TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Plan Review – Reference Manual 

Mitigation Plan Review – Course E293 – NETC/EMI 

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 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Plan Review – Reference Manual 

Mitigation Plan Review – Course E293 – NETC/EMI 

Unit 10: Exercises 

Exercise 

Exercise Crosswalk 

Sample Crosswalk 

Sample Revisions 

Planning Guidance 

Review Crosswalk 

Sample Language 
1

Mitigation Plan Review

National Emergency Training Center

Emergency Management Institute

Course E293

2

Unit 1: Course Introduction
2

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.
3

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 predisaster 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.
4

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.
5

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 71⁄2 percent up to a maximum of 20 

percent of the total disaster declaration funding.
6

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.
7

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 (Í) ... 

... 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.
8

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.
9

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).
10

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
11

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 multijurisdictional 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)
12

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
13

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.
14

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.
15

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.
16

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 OF 2000 – FACT SHEET

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Plan Review – Reference Manual 

Mitigation Plan Review – Course E293 – NETC/EMI

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 71⁄2 percent up to a maximum of 20 percent of the total disaster 

declaration funding. 

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

à preparing and submitting a “standard plan” (preparing and submitting an “enhanced plan” is an 

option); 

à reviewing and updating the state mitigation plan every three years; 

à providing technical assistance and training to local governments to assist them in applying for 

HMGP grants; and 

à 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: 

à preparing and submitting a local plan; 

à monitoring projects; and 

à reviewing and updating the mitigation plan every five years. 
 LOCAL PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Plan Review – Reference Manual 

Mitigation Plan Review – Course E293 – NETC/EMI 

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. 
 R E F E R E N C E L I S T 

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Plan Review – Reference Manual 

Mitigation Plan Review – Course E293 – NETC/EMI 

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: 

9 Getting Started (FEMA 386-1) 

9 Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2) 

9 Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3) 

9 Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4) 

9 Integrating ManMade Hazards with Mitigation Planning 

(FEMA 386-7) 

(http://www.fema.gov/fima/planhowto.shtm) 

 
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

8844 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Parts 201 and 206

RIN 3067–AD22

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) 202–646–4536, 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,

202–646–3027, (facsimile) 202–646–

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 § 104 the

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, (DMA

2000) P.L. 106–390, 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 § 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

Nation’s 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 FEMA’s mitigation programs

in the President’s 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

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 8845

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

§ 323. The rule to implement § 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

8846 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

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

President’s 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 3067–0297.

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

OMB’s 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

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 8847

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

State’s 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 No. of respondents

Hours per responseAnnual burden

hours

Update state or tribal mitigation plans (standard state mitigation plans) .................................... 18 320 5,760

State review of local plans .......................................................................................................... 500 local

plans

8 4,000

States develop Enhanced State Mitigation Plans ....................................................................... 7 100 700

Local or tribal governments develop mitigation plans ................................................................. 500 local

plans

300 150,000

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 agency’s 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) 646–3347 (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 § 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

8848 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

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 § 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 104–121.

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 foreignbased enterprises. This final rule is

subject to the information collection

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act, and OMB has assigned

Control No. 3067–0297. The rule is not

an unfunded Federal mandate within

the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104–4,

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 recordkeeping

requirements.

Accordingly, Amend 44 CFR,

Subchapter D—Disaster Assistance, as

follows:

1. Add Part 201 to read as follows:

PART 201—MITIGATION 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. 5121–5206; 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.

§ 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.

§ 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

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 8849

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

93–288, 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.

§ 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 § 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

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 201.6(d).

(d) Local governments. The key

responsibilities of local governments are

to:

(1) Prepare and adopt a jurisdictionwide natural hazard mitigation plan as

a condition of receiving project grant

funds under the HMGP, in accordance

with § 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.

§ 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 State’s

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

State’s 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

8850 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

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 State’s 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 State’s preand 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.

§ 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 § 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 State’s

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 A–94,

Guidelines and Discount Rates for

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal

Programs, and to rank the measures

according to the State’s 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

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 8851

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.

§ 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans.

The local mitigation plan is the

representation of the jurisdiction’s

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 grant’s 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 jurisdiction’s

vulnerability to the hazards described in

paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This

description shall include an overall

summary of each hazard and its impact

on the community. 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

jurisdiction’s risks where they vary from

the risks facing the entire planning area.

(3) A mitigation strategy that provides

the jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing

the potential losses identified in the risk

assessment, based on existing

authorities, policies, programs and

resources, and its ability to expand on

and improve these existing tools. 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.

8852 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

(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 206—FEDERAL 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. 5121–5206; 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 M—Minimum Standards

Sec.

206.400 General.

206.401 Local standards.

206.402 Compliance.

§ 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.

§ 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).

§ 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 N—Hazard Mitigation Grant

Program

3. Revise § 206.431 to read as follows:

§ 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 § 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 § 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

§ 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 § 206.433.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 8853

Indian tribal governments acting as a

subgrantee are accountable to the State

grantee.

4. Revise § 206.432(b) to read as

follows:

§ 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 Director’s 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:

§ 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 grant’s 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 State’s 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 § 206.435(a) to read as

follows:

§ 206.435 Project identificaiton and

selection criteria.

(a) Identification. It is the State’s

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 § 206.436 to read as follows:

§ 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) Governor’s Authorized

Representative. The Governor’s

Authorized Representative serves as the

grant administrator for all funds

provided under the Hazard Mitigation

Grant Program. The Governor’s

Authorized Representative’s

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 (Governor’s

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 State’s

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 measure’s costeffectiveness and substantial risk

reduction, consistent with § 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 State’s 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

8854 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

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 H—Public Assistance

Eligibility

* * * * *

8. Revise § 206.220 to read as follows:

§ 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 G—Public Assistance

Project Administration, I—Public

Assistance Insurance Requirements, J—

Coastal Barrier Resources Act, and M—

Minimum Standards. Regulations under

44 CFR part 9—Floodplain Management

and 44 CFR part 10—Environmental

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:

§ 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. 02–4321 Filed 2–25–02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–05–P

MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING GUIDANCE

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Plan Review – Reference Manual 

Mitigation Plan Review – Course E293 – NETC/EMI 

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: 

9 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, 

9 Improve explanations of the plan requirements, 

9 Improve the sample plan text to illustrate distinctions between plan approaches that 

would and would not meet DMA 2000 requirements, 

9 Revise some of the “reviewer’s comments” on the sample plan text to track more closely 

with the rule requirements, and 

9 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: 

8 Change the requirements of the Interim Final Rule 

8 Establish new or additional planning requirements, or 

8 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. 
1

Comprehensive List of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) 

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. 
2

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 benefitcost 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 team’s and/or 

larger community’s 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 community’s analysis of the “comprehensive range of specific mitigation 

actions of projects being considered...” [44 CFR §201.6(c)(3)(ii)], that would be sufficient. 
3

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 workin-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 community’s 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: 
4

Scenario 1: Community A’s 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. 
5

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. 

FEMA’s environmental regulations at 44 CFR Part 10.7 discuss FEMA’s 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; 
6

(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 plan’s 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. 
1

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. 
2

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 (cont’d)

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
3

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?
4

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 

plan’s 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 community’s issues to the extent 

possible.
5

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 cont’d)

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”
6

43

Planning Process

IFR Requirement: § 201.6 (c) (1) Documentation of Planning Process (1 / 1 cont’d)

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.
7

45

Small Group Results

Prerequisites and Planning Process

E. How existing plans, studies, reports 

and technical information were reviewed 

and incorporated in the plan (if 

appropriate) 

D. How neighboring communities, 

agencies, businesses, academia, 

nonprofits, other interested parties had 

the opportunity to be involved in the 

process

C. How the public was involved

B. Who was involved in the planning 

process

A. Description of the process followed to 

prepare the plan

§201.6 (c) (1) Documentation of Planning Process

B. Supporting documentation

A. Adoption

§201.6 (c) (5) Adoption by the Local Governing Body

Group 

10

Group 

9

Group 

8

Group 

7

Group 

6

Group 

5

Group 

4

Group 

3

Group 

2

Group 

Element 1
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 
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 workto-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 1 

Iowa Map 

County Map 

Township Map 

History 2 

Transportation 2 

Climate 3 

Population Profile 3 

Housing Profile 4 

Housing Occupancy 

Housing Characteristics 

Education 7 

Economic Profile 8 

Business and Industry Profile 11 

Community Services 11 

Water System 

Sanitary Sewer System 

Emergency Services 

Utilities 

Medical Services 

Critical Facilities 

Other Plans 

Major Rivers/Watersheds 14 
1

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. 

STATE OF IOWA 

BEAGLE COUNTY 

CITY OF DARWIN 
2

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. 
3

Climate 

Average Monthly Temperatures 

Month Avg. 

High 

Avg. 

Low Mean Avg. Precip. 

