidity can aggravate the severity of a drought.
Severity depends on duration, intensity, geographic extent and the demands made by human activities
and vegetation of regional water supplies.
During droughts crops do not mature, wildlife and livestock are undernourished, land values decrease
and unemployment increases. Traditionally, States have relied in the Federal Government to provide
drought relief when shortages reach disaster or near-disaster proportions. Forty separate drought relief
programs administered by 16 Federal agencies provided nearly $8 billion in relief during the mid-1970
droughts and Federal assistance totaled more than $5 billion in response to the 1987-89 drought.
However, Federal assistance covers only a small portion of the economic losses. The average yearly loss
to drought in the US is between $6 and $8 million and the total losses attributed to the 1987-89 drought
were between $39 and $40 billion.

Mitigation
The widespread nature of droughts makes local level drought mitigation a difficult task. This, coupled with
an increasing awareness of the inefficient past responses and impacts of droughts, has generated
momentum in many areas at the State and/or regional level. Mitigation actions adopted by States fall into
the following areas:
1. Assessment programs
2. Legislation and public policy
3. Water supply augmentation and development of new supplies
4. Public awareness and education programs
5. Technical assistance on water conservation
6. Demand reduction and after conservation programs
7. Emergency response programs
8. Water use conflict resolution
9. Drought contingency plans

Figure: Palmer Drought Map.
Palmer Drought Severity Index, 1985-1995. Percent of time in severe and extreme drought.
Source: McKee et al. (1993); NOAA (1990); High Plains Regional Climate Center (1996)
Albers Equal Area Projection; Map prepared at the National Drought Mitigation Center.

10 DROUGHT event(s) were reported in Iowa between 01/01/1950 and 10/31/2002. 
Mag: Magnitude
Dth: Deaths
Inj: Injuries
PrD: Property Damage
CrD: Crop Damage

Location or County 
1 All of Iowa 
Date 08/01/1995
Time 0000
Type Drought
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0.5B

Location or County 
2 IAZ057>062 - 070>075 - 081>086 - 092>097 
Date 07/20/1999
Time 12:00 PM
Type Drought
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 109.9M

Location or County 
3 IAZ001>003 - 012>014 - 020>022 - 031>032 
Date 11/01/1999
Time 12:00 AM
Type Drought
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
4 IAZ001>003 - 012>014 - 020>022 - 031>032 
Date 12/01/1999
Time 12:00 AM
Type Drought
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
5 IAZ001>003 - 012>014 - 020>022 - 031>032 
Date 02/01/2000
Time 12:00 AM
Type Drought
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
6 IAZ001>003 - 012>014 - 020>022 - 031>032 
Date 03/01/2000
Time 12:00 AM
Type Drought
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
7 IAZ001>003 - 012>014 - 020>022 - 031>032 
Date 04/01/2000
Time 12:00 AM
Type Drought
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0

Location or County 
8 IAZ033 - 044>050 - 057>062 - 070>075 -
081>086 - 092>097
Date 08/14/2000
Time 12:00 AM
Type Drought
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 150.1M

Location or County 
9 IAZ033 - 044>050 - 057>062 - 070>075 -
081>086 - 092>097
Date 09/01/2000
Time 12:00 AM
Type Drought
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 161.0M

Location or County 
10 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 - 023>028 - 033>039
- 044>050 - 057>062 - 070>075 - 081>086 -
092>097
Date 08/01/2001
Time 12:00 AM
Type Drought
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 578.9M

TOTALS: 
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 1.500B

5 DROUGHT event(s) were reported in Beagle County, Iowa between 01/01/1995 and 10/31/2002.
Mag: Magnitude
Dth: Deaths
Inj: Injuries
PrD: Property Damage
CrD: Crop Damage

Location or County 
1 All of Iowa 
Date 08/01/1995
Time 0000
Type Drought
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 0.5B

Location or County 
2 IAZ057>062 - 070>075 - 081>086 - 092>097 
Date 07/20/1999
Time 12:00 PM
Type Drought
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 109.9M

Location or County 
3 IAZ033 - 044>050 - 057>062 - 070>075 -
081>086 - 092>097
Date 08/14/2000
Time 12:00 AM
Type Drought
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 150.1M

Location or County 
4 IAZ033 - 044>050 - 057>062 - 070>075 -
081>086 - 092>097
Date 09/01/2000
Time 12:00 AM
Type Drought
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 161.0M

Location or County 
5 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 - 023>028 -
033>039 - 044>050 - 057>062 - 070>075 -
081>086 - 092>097
Date 08/01/2001
Time 12:00 AM
Type Drought
Mag N/A
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 578.9M

TOTALS: 
Dth 0
Inj 0
PrD 0
CrD 1.500B

APPENDIX G
EARTHQUAKE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Backgrounder: Earthquake 
Iowa Earthquake History 
Earthquakes with Epicenters in Iowa 
The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale 
Potential for Future Iowa Earthquakes and Earthquake Damage 

[END TABLE OF CONTENTS]

WHAT IS AN EARTHQUAKE?
An earthquake is a sudden, rapid shaking of the Earth caused by the breaking and shifting of rock
beneath the Earth's surface. This shaking can cause buildings and bridges to collapse; disrupt gas,
electric, and phone service; and sometimes trigger landslides, avalanches, flash floods, fires, and huge,
destructive ocean waves (tsunamis). Buildings with foundations resting on unconsolidated landfill, old
waterways, or other unstable soil are most at risk. Buildings or trailers and manufactured homes not tied
to a reinforced foundation anchored to the ground are also at risk since they can be shaken off their
mountings during an earthquake. Earthquakes can occur at any time of the year.

EMERGENCY INFORMATION
1. The best protection during an earthquake is to get under heavy furniture such as a desk, table, or
bench
2. The greatest danger exists directly outside buildings, at exits, and alongside exterior walls. Many
of the 120 fatalities from the 1933 Long Beach earthquake occurred when people ran outside of
buildings only to be killed by falling debris from collapsing walls.
3. Ground movement during an earthquake is seldom the direct cause of death or injury. Most
earthquake-related casualties result from collapsing walls, flying glass, and falling objects.

DANGER ZONES
Earthquakes occur most frequently west of the Rocky Mountains, although historically the most violent
earthquakes have occurred in the central United States. All 50 states and all U.S. territories are
vulnerable to earthquakes. Forty-one states or territories are at moderate to high risk.

DID YOU KNOW...
* The granddaddy of earthquakes was along the New Madrid Fault in Missouri where a 3-month
long series of quakes in 1811--1812 included the three quakes larger than a magnitude of 8.
These quakes were felt over 2 million square miles. Charles F. Richter developed the Richter
Scale in 1935. It is a logarithmic measurement of the amount of energy released by an
earthquake. Earthquakes with a magnitude of at least 4.5 are strong enough to be recorded by
sensitive seismographs all over the world. In the United States several thousand shocks of
varying sizes occur annually.
* The Modified Mercalli Intensity scale also measures the effects of earthquakes. The intensity of a
quake is evaluated according to the observed severity of the quake at specific locations. The
Mercalli scale rates the intensity on a Roman numeral scale that ranges from I to XI.
* The Loma Prieta (northern California) earthquake of October 1989 registered 7.1 on the Richter
scale and as high as XI on the Mercalli scale.

Earthquake History of Iowa
Iowa has experienced only minor earthquake activity since the United States obtained control of the State
under the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. It was not until 1857, 11 years after Statehood, that the present
boundaries were drawn up. As a territory, Iowa had included Minnesota and parts of North and South
Dakota.
The great New Madrid Missouri, earthquakes, of 1811 - 1812 were the first reported felt in Iowa. The
absence of historical records from the territory prevents an accurate assessment of the actual effects from
these earthquakes.
An earthquake shook the Sioux City area on July 3, 1858. Press reports described the tremors as of
sufficient force to shake pictures and crockery from their places. On October 9, 1872, Sioux City again
experienced a moderately strong earthquake. Intensity V effects were noted near the center of the
disturbance, with the total felt areas estimated to be about 3,000 square miles, including adjoining
portions of the Dakotas.
On November 15, 1877, another earthquake was felt throughout Iowa and eastern Nebraska, and in parts
of Missouri, Kansas, the Dakotas, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. The strongest effects were noted at
Columbus, Lincoln, North Platte, and Omaha, Nebraska. However, large cracks in the walls of several
buildings in Sioux City resulted from this shock. A second earthquake was reported 45 minutes later.
An intensity V shock was reported at Keokuk on April 13, 1905. Buildings were shaken, but no serious
damage was done. The shock was apparently local in character. Riverton, Iowa, felt intensity V effects
from an earthquake on March 1, 1935, which was centered in southeastern Nebraska.
Two other events are significant. On October 20, 1965, an earthquake in eastern Missouri affected a
160,000 square mile area, and reportedly caused large cracks in a house foundation at Indianola, Iowa.
Intensity V effects were also noted at Ottumwa. The earthquake of November 9, 1968, centered in Illinois,
produced Intensity V effects in Iowa at Albia, Bloomfield, Burlington, Clinton, Elkader, Muscatine, and
Wapello. The earthquake was not felt in the northwestern quadrant of the State. The 1895 tremor,
centered near Charleston, Missouri, did some slight damage to a few chimneys in Keokuk. This
earthquake was felt noticeably in the southeastern part of Iowa, and probably felt over the whole State.
Earthquakes with Epicenters in Iowa
Only 12 earthquakes with epicenters in Iowa are known in historic times. The first known occurrence was
in 1867 near Sidney in southwest Iowa; the most recent occurrence was in 1948 near Oxford in east 
central Iowa. The largest Iowa earthquake (Mercalli magnitude VI) occurred near Davenport in southeast
Iowa in 1934. None of these events were instrumentally recorded.

Figure: Map of Iowa by county with numbers marking the locations of known earthquakes:

1. Apr. 28, 1867, Sidney (IA) / Nebraska City (NE), IV 
2. Dec. 09, 1875, Sidney (IA) / Nebraska City (NE), III
3. April 13, 1905, Keokuk (IA) / Wayland (MO) IV-V
4. Jan. 26, 1925, Waterloo (IA) II
5. Nov. 12, 1934, Davenport (IA) / Rock Island (IL)*VI
6. Jan. 05, 1935, Davenport (IA) / Rock Island (IL) IV
7. Jan. 05, 1935, Davenport (IA) / Rock Island (IL) III
8. Feb. 26, 1935, Burlington (IA) III
9. Oct. 11, 1938, Inwood (IA) V
10. Nov. 08, 1938, Dubuque (IA) **-II
11. Nov. 24, 1939, Davenport (IA) / Rock Island (IL) II-III
12. Apr. 20, 1948, Oxford (IA) IV

The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
The effect of an earthquake on the Earth's surface is called the intensity. The intensity scale consists of a
series of certain key responses such as people awakening, movement of furniture; damage to chimneys,
and finally - total destruction. Although numerous intensity scales have been developed over the last
several hundred years to evaluate the effects of earthquakes, the one currently used in the United States
is the Modified Mercalli (MM) Intensity Scale. It was developed in 1931 by the American seismologists
Harry Wood and Frank Neumann. This scale, composed of 12 increasing levels of intensity that range
from imperceptible shaking to catastrophic destruction, is designated by Roman numerals. It does not
have a mathematical basis; instead it is an arbitrary ranking based on observed effects.
The Modified Mercalli Intensity value assigned to a specific site after an earthquake has a more
meaningful measure of severity to the nonscientist than the magnitude because intensity refers to the
effects actually experienced at that place. After the occurrence of widely felt earthquakes, the Geological
Survey mails questionnaires to postmasters in the disturbed area requesting the information so that
intensity values can be assigned. The results of this postal canvass and information furnished by other
sources are used to assign intensity within the felt area. The maximum observed intensity generally
occurs near the epicenter.
The lower numbers of the intensity scale generally deal with the manner in which the earthquake is felt by
people. The higher numbers of the scale are based on observed structural damage. Structural engineers
usually contribute information for assigning intensity values of VIII or above.
The following is an abbreviated description of the 12 levels of Modified Mercalli intensity.