Record 

High Record Low 

Jan 27°F 8°F 17°F 1.20 in. 60°F (1956) -34°F (1974) 

Feb 33°F 13°F 23°F 1.28 in. 74°F (1930) -35°F (1996) 

Mar 46°F 24°F 35°F 2.40 in. 90°F (1910) -17°F (1962) 

Apr 59°F 34°F 47°F 3.58 in. 92°F (1980) 1°F (1982) 

May 70°F 45°F 58°F 4.31 in. 98°F (1925) 22°F (1907) 

Jun 80°F 56°F 68°F 4.64 in. 102°F (1911) 35°F (1993) 

Jul 84°F 61°F 73°F 4.09 in. 106°F (1911) 29°F (1920) 

Aug 82°F 58°F 70°F 4.41 in. 107°F (1930) 36°F (1950) 

Sep 75°F 49°F 62°F 3.55 in. 101°F (1925) 21°F (1984) 

Oct 63°F 37°F 50°F 2.73 in. 95°F (1963) 2°F (1925) 

Nov 46°F 25°F 36°F 2.41 in. 82°F (1968) -15°F (1976) 

Dec 32°F 14°F 23°F 1.47 in. 69°F (1998) -32°F (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 

Subject Number Percent

 Total Population 904 100.0

SEX AND AGE 

Male 439 48.6

Female 465 51.4

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 (X)
4

Subject Number Percent

18 years and over 646 71.5

 Male 312 34.5

 Female 334 36.9

65 years and over 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 (X)

Average family size 3.03 (X)

(x) Not Applicable 

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. 
5

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 

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
6

Subject Number Percent

Median (rooms) 6.0 (X)

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 (X)

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 (X)

Not mortgaged 144 52.4

 Median (dollars) 278 (X)

 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 (X)
7

Subject Number Percent

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

(x) Not Applicable 

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 

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 
8

Education Attainment. 

Of the 580 residents over 25, 77.1% have attained a high school diploma or higher and 12.9% have 

attained a bachelor’s degree or higher. The following summarized the 2000 census data: 

Education Attainment 

 

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 

Bachelor’s degree 51 8.6 

Graduate or professional degree 24 4.1 

 

Percent high school graduate or higher 77.1 (X) 

Percent bachelor’s degree or higher 12.9 (X) 

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: 

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 (X)

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
9

Subject Number Percent

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 (X)

 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
10

Subject Number Percent

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 (X)

With earnings 262 77.5

 Mean earnings (dollars) 50,963 (X)

With Social Security income 123 36.4

 Mean Social Security income (dollars) 12,854 (X)

With Supplemental Security Income 10 3.0

 Mean Supplemental Security Income (dollars) 5,910 (X)

With public assistance income 6 1.8

 Mean public assistance income (dollars) 300 (X)

With retirement income 45 13.3

 Mean retirement income (dollars) 10,913 (X)

 Families 267 100.0

Median family income (dollars) 54,018 (X)

Per capita income (dollars) 19,506 (X)

Median earnings (dollars): 

Male full-time, year-round workers 36,563 (X)

Female full-time, year-round workers 25,446 (X)
11

Subject Number Percent

POVERTY STATUS IN 1999 (below poverty level) 

 Families 3 (X)

 Percent below poverty level (X) 1.1

 Families with female householder, no husband present 2 (X)

 Percent below poverty level (X) 14.3

 Individuals 17 (X)

 Percent below poverty level (X) 1.9

 18 years and over 15 (X)

 Percent below poverty level (X) 2.4

 65 years and over 4 (X)

 Percent below poverty level (X) 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. 
12

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. 
13

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: 

o City HaIl/Emergency Operations Center 

o Fire Station 

o Medical Clinics 

o City Maintenance Building 

o Emergency Shelters (School/Churches) 

Transportation systems: 

o State Highway 225 

Lifeline Utility systems: 

o Wastewater Treatment Plant 

o Water Plant 

o City Wells 

Vulnerable Population Centers: 

o School 

o Retirement Home 
14

Major Rivers/Watershed§

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. 

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. 
15

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. 

Beagle County Waterways Darwin 

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 

Aquifer Sq. Miles Rock Type 

Mississippian aquifers 619 Sandstone and carbonate-rock aquifers 

No Principal Aquifer 1245 N/A 
16

North Skunk Watershed

Rivers and Streams in this Watershed: 13

(provided by EPA’s 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 

Aquifer Square 

Miles Rock Type 

Mississippian aquifers 542 Sandstone and carbonate-rock aquifers 

No Principal Aquifer 321 N/A 
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 
BEAGLE COUNTY 

TOPOGRAPHY MAP 
DARWIN, IOWA 

TOPOGRAPHY MAP 
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. CityWells 

Transportation System: Highway 225 

Vulnerable populations 

9. Schools 

10. Retirement Home 
Table DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 

Geographic Area: Darwin city, Iowa 

[For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see text] 
Table DP-2. Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000 

Geographic Area: Darwin city, Iowa 

[Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see text] 
Table DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000 

Geographic Area: Darwin city, Iowa 

[Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see text] 
Table DP-4. Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000 

Geographic Area: Darwin city, Iowa 

[Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see text] 
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version Local Mitigation Plan Review and Approval Status 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa Title of Plan: Hazard Mitigation Plan Date of Plan: January 1Local 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 

NFI

Jurisdiction: Y N 1. City of Darwin, Iowa 

* Notes: Y = Participating N = Not Participating N/A = Not Mapped 
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 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 shaded in gray (recommended but not required) will not preclude the plan from passing. Reviewer’s comments must be provided for requirements receiving a “Needs Improvement” score. 

SCORING SYSTEMPlease check one of the following for each requirement. N – Needs Improvement: The plan does not meet the minimum for the requirement. 

Reviewer’s comments must be provided.

S – Satisfactory: The plan meets the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments are 

encouraged, but not required. 

Prerequisite(s) (Check Applicable Box) NOT MET MET Adoption by the Local Governing Body: §201.6(c)(5) OR 3

Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption: §201.6(c)(5) 

AND N/A N/A 

Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation: §201.6(a)(3) N/A N/A 

Planning Process N S Documentation of the Planning Process: §201.6(b) and §201.6(c)(1) 3Risk Assessment N S Identifying Hazards: §201.6(c)(2)(i) 3

Profiling Hazards: §201.6(c)(2)(i) 3Assessing Vulnerability: Overview: §201.6(c)(2)(ii) 3Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures: 

§201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A) 

3

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

3

Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends: §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C) 

3

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

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

Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions: §201.6(c)(3)(ii) Implementation of Mitigation Actions: §201.6(c)(3)(iii) Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions: §201.6(c)(3)(iv) 

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

Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms: §201.6(c)(4)(ii) Continued Public Involvement: §201.6(c)(4)(iii) 

Additional State Requirements* Insert State Requirement 

Insert State Requirement Insert State Requirement LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN APPROVAL STATU

PL

*States that have additional requirements can add the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance or 

this Plan Review Crosswalk to record the score foSee Reviewer’s Comments
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

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 ado

the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council).

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Has the local governing body adopted the plan? Inside Cover B. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, 

included? 

Not in the Plan No copy was found in the plan. 

Required Revisions: • Include a copy of the formal resolution in the plaFor more information about adopting the mitigation Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4), Step 1.

SUMM

Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption Requirement §201.6(c)(5): For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document tha

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

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 resolution, 

included for each participating jurisdiction? 

SUMM
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

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 

in the process ... Statewide plans will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional plans.

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan describe how each jurisdiction 

participated in the plan’s development? 

SUMM

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 pl(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 agen

regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the plann

(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 prep

process, and how the public was involved.

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan provide a narrative description of the 

process followed to prepare the plan? 

No Page Number 

Recommended Revisions:• Number the pages in this section of the plan (e

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 

No Page Number The plan indicates that a Hazard Mitigation Plann

Committee with sub-committees was formed, invorepresentation of various City agencies. Howevemention of the name of these agencies. 
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

information, reviewed drafts, etc.?) Required Revisions:

• Describe who was involved in the planning procRecommended Revisions:• Include in the description how each member co

the process. Describe who led the developmenat the staff level, whether there were external c(such as a contractor), and what other interestewere involved. 

For more information on identifying the stakeholdbuilding the planning team, see Getting Started (

Step 2. 

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?) 

No Page Number 

D. Was there an opportunity for neighboring jurisdictions, 

agencies, businesses, academia, nonprofits, and other interested parties to be involved in the planning process? 

No Page Number Although the plan states that a Public Information 

held with the participation of non-profit organizatiinstitutions, community development organizationnot clear which organizations were represented iand how they were involved in the process. The plan does not indicated whether or not oppogiven to neighboring communities to participate in Required Revisions: • Discuss how local, State and Federal agencies

jurisdictions, local businesses, community leadeducators, and other relevant private and nonpgroups participated in the plan development. 

Recommended Revisions:• Include the names of the organizations involved 

process. 

For more ideas on identifying stakeholders, enlistand choosing an appropriate public participation Getting Started (FEMA 386-1), Steps 2 and 3. 

E. Does the planning process describe the review and 

incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information? 

Not in the Plan The plan makes no reference to the review, analy

incorporation of existing documents consulted in development of the plan. 
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

Required Revisions:• Describe how the jurisdiction reviewed and int

information in the plan from existing plans, stuand technical documents.