I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions.
II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, 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.
IV. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes,
windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking
building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.
V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects
overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop.
VI. Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy 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.
VIII. Damage slight in specially designed 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.
X. Some well-built wooden structures 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.

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE IOWA EARTHQUAKES
AND EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE
Most of Iowa falls within Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic zone 0, with the southern tip of Lee
County, in southeast Iowa, and portions of western Iowa falling within seismic zone 1. Most of Fremont
County. in southwest Iowa, lies in seismic zone 2A.
Seismic Impact Zones are regions with a 90% or greater probability that the acceleration (due to a
seismic event) will exceed 0.10 g (or 10% of the Earth's gravitational pull) in 250 years. Algermissen
delineated these areas and others (1982, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 82-1033) based on
probabilistic estimates of the maximum acceleration and velocity in rock. The zones are delineated on
Plate 3 of this report. Federal regulations for hazardous waste landfills state that new units and lateral
expansions shall not be located in seismic impact zones, unless it can be demonstrated that the facility is
designed to resist the event.
Uniform Building Code Seismic Hazard Map

Figure: Map of Iowa showing most of this state is in seismic zone 0, with the southern tip of Lee
County, in southeast Iowa, and portions of western Iowa falling within seismic zone 1. Most of Fremont
County. in southwest Iowa, lies in seismic zone 2A.

APPENDIX H
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Hazardous Materials Overview 
Beagle County Pipelines 
Iowa Hazardous Materials Teams 
EPA-Regulated Facilities 

[END TABLE OF CONTENTS]

Hazardous Materials Overview
Under the Emergency Planning and Right to Know Act of 1986, the US Department of Transportation
(DOT) identified as hazardous 308 specific chemicals from 20 chemical categories.

USEPA sorts HAZMAT into the following categories:
* Toxic agents (irritants, asphixiants, anesthetics and narcotics, sensitizers)
* Other types of toxic agents (hepatoxic and nephratoxic agents, carcinogens, mutagens)
* Hazardous wastes
* Hazardous substances
* Toxic pollutants
* Extremely hazardous substances

DOT classifies HAZMAT in the following categories:
* Explosive
* Blasting agent
* Flammable liquid
* Flammable solid
* Oxidizer
* Organic peroxide
* Corrosive material
* Compressed gas
* Flammable compressed gas
* Poison (A and B)
* Irritating materials
* Inhalation hazard
* Etiological agent
* Radioactive materials
* Other regulated material

To identify the extent of the hazard in a particular community, planning personnel and others must
determine:
* What types of HAZMAT are stored, handled, processed, or transported
* Where and how those functions are performed

Storage, handling, and processing will usually take place at fixed sites:
* Bulk chemical, petroleum processing, and other industrial facilities
* Hazardous waste disposal and water treatment facilities
* Public and private chemistry laboratories
* US Army weapons depots

The 1986 Act requires that companies report releases of designated hazardous chemicals to USEPA,
even if releases do not result in human exposure. Types of releases are:
* Air emissions of gases or particles from a pressure relief valve, smokestack, ruptured reaction
vessel, broken pipe or other equipment at a chemical plant or other fixed-site facility; from broken,
loose-fitting, or punctured equipment, containers, or cylinders on transportation vehicles; and
from solid or liquid discharges onto ground or into water
* Discharges into bodies of water from damaged ships, barges, underwater pipelines, and trucks or
railroad cars that fall into the water;
* Discharges as outflows from sewer or drain outfills, runoff from spills on land, runoff from water
used to control fires, or contaminated groundwater
* Discharges onto land
* Solid waste disposal in onsite landfills
* Injection of wastes into underground wells
* Transfers of wastewater to public sewage plants
* Transfers of wastes to offsite facilities for treatment or storage.

Fixed-Site Facilities:
* Large refineries, chemical plants, and storage terminals
* Moderate-sized industrial users, warehouses, and isolated storage tanks for water treatment
* Small quantity users and storage facilities, such as school laboratories, florists/greenhouses, and
hardware/automotive stores

Highway and Rail Transportation
* Transportation on highways involves tanker trucks or trailers and specialized bulk-cargo vehicles
* Average trip lengths are 28 miles for gasoline trucks and 260 miles for chemical trucks
* Most common releases from railroad events are:
- Collisions and derailments that result in large spills or discharges
- Releases from leaks in fittings, seals, or relief valves, and improper closures or defective
equipment.
    Account for 70% of the nearly 1,000 railroad-related events each year

Air Transportation
* Limited to small packages
* 1986 figures: 200,000 to 300,000 tons
* Few events occur each year; usually due to violations of regulations

Transportation Incidents

Mode of Transportation
Air 
Number of Accidents
1,220 
Associated Deaths
0 
Associated Injuries
153
Mode of Transportation
Highway 
Number of Accidents
41,781 
Associated Deaths
79 
Associated Injuries
1,569
Mode of Transportation
Railway 
Number of Accidents
7,886 
Associated Deaths
1 
Associated Injuries
423
Mode of Transportation
Water 
Number of Accidents
83 
Associated Deaths
1 
Associated Injuries
35
Mode of Transportation
Other 
Number of Accidents
29 
Associated Deaths
0 
Associated Injuries
2
Total 
Number of Accidents
50,999 8 
Associated Deaths
1 
Associated Injuries
2
2,182

Hazardous Materials Incidents by Transportation Mode (totals, 1983 thru 1990*)

Natural Hazards
Natural hazards can cause HAZMAT releases at fixed sites. When a HAZMAT event occurs during a
natural disaster, access to facilities may be restricted, waterlines for fire suppression may be broken, and
response personnel and resources may be limited.
Natural hazards may cause transportation related HAZMAT events, including:
* Heavy rainfall during thunderstorms can cause slippery road conditions resulting in highway
carrier accidents
* Flood, lightning, fires, and severe winter storms cause pipelines to fail
* Snow, ice, and high-wind conditions during severe winter storms cause traffic accidents
* High velocities and volumes of floodwaters wash out bridges, roads, and fixed HAZMAT
manufacturing, handling, and storage facilities

HAZMAT releases pose short- and long-term toxological threats to humans and to terrestrial and aquatic
plants and wildlife. Toxic materials affect people through one of three processes:
* Inhalation exposures result from breathing gases that may have been vented from containers,
liquid aerosols generated during venting of pressurized liquids, fumes from spilled acids, vapors
created by evaporating liquids, and airborne dust.
* Ingestion exposures typically result from poor hygiene habits after handling contaminated
materials or eating contaminated food, or the inhalation of insoluble particles that become trapped
in mucous membranes
* Skin may be affected by direct contact with gas, liquid, or solid forms of hazardous materials

Local Emergency Planning Committees
Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 requires that each
community establish a Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) to be responsible for developing an
emergency plan for preparing for and responding to chemical emergencies in that community.
This emergency plan must include the following
* an identification of local facilities and transportation routes where hazardous material are present
* the procedures for immediate response in case of an accident (this must include a communitywide
evacuation plan)
* a plan for notifying the community that an incident has occurred
* the names of response coordinators at local facilities
* a plan for conducting exercises to test the plan.
The plan is reviewed by the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and publicized throughout
the community. The LEPC is required to review, test, and update the plan each year.

Mitigation Approaches

Physical Adjustments
* Planning and building HAZMAT facilities to withstand prevalent natural hazards identifying and
avoiding sites where hazards are highly likely to occur
* Predicting the occurrence of hazards
* Preventing or altering the characteristics of hazards

Social Adjustments
* Restricting the use of land and establishing minimum standards for avoiding hazardous sites and
conditions
* Implementing Local Emergency Planning Committees to enhance public awareness of hazardous
materials in communities
* Instituting public awareness campaigns in areas prone to hazards in the vicinity of HAZMAT sites
* Initiating emergency preparedness and evacuation programs to protect life and property when
warnings are issued or events occur
* Establishing systems for notifying key individuals in the public and private sectors, including
supervisory personnel of facilities requiring special notification, water users, supervisory
personnel of water treatment plants, utility companies, air traffic controllers, railroad dispatchers,
and US Coast Guard or harbor master facilities
* Spreading the economic loss among a larger population through insurance, taxation, and
monetary grants
* Reconstructing communities to be less vulnerable to future hazard events and HAZMAT releases

Figure:
BEAGLE COUNTY PIPELINE
Map of Beagle County showing natural gas transmission pipelines and hazardous liquid pipelines as related to
high population areas and other populated areas and their flood hazard rank.

Figure: Hazardous Materials Teams.
Map of Iowa with numbers showing hazardous materials teams:
1. Sioux City Fire Department
2. Fort Dodge Fire Department
3. Mason City Fire Department
4. Northeast Iowa Response Group
5. Des Moines Fire Department
6. Southeast Iowa Response Group
7. Linn County Hazmat Team
8. Cedar Rapids/Marion Hazmat Team (serves the city of Cedar Rapids/Marion)
9. Johnson County Hazmat Team
10. Dubuque Fire Department
11. Davenport Fire Department
12. Bettendorf Fire and Rescue
13. Council Bluffs Fire Department
14. Burlington Fire Department
15. City of Ames and backup for Des Moines Hazmat team in Story County only.
16. City of Muscatine
17. Newton F.D. (Jasper Co.)
18. Midwest Environmental (Appanoose Co.)
19. La Crosse Fire Department (WI)  Allamakee Co.