SUMM
1

46

Unit 3: Local Plan Review – Risk 

Assessment

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.
2

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?
3

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?
4

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 

jurisdiction’s 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 cont’d)

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?
5

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
6

56

Risk Assessment

IFR Requirement [“should”]: 

§ 201.6 (c) (2) (ii) (B) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Loss (5/7 cont’d)

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?
7

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.
8

60

Small Group Results

Risk Assessment

B. Impact of each hazard on jurisdiction 

addressed

A. Overall summary of jurisdiction's 

vulnerability to each hazard

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

D. Probability of future hazard events 

included

C. Information on previous occurrences

B. Extent of hazards

A. Location of hazards

§ 201.6 (c) (2) (i) Profiling Hazards

A. Description of all natural hazards that 

affect 

§ 201.6 (c) (2) (i) Identifying Hazards

Group 

10

Group 

9

Group 

8

Group 

7

Group 

6

Group 

5

Group 

4

Group 

3

Group 

2

Group 

Element 1

61

Small Group Results

Risk Assessment (continued)

A. Description of land uses and 

development trends

§ 201.6 (c) (2) (ii) (C) Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends

B. Description of methodology used to 

prepare loss estimate

A. Estimate of potential dollar losses to 

vulnerable structures

§ 201.6 (c) (2) (ii) (B) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Loss

B. Description of types and number of 

future buildings et al

A. Description of types and number of 

existing buildings et al

§ 201.6 (c) (2) (ii) (A) Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures

Group 

10

Group 

9

Group 

8

Group 

7

Group 

6

Group 

5

Group 

4

Group 

3

Group 

2

Group 

Element 1
HAZARD ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT 

CONTENTS 

Introduction 1 

Flood 3 

Tornado/Extreme Wind 5 

Thunderstorm (Lightning and Hail) 9 

Winter Storm (Snow and Ice) 11 

Drought 13 

Earthquake 15 

Hazardous Materials 16 

Summary 18 

 Rankings 

 Ratings 

 Asset Inventory 
1

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 

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 
2

Probability – Likelihood of the hazard occurrence, sometimes without regard to hazard history 

Rating Likelihood 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 

Rating Magnitude 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 

Rating Magnitude 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 Likelihood Characteristics 

1-3 Negligible 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. 

3-5 Limited 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. 

5-7 Critical 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. 

7-9 Catastrophic 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. 

Rating 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. 
3

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-Iying 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. 
4

 The City monitors annexation and new developments and construction within the new 

developments. Any annexed areas would be incorporated into the City’s 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 City’s 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. 
5

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 windrelated 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 tornadoesoccur in thespring 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. 
6

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. 
7

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 Pearson Path Length Pearson Path Width 

--- 0 – 40 mph Less than 0.3 miles Less than 6 yards 

0 40 – 72 mph 0.3 – 0.9 miles 6 – 17 yards 

1 73 – 112 mph 1.0 – 3.1 miles 18 – 55 yards 

2 113 – 157 mph 3.2 – 9.9 miles 56 – 175 yards 

3 158 – 206 mph 10 – 31 miles 176 – 566 yards 

4 207 – 260 mph 32 – 99 miles 0.3 – 0.9 miles 

5 261 – 318 mph 100 – 315 miles 1.0 – 3.1 miles 
8

TORNADO- POTENTIAL IMPACT AND DAMAGE 

Managing Risk Fujita 

Scale Description of Damage 

F0 

Some damage can be seen to poorly maintained 

roofs. Unsecured lightweight objects, such as 

trashcans, are displaced. The threat to property and 

personal safety can be 

minimized through 

compliance with up-to-date 

model building codes and 

engineering standards. F1 

Minor damage to roofs and broken windows 

occur. Larger and heavier objects become 

displaced. Minor damage to trees and 

landscaping can be observed. 

F2 

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. 

Property and personal 

protection can be improved 

through wind hazard 

mitigation techniques not 

normally required by current 

building codes. 

F3 

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. 

F4 

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. 

Personal protection can 

only be achieved through 

use of a specially designed 

extreme wind refuge area, 

shelter, or safe room. 

F5 

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 
9

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 1⁄4 

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). 
10

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. 
11

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 cm 

(19.5- 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. 
12

 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. 
13

Natural Hazard: Drought 

Definition Drought: 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. 
14

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. 
15

Natural Hazard: Earthquake 

Definition Earthquake: 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. 
16

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 
17

 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 1⁄4 mile radius. The Committee estimated 

that 30% of the Community is within 1⁄4 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 oncall 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. 
18

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

SnowIce Tornado Wind HAZMAT Tstorm

Hail 

Tstorm 

Lightning Drought EarthQuake Flood 

Historical 8 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 3 

Probability 8 6 7 7 7 6 5 1 3 

Vulnerability 7 7 8 7 6 3 6 1 1 

Max Threat 7 6 8 5 7 4 6 1 1 

Severity 3 8 5 3 4 5 3 1 1 

Onset 5 8 7 8 5 5 1 9 2 

TOTAL 38 36 37 33 32 24 22 14 11 
19

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 Number of Structures Value of Structures Number of People 

Structure # in 

City 

# in 

Hazard 

Area 

% in 

Hazard 

Area 

$ in 

City 

$ in 

Hazard 

Area 

% in 

Hazard 

Area 

# in 

City 

# in 

Hazard 

Area 

% in 

Hazard 

Area 

Residential 362 362 100 

Commercial 60 60 100% 34,956,475 34,956,465 100 904 904 100 

Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Religious/ 

Non-Profit 3 3 100 

Government 3 3 100 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Education 2 2 100 764 764 764 

Utilities 3 3 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 1⁄4 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 2 

Beagle County Flood Events (47) 4 

Floodplain Management in Iowa 7 

Beagle County Floodplains 8 

National Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panels (FEMA) 9 

Beagle County Floodplain Map (Beagle County – USGS) 10 
APPENDIX B 

Page 2 of 10 

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. 
APPENDIX B 

Page 3 of 10 

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. 
APPENDIX B 

Page 4 of 10 

47 FLOOD EVENT(S) WERE REPORTED IN Beagle County, Iowa between Mag: Magnitude 

01/01/1950 and 06/30/2002. Dth: Deaths 

Inj: Injuries 

PrD: Property Damage 

CrD: Crop Damage 

Location or County Date Time Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD 