LIST OF EPA-REGULATED FACILITIES
DARWIN, IA

FACILITY NAME/ADDRESS
Bz Auto Company
702 5th St 
Permitted Discharges To Water? No 
Toxic Releases Reported? No 
Hazardous Waste Handler? Yes 
Air Releases Reported? No

FACILITY NAME/ADDRESS
Lynnville Transport
13051 Hwy 225 E 
Permitted Discharges To Water? No 
Toxic Releases Reported? No 
Hazardous Waste Handler? Yes 
Air Releases Reported? No

FACILITY NAME/ADDRESS
Lynnville-Darwin High School
12476 Hwy 225 E 
Permitted Discharges To Water? No 
Toxic Releases Reported? No 
Hazardous Waste Handler? Yes 
Air Releases Reported? No

FACILITY NAME/ADDRESS
Darwin Auto Body
102 1st Street 
Permitted Discharges To Water? No 
Toxic Releases Reported? No 
Hazardous Waste Handler? Yes 
Air Releases Reported? No

FACILITY NAME/ADDRESS
Darwin City of Stp
City Clerk 
Permitted Discharges To Water? Yes 
Toxic Releases Reported? No 
Hazardous Waste Handler? No 
Air Releases Reported? No

FACILITY NAME/ADDRESS
Darwin Construction
5th Ave & 8th St 
Permitted Discharges To Water? No 
Toxic Releases Reported? No 
Hazardous Waste Handler? Yes 
Air Releases Reported? No

FACILITY NAME/ADDRESS
Darwin Cooperative Exchange
504 6th Avenue
Permitted Discharges To Water? No 
Toxic Releases Reported? No 
Hazardous Waste Handler? Yes 
Air Releases Reported? Yes

FACILITY NAME/ADDRESS
Darwin Mfg Co
307 7th Ave 
Permitted Discharges To Water? No 
Toxic Releases Reported? No 
Hazardous Waste Handler? Yes 
Air Releases Reported? No

FACILITY NAME/ADDRESS
Darwin Oil Co Inc
206 1st St 
Permitted Discharges To Water? No 
Toxic Releases Reported? No 
Hazardous Waste Handler? Yes 
Air Releases Reported? No

FACILITY NAME/ADDRESS 
Z ylstra Express Ltd
205 1st Ave 
Permitted Discharges To Water? No 
Toxic Releases Reported? No 
Hazardous Waste Handler? Yes 
Air Releases Reported? No

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION VII
Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa
March 31, 2004 Version 7
RISK ASSESSMENT: 201.6(c)(2): The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce
losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate
mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards.
Identifying Hazards

Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type  of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction.

Element 
A. Does the plan include a description of the types of all
natural hazards that affect the jurisdiction?
If the hazard identification omits (without explanation)
any hazards commonly recognized as threats to the
jurisdiction, this part of the plan cannot receive a
Satisfactory score.
Consult with the State Hazard Mitigation Officer to
identify applicable hazards that may occur in the
planning area.

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Hazard Analysis
P. 1  17,
Appendix B  H

Reviewers Comments 
The plan addresses hazards expected in this region.
Recommended Revisions:
* Identify all hazards considered  including ones not studied
because they are not applicable to allow the reviewers to
understand the universe of hazards that were considered.
* Describe the process for identifying hazards and list the
sources used to identify hazards. The process for identifying
hazards could involve: reviewing reports, plans, flood
ordinances, and land use regulations, among others; talking
to experts from Federal, State, and local agencies and
universities; searching the Internet and newspapers; and
interviewing long-time residents.
* Provide an explanation for eliminating any hazards from
consideration.
* Addressing manmade hazards in the plan is not necessary
to meet the DMA 2000 requirements, but highly encouraged.
For more information, see Integrating Manmade Hazards
into Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-7), Phase 2.
For more information on identifying hazards, see
Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 1, Worksheet
#1, Identify the Hazards.
SCORE -S
SUMMARY SCORE -S

Profiling Hazards

Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the  location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the
jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events.

Element
A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e.,
geographic area affected) of each natural hazard
addressed in the plan?
Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Hazard Analysis
P. 3 - 17
Reviewers Comments 
With the exception of flash floods, all hazards are City-wide.
No specific geographic area is identified for flash floods,
although flash floods affect up to 5% of the jurisdiction.
Required Revisions:
* For flash floods, describe the hazards location or
geographical area that would be affected.
Recommended Revisions:
* Note any data limitations for profiling hazards and include in
the mitigation strategy actions for collecting the data to
complete and improve future risk analysis efforts.
For more information on profiling hazards, see Understanding
Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 2.
SCORE -N

Element
B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e.,
magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in
the plan?
Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Hazard Analysis
P. 3  17,
Appendix B  H
Reviewers Comments 
Each hazard includes a statement regarding severity of
impact and maximum extent.
Recommended Revisions:
* For flash floods, include velocity characteristics.
* Include in the hazard profile conditions such as topography,
soil characteristics, and meteorological conditions that may
exacerbate or mitigate the potential effects of a particular
hazard. See Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), page
2-13 for information on these conditions and their effect on
hazards like floods.
For more information on profiling hazards, see Understanding
Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 2.
SCORE -S

Element
C. Does the plan provide information on previous
occurrences of each hazard addressed in the plan?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Hazard Analysis
P. 3  17

Reviewers Comments 
Each profile includes discussion of historical occurrence and
the appendix data includes additional historic records

Recommended Revisions:
* Include in the description for each event the date of
occurrence, damages that occurred in or near the planning
area (e.g., property damage, cost of recovery, lives lost);
level of severity (i.e., flood depth or extent, wind speeds,
earthquake intensity, etc.); and duration of the event.
For more information on profiling hazards, see Understanding
Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 2.
SCORE -S

Element
D. Does the plan include the probability of future events
(i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed
in the plan?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Hazard Analysis
P. 3 - 17

Reviewers Comments 
Profiles of each hazard include a description of probability.
Recommended Revisions:
* Describe the methodology or sources used to determine the
probability for each natural hazard.
For more information on profiling hazards, see Understanding
Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 2.
SCORE -S
SUMMARY SCORE -N

Assessing Vulnerability: Overview
Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdictions vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community.

Element
A. Does the plan include an overall summary description
of the jurisdictions vulnerability to each hazard?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Hazard Analysis
P. 3  17

Reviewers Comments 
Each hazard profile includes a description of vulnerability.
Recommended Revisions:
* While the Rule does not require a discussion about the
number of people or special populations at risk, such as the
elderly, disabled, or others with special needs, their
consideration in the risk assessment will enable the
development of appropriate actions to assist such
populations during or after a disaster.
For a discussion on vulnerability assessment overview, see
Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 3, Worksheet
#3a, Inventory Assets.
SCORE-S

Element
B. Does the plan address the impact of each hazard on
the jurisdiction?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Hazard Analysis
P. 3  17

Reviewers Comments 
Each hazard profile includes a description of Maximum 
Threat, Severity of Impact, and Speed of Onset.
For a discussion on preparing a vulnerability assessment, see
Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 3, Worksheet
#3a, Inventory Assets.
SCORE -S
SUMMARY SCORE -@

Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures
{Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure,
and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area  .

Element
A. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the
types and numbers of existing buildings,
infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the
identified hazard areas?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Hazard Analysis
P. 3  17

Reviewers Comments 
Note: A Needs Improvement score on this requirement
will not preclude the plan from passing.
The profiles do not indicate the number or types of buildings,
infrastructure, or critical facilities for each hazard.
Recommended Revisions:
* For flash floods, and community-wide hazards, identify the
type and number of existing buildings, infrastructure, and
critical facilities within each hazard area.
Additional Suggestions:
* Identify the kinds of buildings (e.g., residential, commercial,
institutional, recreational, industrial, and municipal);
infrastructure, (e.g., roadways, bridges, utilities, and
communications systems); and critical facilities (e.g.,
shelters, hospitals, police, and fire stations).
* Describe the process or method used for identifying existing
buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities.
* If limited data are available, focus on identifying critical
facilities located in the identified hazard areas and identify
the collection of data for the remaining buildings and
infrastructure as an action item in the mitigation strategy.
* While not required by the Rule, it is useful to inventory
structures located within areas that have repeatedly flooded
and collect information on past insurance claims. At a
minimum, describe repetitive loss neighborhoods or areas in
the plan.
For a discussion on identifying vulnerable structures and
detailed inventories, see Understanding Your Risks (FEMA
386-2), Step 3, Worksheet #3a and #3b, Inventory Assets.
SCORE -N

Element
B. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the
types and numbers of future buildings, infrastructure,
and critical facilities located in the identified hazard
areas?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Hazard Analysis
P. 3 - 17

Reviewers Comments 
Note: A Needs Improvement score on this requirement
will not preclude the plan from passing.
Future development is not described in terms of types and
numbers of buildings, infrastructure, or critical facilities.
Recommended Revisions:
* Identify the type and number of future buildings,
infrastructure, and critical facilities within each hazard area.
Additional Suggestions:
* Identify the types of buildings (e.g., residential, commercial,
institutional, recreational, industrial, and municipal buildings);
infrastructure, (e.g., roadways, bridges, utilities, and
communications systems); and critical facilities (e.g.,
shelters, hospitals, police, and fire stations).
* Information on proposed buildings, infrastructure, and critical
facilities, including planned and approved development, may
be based on information in the comprehensive or land use
plan and zoning maps.
* Identify buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities that are
vulnerable to more than one hazard.
* Describe the process or method used for identifying future
buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities.
* Note any data limitations for determining the type and
numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and critical
facilities and include in the mitigation strategy actions for
collecting the data to improve future vulnerability
assessment efforts.
For a discussion on identifying vulnerable structures and
detailed inventories, see Understanding Your Risks (FEMA
386-2), Step 3, Worksheet #3a and #3b, Inventory Assets.
SCORE -N
SUMMARY SCORE  -N}

Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses
{Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures
identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate  .

Element
A. Does the plan estimate potential dollar losses to
vulnerable structures?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Hazard Analysis
P. 3  17

Reviewers Comments 
Note: A Needs Improvement score on this requirement
will not preclude the plan from passing.
The plan provides an estimate for a flash flood event (P. 4),
but does not provide an estimate of the potential dollar losses
for the areas affected by flash flooding. For all other hazards,
there is an asset inventory (P. 19) showing the value of all
assets in the jurisdiction, but no estimate of how much might
be affected by any of the listed hazards.
Recommended Revisions:
* Describe vulnerability in terms of potential dollar losses.
Additional Suggestions:
* Provide an estimate for each identified hazard.
* Include, when resources permit, estimates for structure,
contents, and function losses to present a full picture of the
total loss for each building, infrastructure, and critical facility.
* Select the most likely event for each identified hazard (e.g.,
100-year flood) and estimate the likely losses associated
with this event.
* Include a composite loss map to locate high potential loss
areas to help the jurisdiction focus its mitigation priorities.
* Note any data limitations for estimating losses and include in
the mitigation strategy actions for collecting the data to
improve future loss estimate efforts.
For a step-by-step method for estimating losses, see
Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 4.
SCORE -N 

Element
B. Does the plan describe the methodology used to
prepare the estimate?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Not in the Plan 

Reviewers Comments 
Note: A Needs Improvement score on this requirement
will not preclude the plan from passing.
No estimate is included.
Recommended Revisions:
* Describe the methodology used to estimate losses.
For a step-by-step method for estimating losses, see
Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 4.
SCORE -N
SUMMARY SCORE N}

Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends
{Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends
within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.