1 IAZ026>030 - 035>042 - 

045>054 - 056>064 - 070>079 -

080>099 -

03/02/1993 1200 Flooding N/A 0 0 50K 0 

2 IAZ002>011 - 013>054 - 

056>064 - 070>074 - 080>084 -

090>096

05/07/1993 1800 Flood N/A 0 0 5.0M 5.0M 

3 BEAGLE 08/11/1993 1900 Flash Flood N/A 0 0 50K 50K 

4 IAZ005>011 - 024>030 - 

036>042 - 049>054 - 061>064 -

075>078 - 086>089 - 098 - 099 -

08/14/1993 2400 Flood N/A 0 0 5.0M 5.0M 

5 IAZ002>005 - 013>015 - 

022>026 - 033>037 - 045>050 -

058>064 - 071>078 - 083 - 088 -

095>099

08/16/1993 0600 Flood N/A 0 0 5.0M 5.0M 

6 IAZ002>011 - 013>054 - 

056>064 - 070>078 - 080>099

08/29/1993 0300 Flood N/A 0 0 5.0M 5.0M 

7 All Of Iowa 09/01/1993 0000 Flood N/A 0 0 500K 500K 

8 IAZ034>040 - 046>052 - 

058>064 - 072>078 - 083>089 -

095>099

09/14/1993 0600 Flood N/A 0 0 500K 500K 

9 IAZ028>030 - 040>054 - 

056>064 - 070>078 - 080>099

09/25/1993 1400 Flood N/A 0 0 5.0M 5.0M 

10 Central And 10/01/1993 0000 Flooding N/A 0 0 50K 50K 

11 Central Iowa 10/09/1993 0600 Flooding N/A 0 0 5K 5K 

12 Much Of Iowa 02/19/1994 0600 Flooding N/A 0 0 500K 0 

13 IAZ001>099 06/22/1994 2330 Flooding N/A 0 0 500K 500K 

14 IAZ004>006 - 015 - 048>050 - 

061>064 - 074>078 - 082>089 -

094>099

04/10/1995 0900 Flooding N/A 0 0 10K 0 

15 IAZ004>006 - 015 - 035>037 - 

048>052 - 061>064 - 074>078 -

085>089 - 097>099

04/26/1995 1500 Flooding N/A 0 0 25K 0 

16 IAZ033 - 006 - 045>052 - 

057>068 - 070>078 - 081>089 -

092>099

05/07/1995 1200 Flooding N/A 0 0 200K 10K 

17 IAZ004>011 - 015>019 - 

023>030 - 035>042 - 047>054 -

060>068 - 074>078 - 084>089 -

095>099

06/06/1995 2300 Flood N/A 0 0 50K 100K 
APPENDIX B 

Page 5 of 10 

18 IAZ046>050 - 059>062 - 

074>075

02/09/1996 06:00 

AM 

Flood N/A 0 0 50K 0 

19 IAZ060>062 - 072>075 - 

081>086 - 092>097

05/19/1996 06:00 

AM 

Flood N/A 0 0 100K 50K 

20 Newton 05/09/1996 09:00 

PM 

Urban/sml 

Stream Fld 

N/A 0 0 50K 0 

21 IAZ057>062 - 070>075 - 

081>086 - 092>097

05/23/1996 03:00 

PM 

Flood N/A 0 0 250K 75K 

22 IAZ057>062 - 070>075 - 

081>086 - 092>097

05/26/1996 12:00 

PM 

Flood N/A 0 0 400K 100K 

23 IAZ029 - 033>039 - 045>050 - 

058>062 - 074>075

06/17/1996 03:00 

AM 

Flood N/A 0 0 500K 1.0M 

24 IAZ036 - 047>048 - 061 - 075 06/17/1996 04:00 

AM 

Flood N/A 0 0 1.0M 500K 

25 IAZ034>039 - 044>050 - 

057>062 - 070>075 - 081>086 -

092>097

02/18/1997 06:00 

PM 

Flood N/A 0 0 750K 0 

26 IAZ024>028 - 035>039 - 

048>049 - 061 - 075

06/21/1997 03:00 

PM 

Flood N/A 0 0 60K 100K 

27 IAZ061 - 074>075 - 083>084 - 

095>096

05/07/1998 01:00 

AM 

Flood N/A 0 0 175K 70K 

28 Colfax 05/19/1998 05:15 

PM 

Urban/sml 

Stream Fld 

N/A 0 0 30K 2K 

29 IAZ061 - 074>075 - 083>084 05/24/1998 06:00 

AM 

Flood N/A 0 0 125K 50K 

30 IAZ027 - 037 - 049>050 - 

059>061 - 074>075

06/08/1998 06:00 

PM 

Flood N/A 0 0 450K 90K 

31 Newton 06/14/1998 04:00 

PM 

Urban/sml 

Stream Fld 

N/A 0 0 50K 30K 

32 IAZ034 - 037 - 045>046 - 

048>050 - 057>061 - 070 -

074>075 - 083>084

06/14/1998 09:00 

AM 

Flood N/A 0 0 5.4M 655K 

33 IAZ023>024 - 027 - 035 - 037 -

047>050 - 059>061 - 072>075

06/18/1998 02:00 

AM 

Flood N/A 0 0 8.7M 460K 

34 IAZ016>017 - 027 - 037 -

049>050 - 061 - 074>075

06/21/1998 06:00 

AM 

Flood N/A 0 0 900K 180K 

35 Newton 06/29/1998 01:00 

PM 

Urban/sml 

Stream Fld 

N/A 0 0 50K 10K 

36 IAZ034 - 037>038 - 045>046 - 

049 - 058>062 - 073>075

084>086 - 095

07/06/1998 03:00 

AM 

Flood N/A 0 0 900K 1.8M 

37 Galesburg 02/26/1999 10:45 

PM 

Urban/sml 

Stream Fld 

N/A 0 0 1K 0 

38 IAZ004>006 - 016 - 023 -

025>027 - 033>037 - 071>073 -

048>049 - 058>061 - 071>073 -

075 - 083>086 - 095

04/06/1999 06:00 

PM 

Flood N/A 0 0 210K 0 
APPENDIX B 

Page 6 of 10 

39 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -

023>027 - 033>037 - 045>046 -

048>049 - 058>061 - 071>072 -

075 - 083>086 - 095

04/22/1999 06:00 

AM 

Flood N/A 0 0 370K 0 

40 IAZ004>006 - 016>017 -

023>028 - 035>039 - 045>046 -

048>049 - 058>061 - 072>075 -

083>085 - 095

05/16/1999 09:00 

PM 

Flood N/A 0 0 7.6M 875K 

41 IAZ004>006 - 016>017 -

023>028 - 035 - 037>039 -

045>046 - 048>049 - 058>061 -

071>075

05/21/1999 03:00 

PM 

Flood N/A 0 0 1.4M 280K 

42 IAZ004>007 - 016>017 -

023>028 - 033>039 - 045>049 -

057>062 - 074>075 - 083>084 -

094>095

06/09/1999 06:00 

AM 

Flood N/A 0 0 1.8M 2.7M 

43 IAZ026>027 - 038 - 061 -

074>075 - 083>086 - 094>095 -

097

06/24/2000 03:00 

AM 

Flood N/A 0 0 650K 975K 

44 IAZ046>050 - 057>062 -

023>028 - 033>039 - 044>050 -

057>062 - 070>075 - 081>086 -

092>097

03/15/2001 03:00 

PM 

Flood N/A 0 0 260K 0 

45 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -

023>028 - 033>039 - 044>050 -

057>062 - 070>075 - 081>086 -

092>097

03/23/2001 06:00 

PM 

Flood N/A 0 0 383K 0 

46 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -

023>026 - 033>038 - 045>046 -

048>049 - 059>061 - 073>075 -

083>086 - 094>095

06/12/2001 03:00 

PM 

Flood N/A 0 0 825K 1.7M 

47 IAZ061>062 - 074>075 06/13/2002 04:00 

PM 

Flood N/A 0 0 40K 80K 

TOTALS: 0 0 60.819M 33.947M
APPENDIX B 

Page 7 of 10 

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 State’s 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 community’s 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) 
APPENDIX B 

Page 8 of 10 

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) 
APPENDIX B 

Page 9 of 10 

BEAGLE COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MAP PANELS 
APPENDIX B 

Page 10 of 10 
APPENDIX C 

TORNADO-EXTREME WINDS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Tornado-Extreme Winds Overview 2 

Tornadoes in Iowa 3 

Tornado Risk – Wind Risk 6 

Tornado Activity – Wind Zones – Risk Table 7 

Fujita-Pearson Scale 8 

Tornado Events in Beagle County 9 

Knots to Miles Per hour Conversion Chart 10 

Thunderstorms and High Wind in Beagle County 11 
APPENDIX C 

Page 2 of 15 

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. 

o Proper anchoring of walls to foundations and roofs to walls 

o 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. 
APPENDIX C 

Page 3 of 15 

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. 
APPENDIX C 

Page 4 of 15 
APPENDIX C 

Page 5 of 15 

Number of tornadoes reported in Iowa’s 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 state’s 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 it’s closest to Oklahoma and Kansas, states 

that are in “Tornado Alley,” where heat and humidity generate the nation’s highest number of tornadoes. 
APPENDIX C 

Page 6 of 15 

TORNADO RISK MAPS 

Source: fema.gov Source: NOAA 

EXTREME WIND RISK MAPS 

Source: fema.gov Source: NOAA 
APPENDIX C 

Page 7 of 15 

Tornado Activity 

Wind Zones 

Risk Table 
APPENDIX C 

Page 8 of 15 

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. 

Scale Fujita Wind Speed Pearson Path Length Pearson Path Width 

--- 0 – 40 mph Less than 0.3 miles Less than 6 yards 

0 40 – 72 mph 0.3 – 0.9 miles 6 – 17 yards 

1 73 – 112 mph 1.0 – 3.1 miles 18 – 55 yards 

2 113 – 157 mph 3.2 – 9.9 miles 56 – 175 yards 

3 158 – 206 mph 10 – 31 miles 176 – 566 yards 

4 207 – 260 mph 32 – 99 miles 0.3 – 0.9 miles 

5 261 – 318 mph 100 – 315 miles 1.0 – 3.1 miles 

Source: Significant Tornadoes: 1680
APPENDIX C 

Page 9 of 15 

17 TORNADO(s) were reported in Beagle County, Iowa between Mag: Magnitude 

01/01/1950 and 10/31/2002. Dth: Deaths 

Inj: Injuries 

PrD: Property Damage 

CrD: Crop Damage 

Iowa 

Location or County Date Time Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD 

1 BEAGLE 08/26/1965 1858 Tornado F2 0 0 25K 0 

2 BEAGLE 10/14/1966 1432 Tornado F3 0 0 25K 0 

3 BEAGLE 03/30/1968 1900 Tornado F0 0 0 3K 0 

4 BEAGLE 04/03/1968 1600 Tornado F2 0 0 25K 0 

5 BEAGLE 06/04/1973 1435 Tornado F2 0 0 250K 0 

6 BEAGLE 09/16/1978 1935 Tornado F3 2 2 250K 0 

7 BEAGLE 08/19/1979 2032 Tornado F0 0 0 0K 0 

8 BEAGLE 08/26/1979 1730 Tornado F1 0 0 25K 0 

9 BEAGLE 05/08/1986 1600 Tornado F1 0 0 25K 0 

10 BEAGLE 09/28/1986 1648 Tornado F4 0 0 2.5M 0 

11 BEAGLE 05/08/1988 1104 Tornado F1 0 0 250K 0 

12 BEAGLE 06/13/1990 2333 Tornado F0 0 0 3K 0 

13 BEAGLE 06/16/1990 0607 Tornado F0 0 0 3K 0 

14 Baxter 05/12/1997 04:48 PM Tornado F0 0 0 0 0 

15 Kellogg 07/09/1998 05:05 PM Tornado F0 0 0 0 1K 

16 Prairie City 04/08/1999 04:46 PM Tornado F2 0 1 1.0M 0 

17 Colfax 04/11/2001 02:40 PM Tornado F1 0 0 10K 0 

TOTALS: 2 3 4.393M 500 
APPENDIX C 

Page 10 of 15 

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 

KTS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH 

0 0 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 

10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 

20 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 

30 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 

40 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 55 56 

50 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 66 67 68 

60 69 70 71 72 74 75 76 77 78 79 

70 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 89 90 91 

80 92 93 94 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 

90 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 112 113 114 

 

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 stilli n 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. 