Element
A. Does the plan describe land uses and development
trends?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Not in the Plan 
Reviewers Comments 
Note: A Needs Improvement score on this requirement
will not preclude the plan from passing.
No discussion of land use and development trends was found.
Recommended Revisions:
* Provide a general overview of land uses (e.g., location and
kind of use).
* Describe development trends occurring within the jurisdiction
(e.g., describe the types of development occurring, location,
expected intensity, and pace by land use).
Additional Suggestions:
* Describe existing land use and densities in the identified
hazard areas. Provide a map showing land use.
* Describe future land use density. Such information may be
obtained from your regional or local planning office,
comprehensive plan, or zoning maps. Future development
information helps to define appropriate mitigation
approaches, and the locations in which these approaches
should be applied. This information can also be used
reduce development in hazard areas.
* Overlay a land use map with identified hazard areas.
* Note any data limitations for determining development
trends and include in the mitigation strategy actions for
collecting the data to complete and improve future
vulnerability assessment efforts.
SCORE 
SUMMARY SCORE N}

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment
Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(iii): For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdictions risks where they vary from the risks facing
the entire planning area.

Element
A. Does the plan include a risk assessment for each
participating jurisdiction as needed to reflect unique
or varied risks?
SUMMARY SCORE N/A 

62 
Unit 4: Local Plan Review Working Session  Mitigation Strategy 

63 
Mitigation Strategy 

What is the purpose of this portion of the Plan Review Requirements? 

The main point of the plan is to come up with a coherent 
strategy to address the relevant risks for the community. 

64 
Mitigation Strategy 
IFR Requirement:  201.6 (c) (3) (i) Local Hazard Mitigation Goals (1 of 4) 

A. Does the plan include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or 
avoid long term vulnerability to the identified hazards? 

Key Words and Issues 
the connection between the goals (and objectives) and the results of the risk 
assessment, i.e., the identified hazards is not always immediately 
apparent  including hazards that are identified, profiled and assessed but 
do not show up in the goals and goals that speak to issues that were not 
heretofore identified 

65 
Mitigation Strategy 
IFR Requirement: 
 201.6 (c) (3) (ii) Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions (2 of 4) 

A. Does the plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of 
mitigation actions and projects for each hazard? 

Key Words and Issues 
the original intent was for communities to analyze all mitigation options, i.e., a 
comprehensive range, for each identified problem hazard and/or area  
most plans do not include anything more than a solitary action that is 
selected for a specific problem 

66 
Mitigation Strategy 
IFR Requirement: 
 201.6 (c) (3) (ii) Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions (2 of 4 continued) 

B. Do the identified action and projects address reducing the effects of 
each hazard on new buildings and infrastructure? 

C. Do the identified actions and projects address reducing the effects of 
each hazard on existing buildings and infrastructure? 

67 
Mitigation Strategy 
IFR Requirement: 
 201.6 (c) (3) (iii) Implementation of Mitigation Actions (3 of 4) 

A. Does the mitigation strategy include how actions are prioritized? 

Key Words and Issues 
strategies for determining prioritized actions range from application of 
decision making tools such as STAPLEE to develop scores and ranks; to 
assigning a sense of urgency (high, medium, low); to simply listing actions 
in the chronological order the community expects to implement them 

68 
Mitigation Strategy 
IFR Requirement: 
 201.6 (c) (3) (iii) Implementation of Mitigation Actions (3 of 4) 

B. Does the mitigation strategy address how the actions will be 
implemented and administered? 
C. Does the prioritization process include an emphasis on the use of 
cost -benefit review to maximize benefits? 

Key Words and Issues 
implemented and administered imply that responsible parties should be 
identified but this cannot necessarily be required based on the Rule 
language 

cost-benefit review can be interpreted as any process that takes into 
account relative or general cost and benefit relationships and does not 
require the application of tools like the benefit-cost module 

69 
Mitigation Strategy 
IFR Requirement: 
 201.6 (c) (3) (iv) Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions (4 of 4) 

A. Does the plan include at least one identifiable action item for each 
jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval of the plan? 

Key Words and Issues 
mitigation actions that affect an entire planning area can be applied to the 
requirement of at least one identifiable action item 

(this leads to a similar what if scenario as IFR Requirement:  201.6 (c) (5) 
Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption (slide 37)) 

70 
Small Group Working Session  
Mitigation Strategy 

This session covers the bottom of page 7 through the top of page 9 of the 
Crosswalk. 

The end product is a completed plan review of the Mitigation Strategy for 
the City of Darwin, Iowa plan. 

71 
Small Group Results 
Mitigation Strategy 

Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Group 5	Group 6	Group 7	Group 8	Group 9	Group 10

Element	
 201.6 (c) (3) (i)  Local Hazard Mitigation Goals
A. Description of mitigation goals

 201.6 (c) (3) (ii) Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions
A. Comprehensive list of mitigation actions identified and analyzed
B. Identified actions address new buildings
C. Identified actions address existing buildings

 201.6 (c) (3) (iii) Implementation of Mitigation Actions
A. Description of how actions were prioritized (including the process and criteria used)
B. Description of how cost and benefits were considered during the prioritization process
C. Description of how actions will be implemented and administered

MITIGATION GOALS AND ALTERNATIVES

CONTENTS

Mitigation Goals 
Mitigation Alternatives 
-Current Mitigation Activities 
-Alternatives Considered 
-Alternative Evaluation, By Hazard 
Mitigation Recommendations Summary 
Funding of Alternatives 
Implementation 
-Priorities
-Phasing
-Integration into Other Planning Mechanism
-Responsibility
-Review Schedule
Mitigation Plan Evaluation 
-Evaluation and Review Process
-Mitigation Plan Evaluation Worksheet

[END TABLE OF CONTENTS]

MITIGATION GOALS  ALTERNATIVES

Mitigation Goals
The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee established the following goals to make their community more
disaster resistant.
* Minimize injuries and loss of life
* Reduce or eliminate damages due to natural disasters
* Manage response operations with or without State and Federal Assistance
* Return to pre-disaster conditions in a timely and pre-planned manner
Accomplishing these goals requires an integrated emergency management program, including:
Preparedness activities ensure the community and its residents are ready for a disaster and that
they respond effectively. Preparedness involves determining what the community will do if
essential services break down, developing a plan for contingencies, and practicing the plan.
Response activities begin as soon as the disaster threatens. Response includes access control,
search and rescue, mass care, medical services, and restoring essential services.
Recovery activities help the community to return to pre-disaster condition. They include rebuilding
services, infrastructure (utilities, communications, and transportation systems), facilities,
operations, and the lives affected by the disaster.
Mitigation activities are sustained actions that reduce the long-term risk of disasters. They reduce
threats to the public health and safety, reduce or eliminate damages caused by disaster, and
reduce the burden placed on local, state, and federal preparedness, response and recovery
activities.

Mitigation Alternatives
The Committee focused on mitigation activities that would minimize injuries and loss of life and reduce
or eliminate damages due to natural disasters. They identified a wide range of mitigation approaches
and, based on the hazard analysis and risk assessment and the community's current mitigation
activities, selected alternatives for further review and evaluation. Following their review and evaluation
of the alternatives, the Committee selected and prioritized actions they felt should be implemented.
The following sections summarize the mitigation segment of the planning process:
* Current Mitigation Activities
* Mitigation Alternatives
* Mitigation Recommendations
* Mitigation Implementation

Current Mitigation Activities

1. Ordinances
Tree Trimming ordinances reduce damages from trees and tree branches damaged during ice
storms or by heavy winds.
Snow Removal ordinances ensure streets are cleared promptly and provide emergency access to
the citizens.

2. Emergency Service

Fire
The Darwin Volunteer Rural Fire and Ambulance Service provides primary fire protection.
Darwin's fire insurance class is (8). Additional protection is provided through Mutual Aid
Agreements with communities in Beagle County.

Emergency Management
The Beagle County Emergency Management Coordinator's office is located in Newton. The
County Emergency Management Coordinator works in conjunction with all community fire,
rescue, police, and government officials to ensure community emergency mitigation,
preparedness, and response and recovery plans are current and to assist community's
implementation of these plans.
The City adopted the Multi-Hazard Emergency Operations Plan in December 2000. The
Major will coordinate emergency operations within the City.

Medical Services
Skiff Medical Center is a 68-bed primary care hospital located in Newton, Iowa. Accredited by
the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, the hospital is an active
member in Beagle County. Additional medical services are available from the Pella Regional
Health Center in Pella, Iowa, the Grinnell Regional Medical Center in Grinnell, Iowa and Des
Moines, Iowa medical facilities.
Additional emergency medical services are available through Mutual Aid Agreements with
Beagle County communities.

Warning Systems
The City of Darwin warning siren system provides coverage to the entire community. However,
atmospheric conditions can impact the coverage. In accordance with the City's emergency
procedures, the Fire Department warns neighborhoods of severe weather and other emergency
situations and ensures vulnerable segments of the community receive notification. NOAA
Weather Radio and television and radio announcements provide emergency warning for the
community.

Storm Spotters
The City participates in the Storm Spotter program. Storm spotters take a position near their
communities and report wind gusts, hail size, rainfall, and cloud formations that could signal a
developing tornado. Spotter information is relayed to County and City Emergency Management
and to the National Weather Service.

Shelter and Feeding Sites
The Red Cross coordinates shelter and feeding emergency needs. City churches and the schools
serve as shelter and feeding sites.

Sewer System Maintenance Program
The City conducts smoke tests and camera inspections to identify vulnerable areas in the system and has
implemented a maintenance program to clean and inspect vulnerable portions of the system. Inspecting
and maintaining vulnerable portions of the system reduces sewer inflow/infiltration.

Alternatives Considered

Flood Mitigation
1. Public information
2. Storm water drainage ordinances
3. Sewer Maintenance Program

Tornado-High Winds
1. Improve public awareness of tornado and high wind risks, safe rooms, wind construction methods,
safe zones around homes, and NOAA weather radio warning system
3. Assess current warning siren system.
4. Provide NOAA weather radios at reduced cost
5. Trim trees to reduce wind damages

Thunderstorms - Lightning and Hail
1. Trim dead or weak branches from trees
2. Improve public awareness of lightning and hail risk, measures that can be taken to reduce risk (i.e.,
trimming trees, purchasing generators) and community warning systems (sirens and NOAA weather
radio).

Hazardous Materials
1. Increase public awareness about hazardous materials risk.
2. Continue hazardous materials preparedness and response and recovery activities such as support of
LEPC, review and update of response and recover plans, evacuation routes, and community shelters.

Earthquake
1. Increase public awareness of earthquake threat and NOAA weather radio.

Winter Storms
1. Increase public awareness of winter storm hazards and risks and measures they can take to reduce
risks, including weatherizing homes, protecting pipes from freezing, and recommended snow load
building standards.
2. Promote NOAA weather radios.
3. Establish tree-trimming programs.
4. Identify vulnerable populations who may require special assistance.