Speed Force knots mph Land Conditions

0 <1 <1 Calm, smoke rises vertically 

1 1-3 1-3 Light air, direction of wind shown by smoke drift only 

2 4-6 4-7 Light breeze, wind felt on face, leaves rustle, vanes moved by wind 

3 7-10 8-12 Gentle breeze, leaves and small twigs in constant motion, wind extends light flag 

4 11-16 13-18 Moderate breeze, raises dust, loose paper, small branches move 

5 17-21 19-24 Fresh breeze, small trees in leaf begin to sway 

6 22-27 25-31 Strong breeze, large branches in motion, umbrellas used with difficulty 

7 28-33 32-38 Near gale, whole trees in motion, inconvenience felt walking against the wind 

8 34-40 39-46 Gale, breaks twings off trees, impedes progress 

9 41-47 47-54 Strong gale, slight structural damage occurs 

10 48-55 55-63 Storm, trees uprooted, considerable damage occurs 

11 56-63 64-73 Violent storm, widespread damage 

12 64+ 74+ Hurricane, extreme destruction 

 
APPENDIX C 

Page 11 of 15 

86 THUNDERSTORM & HIGH WIND event(s) were reported in Beagle Mag: Magnitude 

County, Iowa between 01/01/1950 and 06/30/2002. Dth: Deaths 

Inj: Injuries 

PrD: Property Damage 

Click on Location or County to display Details. CrD: Crop Damage 

Iowa 

Location or County Date Time Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD 