Drought
1. Establish burn restrictions and water conservation measures for localized drought conditions.
2. Increase public awareness of drought risks and measures the public can take to reduce the risk.

Flood Mitigation

Public Information. 
Educating the public about their hazard risks and ways to reduce the risks is one
of the most cost effective mitigation alternatives. Many materials are available free of charge, or at a
minimal cost, from FEMA, the Institute of Business and Home Safety, and insurance companies.
The planning Committee felt that the current flood and flash flood information provided through county
emergency management weather awareness efforts meets the needs of their community.

Storm Water Drainage Ordinances
The City currently enforces ordinances that prevent homeowners from typing their residential
drainage system?gutters, down spouts and pump sumps?into the City's sanitary sewer system.
The Committee recommends continuing to enforce storm water drainage ordinances.

Sanitary Sewer System Maintenance Program
The City conducts smoke tests and camera inspections to identify vulnerable areas in the system and
has implemented a maintenance program to clean and inspect vulnerable portions of the system.
Inspecting and maintaining vulnerable portions of the system reduces sewer inflow/infiltration.
The Committee recommends continuing the sanitary sewer system maintenance program.

Tornado-High Winds

Improve public awareness of tornado and high wind risks safe rooms, wind construction methods,
safe zones around homes and NOAA weather radio warning system

The Committee reviewed several measures that can reduce damages and the risk of damages and
also reduce threats to residents' safety. These measures ranged from clearing the area of objects that
could become flying projectiles (gravel driveways, trees and other objects that could fall or be
uprooted) to installing "hurricane" clips. Studies have shown that the effectiveness of any warning
system is the public taking the appropriate action once emergency warnings have been issued.
Therefore, an important component of any educational program would be increasing the public
awareness of the City's current warning system.
The Committee recommends working with the County Emergency Manager (who has educational
materials and implements annual educational projects) and ordering free/low-cost materials from
FEMA, the Institute of Business and Home Safety, insurance companies, Red Cross, etc. to place in
public places, for example where City Council meetings are held and in schools

Assess Current Warning Siren System
The City's emergency warning system consists of several components including sirens, notification by
the fire department, radio and television warnings, and NOAA Weather Radio. Warning sirens provide
coverage throughout the community. However atmospheric conditions can impact the signal
coverage. The cost of replacing or adding sirens is approximately $12.00 per siren.
The Committee's primary concern is ensuring that the citizens are protected through an efficient,
effective, and cost-effective warning system. The Committee agreed that the before recommending
the purchase of additional warning sirens, the City staff, with the assistance of the county emergency
management coordinator, should review the effectiveness of the current warning system.

Provide NOAA weather radios at reduced cost
The entire county has NOAA weather radio coverage. NOAA weather radios transmit advance
warning of all hazards and can be used by the County Emergency Management Coordinator to warn
residents of other emergencies. Several features are also available for hearing impaired.
The Committee agreed providing NOAA weather radio receivers at 25% of their regular cost would be
a cost effective warning alternative. The Committee's first priority would be to ensure NOAA weather
radio receivers are made available to all public facilities, schools, businesses, and clinics. Once this is
accomplished, the Committee's recommendation is to make the receivers available to all households
in the community

Trim trees to reduce wind damages
The community currently has a tree-trimming ordinance. The Committee agreed that continuing to
enforce the ordinance was an effective way of reducing property damage and protecting the citizens.

Thunderstorms- Lightning and Hail

Trim dead or weak branches from trees
The community currently has a tree-trimming ordinance.
The Committee agreed that continuing to enforce the ordinance was an effective way of reducing
property damage and protecting the citizens.
Improve public awareness of lightning and hail risk measures that can be taken to reduce risk (i.e.
trimming trees purchasing generators and community warning systems sirens and NOAA weather
radio).
Improving public awareness about hazard risks and measures the public can take to protect
themselves and their property is a cost-effective method of reducing those risks.
The Committee recommends working with the County Emergency Manager (who has educational
materials and implements annual educational projects) and ordering free/low-cost materials from
FEMA, the Institute of Business and Home Safety, insurance companies, Red Cross, etc. to place in
public places, for example where City Council meetings are held and in schools.

Hazardous Materials

Increase public awareness about hazardous materials risk.
Improving public awareness about hazard risks and measures the public can take to protect
themselves and their property is a cost-effective method of reducing those risks. The Committee
agreed it was particularly important that people understand the risks from hazards commonly found in
the home. The City has an area in the lobby of City Hall set aside for displaying information about
building permits, ordinance requirements, and other items of interest to its citizens. Information
regarding hazardous materials risk and measures the public can take to protect themselves and their
community is available.
The Committee feels the City is doing a good job of informing the public of risks and protective
measures they can take and recommends continuing the practice of placing information in the Lobby
of City Hall.

Continue hazardous materials preparedness and response and recovery activities such as support of
LEPC. review and update of response and recover plans, evacuation routes, and community shelters.
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. Title III of this legislation
requires establishing a Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) to be responsible for
developing an emergency plan for preparing for and responding to chemical emergencies in that
community. The County LEPC represents all incorporated and unincorporated communities within
Beagle County.
This emergency plan includes: an identification of local facilities and transportation routes where
hazardous material are present; procedures for immediate response in case of an accident (including
a community-wide evacuation plan); a plan for notifying the community that an incident has occurred;
the names of response coordinators at local facilities; and a plan for conducting exercises to test the
plan. The Beagle County LEPC is required to review, test, and update the plan each year.
The LEPC's effectiveness depends on the support it receives from communities within the County,
the EMC, and the public. Without this support the County may be able to meet the minimum legal
requirements, but the actual affect of the LEPC will be minimal.
The Committee recommends continuing to support the LEPC and its emergency planning efforts.

Earthquake
Increase public awareness of earthquake threat and NOAA weather radio
Improving public awareness about hazard risks and measures the public can take to protect
themselves and their property is a cost-effective method of reducing those risks. However, the
Committee decided that because of the low risk of an earthquake and the limited damages that would
occur in Seismic Zone o, the City's limited resources should be targeted toward hazards that pose a
greater threat to the community.

Winter Storms
Increase public awareness of winter storm hazards and risks and measures the can take to reduce
risks including weatherizing homes protecting pipes from freezing and recommended snow load
building standards.

Improving public awareness about hazard risks and measures the public can take to protect
themselves and their property is a cost-effective method of reducing those risks. The County

Emergency Management Coordinator's officer current conducts public awareness programs for the
entire County, including Darwin. The Committee felt that the majority of their citizens were long-time
residents of the area and well informed about winter storm hazards and preparedness and mitigation
measures such as insulating and winterizing the home.
The Committee decided that the current County efforts meet the needs of their citizens and that
community resources would be more effectively spent on other educational programs.

Provide NOAA weather radios at reduced cost
The entire county has NOAA weather radio coverage. NOAA weather radios transmit advance
warning of all hazards and can be used by the County Emergency Management Coordinator to warn
residents of other emergencies. Several features are also available for hearing impaired. Providing
NOAA weather radio receivers at 25% of their regular cost would be a cost effective of ensuring
warning coverage throughout the community.
The Committee recommends applying for funds to provide NOAA Weather Radios at reduced cost.
The Committee's first priority would be to ensure NOAA weather radio receivers are made available
to all public facilities, daycare facilities, businesses, and clinics. Once this is accomplished, the
Committee's recommends making the receivers available to all households in the community.

Establish tree-trimming programs.
Trees growing too close to overhead electric wires may threaten the public's safety and cause power
outages. The loss of power anytime during the year can lead to a critical situation, but the loss of
power and heat during the winter is particularly dangerous. The community currently enforces a tree-
trimming ordinance.
The Committee recommends continuing to enforce the current tree-trimming ordinance.

Drought

Severe Drought
The Committee reviewed the hazard and risk information and concluded that because of the
widespread nature of droughts and the low probability of a severe drought; focal level drought
mitigation measures would not be effective against severe drought.

Local Drought
The City currently implements water conservation actions in the event of short-term events. The
Committee felt that these measures were sufficient.

Establish burn restrictions and water conservation measures for localized drought conditions.
The City currently implements water conservation actions in the event of short-term events. The
Committee felt that these measures were sufficient.

Increase public awareness of drought risks and measures the public can take to reduce the risk.
Improving public awareness about hazard risks and measures the public can take to protect
themselves and their property is a cost-effective method of reducing those risks.
The Committee felt that drought information provided by local Department of Agriculture and ISU
extension services meet the community public information needs.

Mitigation Recommendations

Darwin is a small community with limited resources. Therefore, the Committee decided that the
community should focus its efforts on minimizing injuries and loss of life and reducing or eliminating
damages due to natural hazards that poses the greatest degree of risk--Winter Storms, Tornados and
Extreme Winds and on continuing current mitigation activities.

Recommendations

Priority 1, by rank
* Continue sanitary sewer maintenance program.
* Continue community storm spotter program.
* Improve public awareness of tornado and high wind risks, safe rooms, wind construction methods,
safe zones around homes, and NOAA weather radio warning system
* Provide NOAA weather radios at reduced cost
* Continue to enforce Tree Trimming ordinances to reduce damages from trees and tree branches
damaged during ice storms or by heavy winds.
* Continue to enforce Snow Removal ordinances ensure streets are cleared promptly and provide
emergency access to the citizens of Darwin.
* Continue to implement Burn restrictions-Water Conservation policies to reduce the threat of fire
during period of localized drought and to ensure an adequate water supply.
The Committee noted that NOAA weather radio, storm spotters, and public education activities mitigate
risks from all hazards.

Priority 2, by rank
* Increase public awareness of hazardous materials risks in the home.
* Support LEPC and County Emergency Management hazardous materials preparedness, response,
and recovery efforts.

Alternatives Funding Table

Alternative 
Federal Funds
State or County Funds 
Comments

Alternative 
Continue sanitary sewer
maintenance program
Est. Cost
3,000 
Local Funds 
3,000 
Feasibility 
Good 
Comments
Annual cost of 5-year
contract.

Alternative 
Public awareness 
tornado and extreme
wind
Est. Cost
100 
Local Funds 100 
Feasibility 
Good 
Comments
In addition to the
Countys public
awareness program.

NOAA Receivers 
Est. Cost
27,810 
Federal Funds
20,857 
Local Funds 6,953 
Feasibility 
Fair 
Comments
Individual receiving
radio will pay 25%
local matches.

Alternative 
Continue enforcing Tree
Trimming ordinance
Est. Cost
200 
Local Funds
200 
Feasibility
Good 
Comments
Enforce, review and
revise.

Alternative
Continue enforcing
Snow Removal
ordinance
Est. Cost
200 
Local Funds
200 
Feasibility
Good 
Comments
Enforce, review and
revise. Does NOT
include snow removal
costs.

Alternative
Continue enforcing Burn
restrictions-Water
Conservation policies
Est. Cost
150 
Local Funds
150 
Feasibility
Good 
Comments
Enforce, review and
revise. Does NOT
include snow removal
costs.