1 BEAGLE 07/08/1955 1100 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0 0 

2 BEAGLE 05/31/1958 1345 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0 0 

3 BEAGLE 09/26/1959 1000 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0 0 

4 BEAGLE 05/07/1962 1730 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0 0 

5 BEAGLE 07/05/1966 1710 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0 0 

6 BEAGLE 04/12/1970 1730 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0 0 

7 BEAGLE 05/13/1974 0630 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0 0 

8 BEAGLE 06/14/1974 1635 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0 0 

9 BEAGLE 06/22/1974 0300 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0 0 

10 BEAGLE 05/10/1979 1415 Tstm Wind 61 kts. 0 0 0 0 

11 BEAGLE 04/03/1981 1940 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0 0 

12 BEAGLE 04/03/1981 1940 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0 0 

13 BEAGLE 04/03/1981 2010 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0 0 

14 BEAGLE 07/02/1983 0220 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0 0 

15 BEAGLE 09/09/1984 1725 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0 0 

16 BEAGLE 10/16/1984 1604 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0 0 

17 BEAGLE 09/22/1985 2015 Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 0 0 

18 BEAGLE 07/28/1986 2140 Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 0 0 

19 BEAGLE 07/28/1986 2150 Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 0 0 

20 BEAGLE 08/14/1986 1715 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 

21 BEAGLE 08/14/1986 1732 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 

22 BEAGLE 05/24/1989 0030 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 

23 BEAGLE 07/10/1989 1955 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 

24 BEAGLE 08/05/1989 0845 Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 0 0 

25 BEAGLE 08/05/1989 0852 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 

26 BEAGLE 06/02/1990 1030 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0 0 

27 BEAGLE 06/02/1990 1041 Tstm Wind 56 kts. 0 0 0 0 

28 BEAGLE 03/22/1991 1730 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 

29 BEAGLE 09/12/1991 1450 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0 0 
APPENDIX C 

Page 12 of 15 

30 IAZ002>009 - 013>019 -

022>028 - 031>039 -

043>051 - 056>063 -

070>076 - 081>087 -

093>099 -

03/09/1993 2230 High Winds 0 kts. 0 0 500K 0 

31 All of Iowa 04/14/1994 2200 High Winds 0 kts. 0 0 500K 0 

32 Most of Iowa 04/26/1994 0900 High Winds 0 kts. 0 3 5.0M 0 

33 Newton 07/01/1994 0200 Tstm Winds N/A 0 0 5K 1K 

34 BEAGLE 08/03/1994 1300 Tstm Winds N/A 0 0 5K 50K 

35 IAZ001>068 - 070>078 -

083>089

11/18/1994 0230 High Winds 0 kts. 0 0 200K 0 

36 All Of Iowa 02/10/1995 0000 High Winds 0 kts. 0 0 100K 0 

37 IAZ004>011 - 015>019 -

023>030 - 033>042 -

044>054 - 057>068 -

070>078 - 081>089 -

092>099

04/03/1995 1300 High Winds 0 kts. 0 0 125K 0 

38 IAZ004>011 - 015>019 -

023>030 - 033>042 -

044>054 - 057>068 -

070>078 - 081>089 -

092>099

04/18/1995 0700 High Winds 0 kts. 0 0 500K 0 

39 Prairie City 07/04/1995 1714 Tstm Winds N/A 0 0 10K 2K 

40 Newton 07/04/1995 1730 Tstm Winds N/A 0 0 20K 1K 

41 Much Of Iowa 10/23/1995 1300 High Winds 0 kts. 0 0 100K 0 

42 IAZ004>011 - 015>019 -

023>029 - 033>039 -

044>050 - 057>062 -

070>075 - 081>086 -

092>097

01/17/1996 09:00 PM High Wind 55 kts. 0 0 250K 0 

43 IAZ004>011 - 015>019 -

023>029 - 033>039 -

044>050 - 057>062 -

070>075 - 081>086 -

092>097

02/10/1996 12:00 PM High Wind 56 kts. 0 0 350K 0 

44 IAZ004>011 - 015>019 -

023>029 - 033>039 -

044>050 - 057>062 -

070>075 - 081>086 -

092>097

03/24/1996 05:00 PM High Wind 54 kts. 0 0 300K 0 

45 IAZ004>011 - 015>019 -

023>029 - 033>039 -

044>050 - 057>062 -

070>075 - 081>086 -

092>097

04/25/1996 09:30 AM High Wind 59 kts. 0 0 750K 0 

46 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -

023>028 - 033>039 -

044>050 - 057>062 -

070>075 - 081>086 -

092>097

10/29/1994 11:00 AM High Wind 57 kts. 0 0 500K 100K 
APPENDIX C 

Page 13 of 15 

47 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -

023>028 - 033>039 -

044>050 - 057>062 -

070>075 - 081>086 -

092>097

04/06/1997 09:00 AM High Wind 55 kts. 0 0 1.8M 0 

48 IAZ049>050 - 061>062 -

074>075 - 084>086 -

095>097

04/30/1997 12:00 PM High Wind 52 kts. 0 0 100K 0 

49 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -

023>028 - 033>039 -

044>050 - 057>062

05/05/1997 12:30 PM High Wind 52 kts. 0 1 75K 0 

50 Newton 08/14/1997 11:36 PM Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 10K 0 

51 Colfax 08/15/1997 12:45 AM Tstm Wind 65 kts. 0 0 40K 10K 

52 Lynnville 08/16/1997 08:44 PM Tstm Wind 65 kts. 0 0 15K 3K 

53 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -

023>028 - 033>039 -

044>050 - 057>062 -

070>075 - 081>086 -

092>097

04/12/1998 08:00 AM High Wind 54 kts. 0 0 2.6M 0 

54 Newburg 06/11/1998 01:00 PM Tstm Wind 56 kts. 0 0 35K 2K 

55 Colfax 06/11/1998 12:38 PM Tstm Wind 65 kts. 0 0 15K 0 

56 Colfax 06/11/1998 12:45 PM Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 5K 0 

57 Baxter 06/11/1998 12:50 PM Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 3K 0 

58 Colfax 06/18/1998 01:10 PM Tstm Wind 61 kts. 0 0 40K 5K 

59 Newton 06/18/1998 01:39 PM Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 5K 0 

60 Monroe 06/18/1998 01:47 PM Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 3K 0 

61 Darwin 06/18/1998 02:00 PM Tstm Wind 65 kts. 0 0 75K 10K 

62 Newton 06/18/1998 11:00 AM Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0 0 3K 0 

63 Monroe 06/27/1998 11:15 PM Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 10K 0 

64 Colfax 06/29/1998 01:15 PM Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 3K 0 

65 Prairie City 06/29/1998 01:16 PM Tstm Wind 56 kts. 0 0 30K 2K 

66 Newton 06/29/1998 01:22 PM Tstm Wind 65 kts. 0 0 60K 5K 

67 Monroe 06/29/1998 01:30 PM Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 15K 0 

68 Lynnville 06/29/1998 12:42 PM Tstm Wind 56 kts. 0 0 40K 0 

69 Darwin 06/29/1998 12:46 PM Tstm Wind 70 kts. 0 0 120K 25K 

70 Colfax 07/06/1989 09:18 PM Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 3K 0 

71 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -

023>028 - 033>039 -

044>050 - 057>062 -

070>075 - 081>086 -

092>097

11/10/1998 02:00 AM High Wind 61 kts. 1 0 17.3M 260K 

72 IAZ028 - 038>039 -

049>050 - 061>062 -

072>075 - 081>086 -

092>097

03/08/2000 11:00 AM High Wind 52 kts. 0 0 230K 0 
APPENDIX C 

Page 14 of 15 

73 Colfax 05/08/2000 04:00 AM Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 7K 0 

74 Kellogg 05/08/2000 04:20 AM Tstm Wind 56 kts. 0 0 5K 0 

75 Kellogg 11/01/2000 01:25 PM Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 15K 0 

76 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -

023>028 - 033>039 -

044>050 - 057>062 -

070>075 - 081>086 -

092>097

04/07/2001 04:00 AM High Wind 72 kts. 0 4 3.2M 0 

77 Prairie City 06/12/2001 07:47 AM Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 2K 0 

78 Colfax 07/22/2001 03:30 PM Tstm Wind 57 kts. 0 0 25K 50K 

79 Prairie City 09/07/2001 08:28 PM Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 5K 0 

80 Prairie City 09/07/2001 08:40 PM Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 3K 0 

81 Newton 09/07/2001 08:46 PM Tstm Wind 61 kts. 0 0 15K 4K 

82 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 -

023>028 - 033>039 -

044>050 - 057>062 -

070>075 - 081>086 -

092>097

03/09/2002 06:00AM High Wind 54 kts. 0 0 2.6M 0 

83 Newton Muni Arpt 03/09/2002 12:09 AM Tstm Wind 87 kts. 0 0 1.5M 0 

84 Colfax 03/09/2002 12:10 AM Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 5K 0 

85 Newton Muni Arpt 03/09/2002 12:12 AM Tstm Wind 55 kts. 0 0 5K 0 

86 Monroe 06/02/2002 03:15 AM Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0 0 10K 0 

TOTALS: 1 8 38.847M 530K 
APPENDIX C 

Page 15 of 15 
APPENDIX D 

THUNDERSTORMS - LIGHTNING AND HAIL 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Thunderstorms - Lightning and Hail Overview 2 

Lightning Casualties and Damages 3 

Lightning Events in Beagle County 4 

Hail Days Per Year 5 

Hail Events in Beagle County 6 
APPENDIX D 

Page 2 of 7 

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. 
APPENDIX D 

Page 3 of 7 
APPENDIX D 

Page 4 of 7 

4 LIGHTNING event(s) were reported in Beagle County, Mag: Magnitude 

Iowa between 01/01/1950 and 10/31/2002. Dth: Deaths 

Inj: Injuries 

PrD: Property Damage 

CrD: Crop Damage 

Iowa 

Location or County Date Time Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD 

1 Newton 04/10/1995 0925 Lightning N/A 0 0 200K 0 

2 Newton 06/13/2000 01:00 PM Lightning N/A 0 0 1K 0 

3 Darwin 07/10/2000 05:00 AM Lightning N/A 0 0 1K 0 

4 Newton 07/26/2000 09:50 AM Lightning N/A 0 0 12K 0 

TOTALS: 0 0 214K 0 
APPENDIX D 

Page 5 of 7 
APPENDIX D 

Page 6 of 7 

60 HAIL event(s) were reported in Beagle County, Iowa between Mag: Magnitude 

01/01/1950 and 10/31/2002. Dth: Deaths 

Inj: Injuries 

PrD: Property Damage 

CrD: Crop Damage 

Iowa 

Location or County Date Time Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD 

1 BEAGLE 09/28/1972 1330 Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 

2 BEAGLE 06/18/1974 2210 Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 

3 BEAGLE 06/14/1975 1350 Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 

4 BEAGLE 05/28/1976 1643 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 

5 BEAGLE 07/30/1977 1930 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 

6 BEAGLE 06/17/1978 1530 Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 

7 BEAGLE 09/09/1984 1715 Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 

8 BEAGLE 06/16/1985 0800 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 

9 BEAGLE 06/23/1985 1639 Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 

10 BEAGLE 08/17/1987 1839 Hail 1.50 in. 0 0 0 0 

11 BEAGLE 05/08/1988 1123 Hail 2.00 in. 0 0 0 0 

12 BEAGLE 04/26/1989 1555 Hail 1.50 in. 0 0 0 0 

13 BEAGLE 04/26/1989 1637 Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 

14 BEAGLE 05/24/1989 0345 Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 

15 BEAGLE 07/18/1989 0046 Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 

16 BEAGLE 04/12/1991 1010 Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 

17 BEAGLE 06/01/1991 1035 Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 0 0 

18 Prairie City 04/08/1995 2127 Hail 1.50 in. 0 0 40K 0 

19 Newton 06/05/1997 03:00 PM Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 5K 35K 

20 Colfax 04/13/1998 04:24 AM Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 1K 0 

21 Colfax 05/19/1998 03:24 PM Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 10K 10K 

22 Prairie City 05/18/2000 11:20 AM Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 5K 5K 

23 Prairie City 05/18/2000 11:23 AM Hail 3.00 in. 0 0 20K 10K 

24 Prairie City 05/18/2000 11:25 AM Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 20K 2K 

25 Newton 05/18/2000 11:28 AM Hail 2.75 in. 0 0 50K 5K 

26 Monroe 05/18/2000 11:40 AM Hail 2.75 in. 0 0 10K 5K 

27 Kellogg 05/18/2000 11:43 AM Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 5K 5K 

28 Newton 05/18/2000 11:43 AM Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 10K 5K 
APPENDIX D 

Page 7 of 7 

29 Reasnor 05/18/2000 11:43 AM Hail 2.75 in. 0 0 35K 5K 

30 Newton 05/30/2000 08:48 PM Hail 0.88 in. 0 0 2K 3K 

31 Newton 05/30/2000 08:50 PM Hail 1.50 in. 0 0 8K 5K 

32 Newton 05/30/2000 09:44 PM Hail 0.88 in. 0 0 3K 5K 

33 Kellogg 05/30/2000 10:00 PM Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 5K 5K 

34 Galesburg 05/30/2000 11:10 PM Hail 0.88 in. 0 0 2K 5K 

35 Baxter 07/26/2000 09:30 AM Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 5K 

36 Baxter 07/26/2000 09:35 AM Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 5K 5K 

37 Kellogg 07/26/2000 09:35 AM Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 3K 10K 

38 Newton 07/26/2000 09:42 AM Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 10K 

39 Monroe 04/08/2001 06:37 PM Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 5K 0 

40 Reasnor 04/08/2001 06:41 PM Hail 0.88 in. 0 0 2K 0 

41 Newton 05/10/2001 05:52 PM Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 5K 0 

42 Newton 05/10/2001 06:00 PM Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 5K 0 

43 Reasnor 05/10/2001 06:17 PM Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 5K 0 

44 Darwin 05/10/2001 06:29 PM Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 5K 0 

45 Prairie City 05/10/2001 06:36 PM Hail 0.88 in. 0 0 3K 0 

46 Darwin 05/10/2001 06:48 PM Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 0 

47 Darwin 05/10/2001 06:50 PM Hail 1.25 in. 0 0 10K 0 

48 Baxter 06/12/2001 01:00 PM Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 5K 5K 

49 Newton 06/12/2001 06:05 AM Hail 0.88 in. 0 0 2K 5K 

50 Baxter 06/12/2001 08:59 AM Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 2K 5K 

51 Galesburg 06/12/2001 09:20 AM Hail 1.25 in. 0 0 5K 5K 

52 Darwin 06/12/2001 09:40 AM Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 25K 5K 

53 Lynnville 06/12/2001 09:55 AM Hail 1.75 in. 0 0 25K 10K 

54 Reasnor 04/18/2002 06:42 PM Hail 0.88 in. 0 0 3K 0 

55 Newton 04/18/2002 07:06 PM Hail 0.88 in. 0 0 3K 0 

56 Colfax 05/29/2002 03:46 PM Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 5K 5K 

57 Colfax 06/26/2002 04:13 PM Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 5K 5K 

58 Colfax 06/26/2002 04:31 PM Hail 1.00 in. 0 0 5K 5K 

59 Colfax 06/26/2002 04:57 PM Hail 0.75 in. 0 0 0 5K 

60 Colfax 07/28/2002 07:54 PM Hail 0.88 in. 0 0 2K 5K 

TOTALS: 0 0 366K 200K 
APPENDIX E 

WINTER STORMS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Winter Storm Overview 2 

Snow and Ice Events in Beagle County 3 
APPENDIX E 

Page 2 of 3 

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 E 

Page 3 of 3 
APPENDIX F 

DROUGHT 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Drought Overview 2 

Palmer Drought Severity Index, 1985- 1995 3 

Drought Events in Iowa and Beagle County 4 
APPENDIX F 

Page 2 of 4 

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 
APPENDIX F 

Page 3 of 4 
APPENDIX F 

Page 4 of 4 

10 DROUGHT event(s) were reported in Iowa Mag: Magnitude 

between 01/01/1950 and 10/31/2002. Dth: Deaths 

Inj: Injuries 

PrD: Property Damage 

CrD: Crop Damage 

Location or County Date Time Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD 

1 All of Iowa 08/01/1995 0000 Drought N/A 0 0 0 0.5B 

2 IAZ057>062 - 070>075 - 081>086 - 092>097 07/20/1999 12:00 PM Drought N/A 0 0 0 109.9M 

3 IAZ001>003 - 012>014 - 020>022 - 031>032 11/01/1999 12:00 AM Drought N/A 0 0 0 0 

4 IAZ001>003 - 012>014 - 020>022 - 031>032 12/01/1999 12:00 AM Drought N/A 0 0 0 0 

5 IAZ001>003 - 012>014 - 020>022 - 031>032 02/01/2000 12:00 AM Drought N/A 0 0 0 0 

6 IAZ001>003 - 012>014 - 020>022 - 031>032 03/01/2000 12:00 AM Drought N/A 0 0 0 0 

7 IAZ001>003 - 012>014 - 020>022 - 031>032 04/01/2000 12:00 AM Drought N/A 0 0 0 0 

8 IAZ033 - 044>050 - 057>062 - 070>075 -

081>086 - 092>097

08/14/2000 12:00 AM Drought N/A 0 0 0 150.1M 

9 IAZ033 - 044>050 - 057>062 - 070>075 - 

081>086 - 092>097

09/01/2000 12:00 AM Drought N/A 0 0 0 161.0M 

10 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 - 023>028 - 033>039

- 044>050 - 057>062 - 070>075 - 081>086 -

092>097

08/01/2001 12:00 AM Drought N/A 0 0 0 578.9M 

TOTALS: 0 0 0 1.500B 

5 DROUGHT event(s) were reported in Beagle County, Iowa between Mag: Magnitude 

01/01/1995 and 10/31/2002. Dth: Deaths 

Inj: Injuries 

PrD: Property Damage 

CrD: Crop Damage 

Location or County Date Time Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD 

1 All of Iowa 08/01/1995 0000 Drought N/A 0 0 0 0.5B 

2 IAZ057>062 - 070>075 - 081>086 - 092>097 07/20/1999 12:00 PM Drought N/A 0 0 0 109.9M 

3 IAZ033 - 044>050 - 057>062 - 070>075 -

081>086 - 092>097 

08/14/2000 12:00 AM Drought N/A 0 0 0 150.1M 

4 IAZ033 - 044>050 - 057>062 - 070>075 -

081>086 - 092>097 

09/01/2000 12:00 AM Drought N/A 0 0 0 161.0M 

5 IAZ004>007 - 015>017 - 023>028 - 

033>039 - 044>050 - 057>062 - 070>075 -

081>086 - 092>097

08/01/2001 12:00 AM Drought N/A 0 0 0 578.9M 

TOTALS: 0 0 0 1.500B 
APPENDIX G 

EARTHQUAKE 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Backgrounder: Earthquake 2 

Iowa Earthquake History 3 

Earthquakes with Epicenters in Iowa 4 

The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale 5 

Potential for Future Iowa Earthquakes and Earthquake Damage 6 
APPENDIX G 

Page 2 of 6 

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. 
APPENDIX G 

Page 3 of 6 

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. 
APPENDIX G 

Page 4 of 6 

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 eastcentral Iowa. The largest Iowa earthquake (Mercalli magnitude VI) occurred near Davenport in southeast 

Iowa in 1934. None of these events were instrumentally recorded 

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 
APPENDIX G 

Page 5 of 6 

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 "'eve's 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 wellbuilt 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. 
APPENDIX G 

Page 6 of 6 

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 
APPENDIX H 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Hazardous Materials Overview 2 

Beagle County Pipelines 6 

Iowa Hazardous Materials Teams 7 

EPA-Regulated Facilities 8 
APPENDIX H 

Page 2 of 8 

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 
APPENDIX H 

Page 3 of 8 

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: 

o Collisions and derailments that result in large spills or discharges 

o 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 
APPENDIX H 

Page 4 of 8 

Transportation Incidents 

Mode of 

Transportation 

Number of 

Accidents 

Associated 

Deaths 

Associated Injuries 

Air 1,220 0 153 

Highway 41,781 79 1,569 

Railway 7,886 1 423 

Water 83 1 35 

Other 29 0 2 

 

Total 50,999 81 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 
APPENDIX H 

Page 5 of 8 

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 
APPENDIX H 

Page 6 of 8 

BEAGLE COUNTY PIPELINE 
APPENDIX H 

Page 7 of 8 
APPENDIX H 

Page 8 of 8 

LIST OF EPA-REGULATED FACILITIES 

DARWIN, IA 

FACILITY 

NAME/ADDRESS 

Permitted Discharges 

To Water? 

Toxic Releases 

Reported? 

Hazardous Waste 

Handler? 

Air Releases

Reported? 

Bz Auto Company

702 5th St No No Yes No 

Lynnville Transport

13051 Hwy 225 E No No Yes No 

Lynnville-Darwin High School

12476 Hwy 225 E No No Yes No 

Darwin Auto Body

102 1st Street No No Yes No 

Darwin City of Stp

City Clerk Yes No No No 

Darwin Construction

5th Ave & 8th St No No Yes No 

Darwin Cooperative 

Exchange

504 6th Avenue 

No No Yes Yes 

Darwin Mfg Co

307 7th Ave No No Yes No 

Darwin Oil Co Inc

206 1st St No No Yes No 

Zylstra Express Ltd

205 1st Ave No No Yes No 
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

RISK ASSESSMENT: §201.6(c)(2): The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities propose

losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify anmitigation 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 aff

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

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. 

Hazard Analysis P. 1 – 17, Appendix B – H 

The plan addresses hazards expected in this regRecommended Revisions: • Identify all hazards considered – including ones 

because they are not applicable to allow the reunderstand the universe of hazards that were c

• Describe the process for identifying hazards an

sources used to identify hazards. The process hazards could involve: reviewing reports, plansordinances, and land use regulations, among oto experts from Federal, State, and local agencuniversities; searching the Internet and newspainterviewing long-time residents. 

• Provide an explanation for eliminating any haza

consideration. 

• Addressing manmade hazards in the plan is no

to meet the DMA 2000 requirements, but highly For more information, see Integrating Manmad

into Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-7), Phase 2

For more information on identifying hazards, see Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 1#1, Identify the Hazards. 

SUMM
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

Profiling Hazards Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the ... location and extent of all natural haza

jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazar

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., 

geographic area affected) of each natural hazard addressed in the plan? 

Hazard Analysis P. 3 - 17 

With the exception of flash floods, all hazards are 

No specific geographic area is identified for flash although flash floods affect up to 5% of the jurisdRequired Revisions: • For flash floods, describe the hazard’s location 

geographical area that would be affected. 

Recommended Revisions:

• Note any data limitations for profiling hazards a

the mitigation strategy actions for collecting the complete and improve future risk analysis effor

For more information on profiling hazards, see U

Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 2. 

B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., 

magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the plan? 

Hazard Analysis P. 3 – 17, Appendix B – H 

Each hazard includes a statement regarding “sevimpact” and “maximum extent.” Recommended Revisions:

• For flash floods, include velocity characteristics• Include in the hazard profile conditions such as 

soil characteristics, and meteorological conditioexacerbate or mitigate the potential effects of a hazard. See Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 

2-13 for information on these conditions and thhazards like floods. 

For more information on profiling hazards, see U

Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 2. 

C. Does the plan provide information on previous 

occurrences of each hazard addressed in the plan? 

Hazard Analysis P. 3 - 17 

Each profile includes discussion of “historical occthe appendix data includes additional historic rec
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

Recommended Revisions: • Include in the description for each event the da

occurrence, damages that occurred in or near tarea (e.g., property damage, cost of recovery, level of severity (i.e., flood depth or extent, wind earthquake intensity, etc.); and duration of the 

For more information on profiling hazards, see UYour Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 2. 

D. Does the plan include the probability of future events 

(i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the plan? 

Hazard Analysis P. 3 - 17 

Profiles of each hazard include a description of “pRecommended Revisions: • Describe the methodology or sources used to d

probability for each natural hazard. 

For more information on profiling hazards, see UYour Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 2. 

SUMM

Assessing Vulnerability: Overview Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazard

(c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. 

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan include an overall summary description 

of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard? 

Hazard Analysis P. 3 - 17 

Each hazard profile includes a description of “vul

Recommended Revisions: • While the Rule does not require a discussion a

number of people or special populations at riskelderly, disabled, or others with special needs, consideration in the risk assessment will enable development of appropriate actions to assist supopulations during or after a disaster. 

For a discussion on vulnerability assessment oveUnderstanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 3#3a, Inventory Assets. 

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

the jurisdiction? 

Hazard Analysis P. 3 - 17 

Each hazard profile includes a description of “Ma
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

Threat,” “Severity of Impact,” and “Speed of OnseFor a discussion on preparing a vulnerability asseUnderstanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 3#3a, Inventory Assets. 

SUMM

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 futu

and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area ... .

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

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? 

Hazard Analysis P. 3 - 17

Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this rwill not preclude the plan from passing. The profiles do not indicate the number or types oinfrastructure, or critical facilities for each hazardRecommended Revisions: • For flash floods, and community-wide hazards, 

type and number of existing buildings, infrastrucritical facilities within each hazard area. 