Alternative
Public awareness 
hazardous household
materials
Est. Cost
100 
State or County Funds
75 
Local Funds
25 
Feasibility
Good 
Comments
Coordinate with
County Emergency
Management.

Alternative
Support LEPC 
Est. Cost
0 
Feasibility
Good 
Comments
No cost to community.

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION VII
Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa
March 31, 2004 Version 15

MITIGATION STRATEGY: 201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdictions blueprint for reducing the potential losses
identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools.

Local Hazard Mitigation Goals

Requirement 201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to
the identified hazards.

Element
A Does the plan include a description of mitigation
goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to
the identified hazards? (GOALS are long-term;
represent what the community wants to achieve,
such as eliminate flood damage; and are based on
the risk assessment findings.)

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Mitigation Goals
and Alternatives
P. 1

Reviewers Comments 
Goals are stated.
Recommended Revisions:
* Explain how the goals are intended to reduce or avoid
vulnerability.
* Describe how these goals were developed. The goals could
be developed early in the planning process and refined
based on the risk assessment findings, or developed entirely
after the risk assessment is completed. They should also be
compatible with the goals of the jurisdiction as expressed in
other documents.
* Although the Rule does not require a description of
objectives, jurisdictions are highly encouraged to include
objectives developed to achieve the goals so that the
connection between goals, objectives, and mitigation actions
is clear.
For more information on developing local mitigation goals and
objectives, see Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3),
Step 1.
SCORE -S
SUMMARY SCORE S

Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions

Requirement 201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation
actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure.

Element
A. Does the plan identify and analyze a
comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions
and projects for each hazard?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Mitigation Goals
and Alternatives
P. 3 - 9

Reviewers Comments 
Recommended Revisions:
* If the plan identified data limitations in the risk assessment
section, list actions to address the data limitations.
For more details on identifying and evaluating mitigation
actions, see Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3),
Step 2.
SCORE -S

Element
B Do the identified actions and projects address
reducing the effects of hazards on new buildings
and infrastructure?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Mitigation Goals
and Alternatives
P. 3  9

Reviewers Comments N S
The plan does not include actions such as zoning ordinances
and building codes that address hazards to new construction.
Required Revisions:
* Include actions that address new buildings and
infrastructure.
Recommended Revisions:
* While the Rule does not specify critical facilities, the plan
should also address new critical facilities.
* Develop a matrix to show what actions address specific
hazards and new buildings and infrastructure.
For more details on identifying and evaluating mitigation
actions, see Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3),
Step 2.
SCORE -N

Element
C. Do the identified actions and projects address
reducing the effects of hazards on existing
buildings and infrastructure?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Mitigation Goals
and Alternatives
P. 3  9

Reviewers Comments 
The actions include public information programs and
enforcement that apply to existing buildings and infrastructure.
Recommended Revisions:
* While the Rule does not specify critical facilities, the plan
should also address existing critical facilities.
* Develop a matrix to show what actions address specific
hazards and existing buildings and infrastructure.
For more details on identifying and evaluating mitigation
actions, see Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3),
Step 2.
SCORE -S
SUMMARY SCORE N

Implementation of Mitigation Actions

Requirement: 201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will
be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are
maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.

Element
A. Does the mitigation strategy include how the actions
are prioritized? (For example, is there a discussion
of the process and criteria used?)

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Mitigation Goals
and Alternatives
P. 9

Reviewers Comments 
There are two priority groupings, each with several actions. No
discussion explains how priority actions were ranked.
Required Revisions:
* Describe the method for prioritizing actions. (In addition to
cost benefit review, considerations may include social
impact, technical feasibility, administrative capabilities, and
political and legal effects, as well as environmental issues.)
For a detailed description of the development of the mitigation
strategy or action plan, see Developing the Mitigation Plan
(FEMA 386-3), Step 3.
SCORE -N

Element
B. Does the mitigation strategy address how the
actions will be implemented and administered?
(For example, does it identify the responsible
department, existing and potential resources, and
timeframe?)

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Mitigation Goals
and Alternatives
P. 11

Reviewers Comments 
Eight of the ten actions are identified as ongoing. There is
no discussion regarding how the actions will be implemented
or by whom they will be administered.
Required Revisions:
* Identify how the actions will be implemented and
administered. Include in the description the responsible
party(s)/agency(s), the funding source(s), and the target
completion dates for each action.
Recommended Revisions:
* Include a cost estimate and/or resources required for each
action, when possible.
For a detailed description of the development of the mitigation
strategy or action plan, see Developing the Mitigation Plan
(FEMA 386-3), Step 3.
SCORE -N

Element
C. Does the prioritization process include an emphasis
on the use of a cost-benefit review (see page 3-36
of Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance) to
maximize benefits?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
There is no cost-benefit review found in the plan.

Reviewers Comments 
Required Revisions:
* Describe the cost benefit review performed during the
prioritization process to identify actions/projects with the
greatest benefits. (If cost and benefit data are missing, a
qualitative assessment of the comparative benefits will
suffice.)
For a detailed description of the development of the mitigation
strategy or action plan, see Developing the Mitigation Plan
(FEMA 386-3), Step 3; and Mitigation Benefit Cost Analysis
(BCA) Toolkit Compact Disc (CD).
SCORE -N
SUMMARY SCORE  -N

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions

Requirement 201.6(c)(3)(iv): For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval
or credit of the plan.
Element
A Does the plan include at least one identifiable
action item for each jurisdiction requesting FEMA
approval of the plan?
SUMMARY SCORE N/A

72 
Unit 5: Local Plan Review Working 
Session  Plan Maintenance Process 

73 
Plan Maintenance Process 

What is the purpose of this portion of the Plan Review Requirements? 

The DMA places high priority on the continuation of the 
planning process after the initial submittal. 

In addition to the periodic need for the community to seek and 
receive re-approval from FEMA, the intent is to create a better 
institutional awareness and involvement in hazard mitigation 
as part of regular day-to-day activities. 

74 
Plan Maintenance Process 
IFR Requirement: 
 201.6 (c) (4) (i) Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan (1 of 3) 

Does the plan describe the method, schedule, and responsible agency for 
A. monitoring / 
B. evaluating / 
C. updating 
the plan? 

responsible agency is implied but not specified 

monitoring versus evaluating definitions should be consistent with the Planning Guidance 

75 
Plan Maintenance Process 
IFR Requirement: 
 201.6 (c) (4) (ii) Implementation Through Existing Programs (2 of 3) 

A. Does the plan identify other local planning mechanisms available for 
incorporating the requirements of the mitigation plan? 
B. Does the plan include a process by which the local government will 
incorporate the requirements in other plans, when appropriate? 

how will the reviewer know if the community is accurately depicting the other
local planning mechanisms for incorporating the mitigation plan 
recommendations if none or only a few are identified in the plan 

76 
Plan Maintenance Process 
IFR Requirement:  201.6 (c) (4) (iii) Continued Public Involvement (3 of 3) 

A. Does the plan explain how continued public participation will be obtained? 

if earlier documentation suggests that public participation efforts were not 
successful during the plan, is that acknowledged in proposed continued
public participation measures will work? 

77 
Small Group Working Session  Plan 
Maintenance Process 

This session covers the bottom of page 9 through page 10 of the Crosswalk. 

The end product is a completed plan review of the Plan Maintenance 
Process for the City of Darwin, Iowa plan. 

78 
Small Group Results 
Plan Maintenance Process 

Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Group 5	Group 6	Group 7	Group 8	Group 9	Group 10

Element	
 201.6 (c) (4) (i)  Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan
A. Method and schedule for monitoring the plan
B. Method and schedule for evaluating the plan
C. Method and schedule for updating the plan within a 5 year cycle	

 201.6 (c) (4) (ii) Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
A. Other planning mechanisms for incorporating the requirements of the mitigation plan identified

 201.6 (c) (4) (iii) Continued Public Involvement
A. Continued public involvement explained	

Implementation

Priorities
1. Continue sanitary sewer maintenance program. (Continuing)
2. Improve public awareness of tornado and high wind risks, safe rooms, safe zones around homes, and
NOAA weather radio warning system. (Short-term)
3. Provide NOAA weather radio receivers at reduced cost (Short-term)
4. Continue to enforce Tree Trimming ordinance to reduce damages from trees and tree branches
damaged during ice storms or by heavy winds. (Continuing)
5. Continue to enforce Snow Removal ordinances to ensure streets are cleared promptly and provide
emergency access to residents. (Continuing)
6. Continue to enforce Burn restrictions-Water Conservation policies to reduce the threat of fire during
period of localized drought and to ensure an adequate water supply. (Continuing)
7. Increase public awareness of hazardous household materials by supplementing County program.
(Continuing)
8. Support LEPC and County Emergency Management hazardous materials preparedness, response,
and recovery efforts. (Continuing)

Phasing
Phasing is a budgetary responsibility of the City Council who will review the projects annually. For
projects that require a local match commitment, the Council should begin setting aside appropriate
resources to meet their match liability.

Integration into other planning mechanisms
The community does not have a comprehensive plan. The City uses the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances to guide development within the City. The Zoning Administrator, Planning & Zoning
Commission, and Board of Adjustments review and oversee zoning throughout the city. The Mayor
and Council monitor development and the effectiveness of ordinances and will continue to do so
following adoption of the Mitigation Plan. These activities will be incorporated into the Plan Evaluation
and Review Process.

Responsibility
The Council and their designees are responsible for implementing, reviewing, evaluating and
updating the plan.

Review Schedule
Progress will be reviewed and evaluated on an annual basis. Plan will be reviewed annually and
updated as needed.

Evaluation And Review Process
The Planning Committee (Mayor, City Council, City Clerk, and Public Works Supervisor) will review
and evaluate progress on the Mitigation Plan. The City Clerk will invite the director of the City
Economic Development Committee to participate as member of the Planning Committee's and/or to
review the Plan and provide comments.

MITIGATION PLAN EVALUATION
Mitigation Recommendation Number: ________
Annual Review
September 2003__________ 
September 2004__________ 
September 2005__________
September 2006__________
September 2007__________

Statement of Progress:

Community Profile, Hazard, Risk Assessment Evaluation/Changes:

Finding  Recommendation:

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION VII
Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa
March 31, 2004 Version 19

PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS
Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan
Requirement 201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and
updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.

Element
A. Does the plan describe the method and schedule for
monitoring the plan? (For example, does it identify
the party responsible for monitoring and include a
schedule for reports, site visits, phone calls, and
meetings?)

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Mitigation Goals
and Alternatives
P. 11, 12

Reviewers Comments 
Although the plan indicates that it will be reviewed on an
annual basis, it is not clear that this review will include
monitoring of mitigation actions. Review of the plan is not
necessarily the same as monitoring of the plan.
Required Revisions:
* Include a description of the method and schedule to monitor
the plan. Include in the description the party(s)/agency(s)
responsible for ensuring that the monitoring process is
accomplished, and how and when the plan will be
monitored.
Recommended Revisions:
* Monitoring may include periodic reports by agencies
involved in implementing actions; parameters to measure
the progress of the actions; and action completion dates.
For guidance on monitoring the plan, see Bringing the Plan to
Life (FEMA 386-4), Step 2.
SCORE -N

Element
B. Does the plan describe the method and schedule for
evaluating the plan? (For example, does it identify the
party responsible for evaluating the plan and include
the criteria used to evaluate the plan?)

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Mitigation Goals
and Alternatives
P. 11, 12

Reviewers Comments 
Recommended Revisions:
* The evaluation should assess whether goals and objectives
address current and expected conditions; nature or
magnitude of risks has changed; current resources are
appropriate for implementing the plan; outcomes have
occurred as expected; and agencies and other partners
participated as originally proposed.
For guidance on evaluating the plan, see Bringing the Plan to
Life (FEMA 386-4), Step 3.
SCORE -S

Element
C. Does the plan describe the method and schedule for
updating the plan within the five-year cycle?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Mitigation Goals
and Alternatives
P. 11 

Reviewers Comments 
The plan calls for annual reviews and updating as needed 
which the reviewer accepts as meeting the requirement for a 
five-year cycle update.
Recommended Revisions:
* Allow ample time for the review and adoption process to
ensure the plan is adopted within the five-year cycle.
For guidance on updating the plan, see Bringing the Plan to
Life (FEMA 386-4), Step 4.
SCORE -S
SUMMARY SCORE N

Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms

Requirement 201.6(c)(4)(ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other
planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate.

Element
A. Does the plan identify other local planning mechanisms
available for incorporating the requirements of the
mitigation plan?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Mitigation Goals
and Alternatives
P. 11

Reviewers Comments 
Recommended Revisions:
* Prepare a matrix showing the range of other planning
mechanisms and identify which apply to each action.
For more information on integrating hazard mitigation activities
in other initiatives, see Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4),
Step 2.
SCORE -S

Element
B. Does the plan include a process by which the local
government will incorporate the requirements in other
plans, when appropriate?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Mitigation Goals
and Alternatives
P. 11

Reviewers Comments 
There is no explicit language to indicate that this plan will be
incorporated into any of the cited other mechanisms.
Required Revisions:
* Describe the process to incorporate the mitigation plan
requirements into local planning mechanisms.
For more information on integrating hazard mitigation activities
in other initiatives, see Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4),
Step 2.
SCORE -N
SUMMARY SCORE -N

Continued Public Involvement

Requirement 201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the
plan maintenance process.

Element
A. Does the plan explain how continued public
participation will be obtained? (For example, will
there be public notices, an on-going mitigation plan
committee, or annual review meetings with
stakeholders?)

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Mitigation Goals
and Alternatives
P. 11

Reviewers Comments 
The plan does not provide information about how the public
and interested groups will be involved in the maintenance of
the plan.
Required Revisions:
* Describe public participation opportunities that the
community will have during the plans monitoring, evaluation,
and updates (e.g., soliciting input, holding meetings, posting
the proposed changes to the plan on the Web, etc.).
Recommended Revisions:
* Include a schedule for public participation opportunities, who
will be responsible for organizing events, who will maintain
the Web site, etc.
* Explain how and when public comments will be integrated
into the plan updates.
For more information on
keeping the public involved, see Getting Started (FEMA 386-
1), Step 3 and Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4), Steps 2
and 3.
SCORE -N
SUMMARY SCORE N

Matrix A: Profiling Hazards
This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure that their plan addresses each natural
hazard that can affect the jurisdiction. Completing the matrix is not required.
Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An
N for any element of any identified hazard will result in a Needs Improvement score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the
comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk.

Hazards Identified Per Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i)
[yes or no]

Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other

A. Location 
[N or S]
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other

B. Extent 
[N or S]
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other

C. Previous Occurrences
[N or S]
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other

D. Probability of Future Events Hazard Type
[N or S]
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other

Legend:
201.6(c)(2)(i) Profiling Hazards
A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., geographic area affected) of each hazard addressed in the plan?
B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the plan?
C. Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each natural hazard addressed in the plan?
D. Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the plan?

Matrix B: Assessing Vulnerability
This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure that their plan addresses each
requirement. Completing the matrix is not required.
Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An
N for any element of any identified hazard will result in a Needs Improvement score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the
comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk.
Note: Receiving an N in the columns in brackets will not preclude the plan from passing.

Hazards Identified Per Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i)
[yes or no]
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other

201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview

A. Overall
Summary
Description of
Vulnerability
[N or S]
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other

B. Hazard
Impact
[N or S]
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other

{201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures}

A. Types and
Number of
Existing
Structures in
Hazard Area
(Estimate)
[N or S]
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other

B. Types and
Number of
Future
Structures in
Hazard Area
(Estimate)
[N or S]
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other

{201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses}

A. Loss Estimate 
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other

B. Methodology Hazard Type
[N or S]
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other

Legend:
201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview
A. Does the plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdictions vulnerability to
each hazard?
B. Does the plan address the impact of each hazard on the jurisdiction?

{201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A) Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures
A. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings,
infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?
B. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future buildings,
infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?}

{201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses
A. Does the plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures?
B. Does the plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate?}

Matrix C: Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions
This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure consideration of a range of actions for
each hazard. Completing the matrix is not required.
Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An
N for any identified hazard will result in a Needs Improvement score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments section
of the Plan Review Crosswalk.

Hazards Identified Per Requirement 201.6(c)(2)(i)
[yes or no]
avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other

A. Comprehensive
Range of Actions
and Projects Hazard Type
[N or S]
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other

Legend:
201.6(c)(3)(ii) Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions
A. Does the plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard?

79 
Unit 6: Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Reviews 

80 
Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Reviews 

Key Words and Issues 
multi-jurisdictional plans take many forms  from true regional plans 
with global priorities to collections of what are essentially all local 
level plans 

 participation can be met through adoption only if all opportunities 
are available and the adopting communit(ies) are not coerced 

Available Resources 
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance 

81 
Unit 7: State and Tribal Plan Reviews 

82 
State and Tribal Plan Reviews 

Key Words and Issues 
Timing is off for integration of local and state planning efforts (for this round 

enhanced plans do not mean bigger and better standard plans 

enhanced state program certification process 
tribal governments can submit as local, state or both 

Available Resources 
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance 

83 
Unit 8: 
Manmade Hazard Mitigation Planning 

84 
Manmade Hazard Mitigation Planning 

Key Words and Issues 
manmade hazards are not included (for now) as primary hazards but
often need to be accounted for as a secondary effect of natural 
hazard events (e.g., the nuclear reactor on the earthquake fault 
line or the refinery in the floodplain) 

Available Resources 
How-to #7 

FEMA Antiterrorism website 

85 
Unit 8: 
Manmade Hazard Considerations 

Required? No. 

Recommended? Maybe 
* Where might manmade hazards show up in plans? 

Local expectations 
* Value of awareness 

86 
Manmade Hazard Considerations 

Technical assistance 
* In-house 
* FEMA guidance 

http://www.fema.gov/fima/antiterrorism 
http://www.fema.gov/fima/rmsp.shtm 

87 
Manmade Hazard Considerations 
[picture of How-To #7,
pp. 2-5 and 2-6 
and
pp. 3-4 and 3-5 ]

88 
Manmade Hazard Considerations 

Information sensitivity 
[picture of Interagency OPSEC Support Staff Web page]
* Legal aspects 
* Public Participation 
* Handling practices 
* Reality check 
http://www.ioss.gov 

89 
Unit 9: Odds and Ends 

90 
Odds and Ends 

Questions regarding situations the Region staff have already 
encountered (regional differences? confidentiality?, capability 
assessments?) 

Techniques for consistency in plan reviews 

the buddy system 

individuals filling consistent roles (one person reviews all the 
planning process sections, etc.) 

support via FEMA HQ such as FAQs 

NEMIS and the Plan Repository 
Final Rule development and the contributions plan reviewers can 
make 

91 
Odds and Ends 

What happens after November 1, 2004? in terms of: 

monitoring implementation of the plans recommendations 
(including addressing data deficiencies) 

references to plans in post-disaster situations where the plans have 
been changed and/or updated but not resubmitted to FEMA 

updating plans during and/or at the end of the regulatory time limits 
(3 years for States and 5 years for local communities 

Planning Guidance versus Interim Criteria: can both be used or has 
the Planning Guidance superceded and completely replaced the 
Interim Criteria? 

92 
Unit 10: Exercise  Plan Review 
Comments and Plan Revisions 

93 
Exercise  Plan Review Comments 
and Plan Revisions 

This exercise involves: 

reviewing a short excerpt of a plan; 

trading reviews with another group who will craft a response 
to your review (in the form of a revised plan excerpt) while your 
group responds to their comments; and 

returning the revised plan excerpts so both groups can see if 
their review comments yielded the desired results 

94 
Plan Review Comments 
Rules of Thumb: 
1. When you score an element with an N, make sure you have 
clearly articulated the deficiency. Although you will provide a 
description of Required Revisions, this initial statement can 
unambiguously focus both you and the community on the 
specific issues to be addressed. 

95 
Plan Review Comments 

For example: 
Under  201.6 (c) (2) (ii) (A) Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying 
Structures, the Element says: 

A. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types 
and numbers of existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical 
facilities located in the identified hazard areas? 

96 
Plan Review Comments 

In reviewing this element for the Darwin plan, one group wrote: 

Reviewer: Each individual hazard discussion provides an 
assessment of vulnerability to existing structures in the 
affected area. 

and then scored the Element with an N. 

If I am the local planner, how am I supposed to revise my plan 
to change the N to an S? 

97 
Plan Review Comments 
Rules of Thumb: 

2. When you write either Required and Recommended 
Revisions, make sure it is clear what you want the 
community to do to either fix the actual deficiency (Required) 
or to attain a better planning product (Recommended). 

To an extent, these statements can be mirror images of the 
statements regarding the deficiency. However, avoid asking 
questions that do not lead to an actual revision of the plan. 

98 
Plan Review Comments 

For example: 
Under the  201.6 (c) (2) (ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview,
second Element says: 

B. Does the plan address the impact of each hazard on the jurisdiction? 

99 
Plan Review Comments 

In reviewing this element for the Darwin plan, one group wrote 
(under Recommended Revisions): 

Reviewer: The discussion for tornado/extreme wind includes a 
discussion of the Community Center, housing, City Hall and 
the EOC. This is the only section where the discussion of 
impacts to a critical facility is included. 

Is tornado the only disaster potentially taking the EOC out of 
service? And what are the impacts of eliminating essential 
services for an extended period of time? 

100 
Plan Review Comments 

The response to these recommended revisions could be as follows: 

Reviewer: Is tornado the only disaster potentially taking the 
EOC out of service? 

Community: No. 

Reviewer: And what are the impacts of eliminating essential 
services for an extended period of time? 

Community: Undesirable. 

101 
Plan Review Comments 

One way these comments could have resulted in a better response is: 

Reviewer: Is tornado the only disaster potentially taking the EOC out 
of service? If there are other disasters that could affect the EOC or 
other critical facilities, you should identify them in the plan. 

Reviewer: And what are the impacts of eliminating essential services 
for an extended period of time? You should state these impacts in
terms of numbers of people potentially directly affected by property 
losses, the amount of business revenue (and related tax revenues) 
that could be lost on a daily basis in the affected areas, etc. 

102 
Plan Review Comments 

Rules of Thumb: 

3. When you want to mix Required and Recommended 
Revisions, segregate the statements you are making about 
the deficiencies and your desires. Some are directly 
related to the Rule and some are a result of what you would 
like them to do over and above the minimum. 

103 
Plan Review Comments 

It can work to show comments as follows (for an Element that gets an 
 N score): 

Statement of what is actually deficient in the plan relative to the Rule  
only identify the issues that are keeping the plan from getting an  N. 

Required Revisions 
Statement of what is needed to address the deficiencies. 

Recommended Revisions 
Statement of what else you would have liked to have seen. 
Statement of what you are recommending the community consider as
additional improvements to the plan. 

104 
Plan Review Comments 

This type of format for the Recommended Revisions can also 
work for Elements that get an S but did not reach the 
heights, i.e., 

Recommended Revisions 

Statement of what else you would have liked to have seen 
(which can be proceeded with a pat on the back for what 
they did to deserve the S). 

Statement of what you are recommending the community 
consider as additional improvements to the plan. 

105 
Plan Review Comments 

Rules of Thumb: 

4. When you write Recommended Revisions, regardless if it is 
for an N or an S element, it would be helpful to the 
community to get a sense of your expectation regarding 
when it would be appropriate to make this type of revision, 
i.e., do you think it is best to undertake this type of revision 
as part of the current planning cycle or during the next five 
year planning cycle. 

106 
Plan Review Comments 

Rule of Pinkie: 

5. Use Whole Sentences. 

It is not always clear what is meant by sentence fragments. 

For example, does the following statement belong to an N 
or an S score: 

Reviewer: Community participation in the identification of 
hazards. 

107 
Unit 11: Course Summary 

108 
Course Summary 

Course Review 

Feedback 

UNIT 10 - EXERCISE A

A. Read the following plan excerpt and provide review comments for compliance with:
Requirement 201.6(c)(4)(ii), Element A:
Does the plan identify other local planning mechanisms available for
incorporating the requirements of the mitigation plan?
Requirement 201.6(c)(4)(ii), Element B:
Does the plan include a process by which the local government will
incorporate the requirements in other plans, when appropriate?
B. Provide review comments for required revisions as well as for recommended revisions.
C. Exchange review comments with Group B.
D. Read the review comments provided by Group B and revise the excerpt in direct response to
the comments using track changes.
E. Exchange revised excerpts with Group B for final review and discussion.

Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
The County currently uses comprehensive land use planning, capital improvement planning,
and building codes to guide development within the County. The Zoning Administrator and the
Planning and Zoning Commission review and oversee zoning throughout the County.
After the County officially adopts the Hazard Mitigation Plan, these existing planning
mechanisms will have hazard mitigation strategies incorporated into them. This will be done to
increase mitigation opportunities in the County.

UNIT 10 - EXERCISE A  CROSSWALK

Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
Requirement 201.6(c)(4)(ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other
planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate.
Element
A. Does the plan identify other local planning mechanisms
available for incorporating the requirements of the
mitigation plan?
Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Reviewers Comments 
SCORE [N or S]

Element
B. Does the plan include a process by which the local
government will incorporate the requirements in other
plans, when appropriate?
Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Reviewers Comments 
SCORE [N or S]
SUMMARY SCORE

UNIT 10 - EXERCISE A  SAMPLE CROSSWALK

Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
Requirement 201.6(c)(4)(ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other
planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate.

Element
A. Does the plan identify other local planning mechanisms
available for incorporating the requirements of the
mitigation plan?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) 

Reviewers Comments 
The plan does identify planning mechanisms available for
incorporating mitigation strategies 
SCORE S

Element
B. Does the plan include a process by which the local
government will incorporate the requirements in other
plans, when appropriate?

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) 

Reviewers Comments 
Although the plan states that the County will incorporate
mitigation strategies through the identified planning
mechanisms, it does not describe the process to do so.
Required Revisions:
* Describe the process to incorporate the mitigation plan
requirements into local planning mechanisms.
For more information on integrating hazard mitigation activities
in other initiatives, see Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4),
Step 2.
SCORE -N
SUMMARY SCORE -N

UNIT 10 - EXERCISE A  SAMPLE REVISIONS

Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
The County currently uses comprehensive land use planning, capital improvement planning,
and building codes to guide development within the County. The Zoning Administrator and the
Planning and Zoning Commission review and oversee zoning throughout the County.

After adoption of the Hazard Mitigation Program (HMP), the County will work with the local
municipalities to identify mitigation strategies that can be implemented through their
comprehensive plans and land use regulations. The County will conduct periodic reviews of
their comprehensive plans and land use policies, and will provide technical assistance for the
implementation of mitigation strategies, zoning activities, and building codes enforcement.
The County will also work with the Building and Safety Officers to ensure that construction
standards, addressing high priority hazards, are adopted and implemented. Future capital
improvement activities will be closely monitored to ensure that high hazard areas are properly
mitigated in accordance to the HMP goals.
The evaluation of the HMP will also serve as a tool to determine the effectiveness of
implementing mitigation actions through established planning mechanisms.

UNIT 10 - EXERCISE B

A. Read the following plan excerpt and provide review comments for compliance with:
Requirement 201.6(c)(4)(i), Element A:
Does the plan describe the method and schedule for monitoring the
plan? (For example, does it identify the party responsible for
monitoring and include a schedule for reports, site visits, phone calls,
and meetings?)
Requirement 201.6(c)(4)(i), Element B:
Does the plan describe the method and schedule for evaluating the
plan? (For example, does it identify the party responsible for
evaluating the plan and include the criteria used to evaluate the plan?)
B. Provide review comments for required revisions as well as for recommended revisions.
C. Exchange review comments with Group A.
D. Read the review comments provided by Group A and revise the excerpt in direct response to
the comments using track changes.
E. Exchange revised excerpts with Group A for final review and discussion.

Monitoring and Evaluating the Plan
The Hazard Mitigation Committee with support and recommendations from the Citys planning
staff will establish a method for monitoring and evaluating the plan on a yearly basis. The City
will evaluate the effectiveness of the programs and reflect changes in land development or
programs that may affect mitigation priorities. The monitoring schedule includes a timeline and
identifies local agencies that will monitor the actions.
The City will review the goals and actions to determine their relevance to changing conditions
and to ensure that they are addressing current and expected hazard conditions. The plans risk
assessment section will be updated as new information is available and the goals and actions
sections will be reviewed and updated to reflect completed actions.

UNIT 10 - EXERCISE B  CROSSWALK

PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS
Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan
Requirement 201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and
updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.

Element
A. Does the plan describe the method and schedule for
monitoring the plan? (For example, does it identify
the party responsible for monitoring and include a
schedule for reports, site visits, phone calls, and
meetings?)
Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Reviewers Comments 
SCORE [N or S]

Element
B. Does the plan describe the method and schedule for
evaluating the plan? (For example, does it identify the
party responsible for evaluating the plan and include
the criteria used to evaluate the plan?)
Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)
Reviewers Comments 
SCORE [N or S]
SUMMARY SCORE[N or S]

UNIT 10 - EXERCISE B  SAMPLE CROSSWALK

PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS
Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan
Requirement 201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and
updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.
Element
A. Does the plan describe the method and schedule for
monitoring the plan? (For example, does it identify
the party responsible for monitoring and include a
schedule for reports, site visits, phone calls, and
meetings?)

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)

Reviewers Comments 
The plan does not make a clear distinction between monitoring
and evaluating the plan. Although related, monitoring the
progress of the mitigation actions is not the same as evaluating
the effectiveness of the plan. See Bringing the Plan to Life
(FEMA 386-4), Step 2 and 3.
There is no description of the method that will be followed to
monitor the plan.
Although there is a statement about the schedule for monitoring
the actions, it is not clear what this schedule is.
The plan states that the Hazard Mitigation Committee (HMC)
with the Citys planning staff will establish a method for
monitoring the plan, and that local agencies will monitor
actions. However, It is not clear what agencies will be
responsible for monitoring the plan and what the HMCs role is.
Required Revisions:
* Include a description of the method and a schedule to
monitor the plan. Include in the description the
parties/agencies responsible for ensuring that the monitoring
process is accomplished, and how and when the plan will be
monitored.
Recommended Revisions:
* Monitoring may include periodic reports by agencies
involved in implementing actions; parameters to measure
the progress of the actions; and projected date of
completion.
For guidance on monitoring the plan, see Bringing the Plan to
Life (FEMA 386-4), Step 2.
SCORE -N

Element
B. Does the plan describe the method and schedule for
evaluating the plan? (For example, does it identify the
party responsible for evaluating the plan and include
the criteria used to evaluate the plan?)

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)

Reviewers Comments 
The plan briefly describes how the City will evaluate the plan,
including the effectiveness of the programs changes in land
development and mitigation programs, goal and actions to
determine changing conditions and ensure that it addressed
current and expected hazard conditions, etc. However, the
plan does not provide a schedule for these activities.
It is also not clear which agencies will be responsible for
evaluating the plan.
Required Revisions:
* Describe the schedule to evaluate the plan. Include in the
description the parties/agencies responsible for evaluating
the plan, and how and when the plan will be evaluated.
For guidance on evaluating the plan, see Bringing the Plan to
Life (FEMA 386-4), Step 3.
SCORE -N
SUMMARY SCORE  -N

UNIT 10 - EXERCISE B  SAMPLE REVISIONS

Monitoring and Evaluating the Plan
The Hazard Mitigation Committee (HMC) with support and recommendations from the Citys
planning staff has developed a method for monitoring and evaluating the plan on a
yearly basis. The monitoring schedule includes a timeline and identifies local agencies that will
monitor the actions. The agencies responsible for implementing the mitigation actions will
submit to the HMC a report on the progress of the actions on a quarterly basis. The report will
include information on any special circumstances affecting the implementation of the action,
such as, delays in the schedule, changes in the budget or scope of the action or changes in the
hazard conditions or mitigation priorities. If necessary, the HMC will hold special meeting to
address issues on site. Please refer to Appendix D titled Monitoring Schedule for reference on
the agencies involved in this process.
On a yearly basis, the HMC will evaluate the effectiveness of the programs and reflect
changes in land development or programs that may affect mitigation priorities. The information
provided in the implementation progress reports will be used for the evaluation of the plan.
Additional information will be collected on updates to planning regulations, documentation of
new hazard events, and new development in the City.

The HMC will review the goals and actions to determine their relevance to changing conditions
and to ensure that they are addressing current and expected hazard conditions. The plans risk
assessment section will be updated as new information is available and the goals and actions
sections will be reviewed and updated to reflect completed actions.