Additional Suggestions: • Identify the kinds of buildings (e.g., residential, 

institutional, recreational, industrial, and municinfrastructure, (e.g., roadways, bridges, utilitiescommunications systems); and critical facilities shelters, hospitals, police, and fire stations). 

• Describe the process or method used for identi

buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities. 

• If limited data are available, focus on identifying 

facilities located in the identified hazard areas athe collection of data for the remaining buildinginfrastructure as an action item in the mitigation 

• While not required by the Rule, it is useful to inv

structures located within areas that have repea
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

and collect information on past insurance claimminimum, describe repetitive loss neighborhoothe plan. 

For a discussion on identifying vulnerable structudetailed inventories, see Understanding Your Ris386-2), Step 3, Worksheet #3a and #3b, Inventor

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? 

Hazard Analysis P. 3 - 17

Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this rwill not preclude the plan from passing. Future development is not described in terms of tnumbers of buildings, infrastructure, or critical facRecommended Revisions:• Identify the type and number of future building

infrastructure, and critical facilities within each 

Additional Suggestions: • Identify the types of buildings (e.g., residential, 

institutional, recreational, industrial, and municiinfrastructure, (e.g., roadways, bridges, utilitiescommunications systems); and critical facilities shelters, hospitals, police, and fire stations). 

• Information on proposed buildings, infrastructu

facilities, including planned and approved devebe based on information in the comprehensive plan and zoning maps. 

• Identify buildings, infrastructure, and critical fac

vulnerable to more than one hazard.

• Describe the process or method used for identi

buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities. 

• Note any data limitations for determining the ty

numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and facilities and include in the mitigation strategy acollecting the data to improve future vulnerabiliassessment efforts. 

For a discussion on identifying vulnerable structu
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

detailed inventories, see Understanding Your Ris

386-2), Step 3, Worksheet #3a and #3b, Inventor

SUMM

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 

identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate ... .

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan estimate potential dollar losses to 

vulnerable structures? 

Hazard Analysis P. 3 - 17

Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this rwill not preclude the plan from passing. The plan provides an estimate for a flash flood evbut does not provide an estimate of the potential for the areas affected by flash flooding. For all otthere is an asset inventory (P. 19) showing the vaassets in the jurisdiction, but no estimate of how be affected by any of the listed hazards. Recommended Revisions: • Describe vulnerability in terms of potential dollaAdditional Suggestions: • Provide an estimate for each identified hazard. • Include, when resources permit, estimates for s

contents, and function losses to present a full ptotal loss for each building, infrastructure, and c

• Select the most likely event for each identified 

100-year flood) and estimate the likely losses awith this event. 

• Include a composite loss map to locate high po

areas to help the jurisdiction focus its mitigation 

• Note any data limitations for estimating losses 

the mitigation strategy actions for collecting the improve future loss estimate efforts. 
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

For a step-by-step method for estimating losses, Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 4

B. Does the plan describe the methodology used to 

prepare the estimate? 

Not in the Plan Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this r

will not preclude the plan from passing. No estimate is included. Recommended Revisions: • Describe the methodology used to estimate losFor a step-by-step method for estimating losses, Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), Step 4

SUMM

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 

within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan describe land uses and development 

trends? 

Not in the Plan Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this r

will not preclude the plan from passing. No discussion of land use and development trendRecommended Revisions: • Provide a general overview of land uses (e.g., 

kind of use). 

• Describe development trends occurring within t

(e.g., describe the types of development occurrexpected intensity, and pace by land use). 

Additional Suggestions: • Describe existing land use and densities in the 

hazard areas. Provide a map showing land use

• Describe future land use density. Such informa
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

obtained from your regional or local planning ofcomprehensive plan, or zoning maps. Future dinformation helps to define appropriate mitigatioapproaches, and the locations in which these ashould be applied. This information can also breduce development in hazard areas. 

• Overlay a land use map with identified hazard a• Note any data limitations for determining develo

trends and include in the mitigation strategy accollecting the data to complete and improve futvulnerability assessment efforts. 

SUMM

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(iii): For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction’s risks where t

the entire planning area.

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan include a risk assessment for each 

participating jurisdiction as needed to reflect unique or varied risks? 

SUMM
1

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.
2

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
3

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
4

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))
5

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

C. Description of how actions will be 

implemented and administered

B. Description of how cost and benefits 

were considered during the prioritization 

process

A. Description of how actions were 

prioritized (including the process and 

criteria used)

§ 201.6 (c) (3) (iii) Implementation of Mitigation Actions

C. Identified actions address existing 

buildings

B. Identified actions address new 

buildings

A. Comprehensive list of mitigation 

actions identified and analyzed

§ 201.6 (c) (3) (ii) Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions

A. Description of mitigation goals

§ 201.6 (c) (3) (i) Local Hazard Mitigation Goals

Group 

10

Group 

9

Group 

8

Group 

7

Group 

6

Group 

5

Group 

4

Group 

3

Group 

2

Group 

Element 1
MITIGATION GOALS AND AL TERNATIVES 

CONTENTS 

Mitigation Goals 1 

Mitigation Alternatives 2 

Current Mitigation Activities 2 

Alternatives Considered 3 

Alternative Evaluation, By Hazard 4 

Mitigation Recommendations Summary 8 

Funding of Alternatives 9 

Implementation 10 

Priorities 

Phasing 

Integration into Other Planning Mechanism 

Responsibility 

Review Schedule 

Mitigation Plan Evaluation 11 

Evaluation and Review Process 

Mitigation Plan Evaluation Worksheet 
1

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 
2

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. 
3

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. 
4

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 
5

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. 
6

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 
7

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 treetrimming 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. 
8

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. 
9

Alternatives Funding Table 

Alternative Est. 

Cost 

Federal 

Funds 

State or 

County 

Funds 

Local 

Funds Feasibility Comments 

Continue sanitary sewer 

maintenance program 

3,000 3,000 Good Annual cost of 5-year 

contract. 

Public awareness – 

tornado and extreme 

wind 

100 100 Good In addition to the 

County’s public 

awareness program. 

NOAA Receivers 27,810 20,857 6,953 Fair Individual receiving 

radio will pay 25% 

local matches. 

Continue enforcing Tree 

Trimming ordinance 

200 200 Good Enforce, review and 

revise. 

Continue enforcing 

Snow Removal 

ordinance 

200 200 Good Enforce, review and 

revise. Does NOT 

include snow removal 

costs. 

Continue enforcing Burn 

restrictions-Water 

Conservation policies 

150 150 Good Enforce, review and 

revise. Does NOT 

include snow removal 

costs. 

Public awareness – 

hazardous household 

materials 

100 75 25 Good Coordinate with 

County Emergency 

Management. 

Support LEPC 0 Good No cost to community. 
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

MITIGATION STRATEGY: §201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for 

identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and 

Local Hazard Mitigation Goals Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avothe identified hazards.

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

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.) 

Mitigation Goals and Alternatives P. 1 

Goals are stated. Recommended Revisions: • Explain how the goals are intended to reduce o

vulnerability. 

• Describe how these goals were developed. The 

be developed early in the planning process and based on the risk assessment findings, or deveafter the risk assessment is completed. They scompatible with the goals of the jurisdiction as other documents. 

• Although the Rule does not require a descriptio

objectives, jurisdictions are highly encouraged objectives developed to achieve the goals so thconnection between goals, objectives, and mitiis clear. 

For more information on developing local mitigatiobjectives, see Developing the Mitigation Plan (F

Step 1. 

SUMM
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

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 ra

actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildin

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan identify and analyze a 

comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions 

and projects for each hazard? 

Mitigation Goals and Alternatives P. 3 - 9 Recommended Revisions: 

• If the plan identified data limitations in the risk a

section, list actions to address the data limitatio

For more details on identifying and evaluating miactions, see Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEM

Step 2. 

B Do the identified actions and projects address 

reducing the effects of hazards on new buildings 

and infrastructure? 

Mitigation Goals and Alternatives P. 3 - 9 

The plan does not include actions such as zoning and building codes that address hazards to new cRequired Revisions: • Include actions that address new buildings and 

infrastructure. 

Recommended Revisions: • While the Rule does not specify critical facilities

should also address new critical facilities. 

• Develop a matrix to show what actions address 

hazards and new buildings and infrastructure. 

For more details on identifying and evaluating miactions, see Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMStep 2.

C. Do the identified actions and projects address 

reducing the effects of hazards on existing

buildings and infrastructure? 

Mitigation Goals and Alternatives P. 3 - 9 

The actions include public information programs enforcement that apply to existing buildings and iRecommended Revisions: • While the Rule does not specify critical facilities

should also address existing critical facilities. 

• Develop a matrix to show what actions address 
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

hazards and existing buildings and infrastructu

For more details on identifying and evaluating miactions, see Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMStep 2. 

SUMM

Implementation of Mitigation Actions Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions ident

be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the e

maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the mitigation strategy include how the actions 

are prioritized? (For example, is there a discussion 

of the process and criteria used?) 

Mitigation Goals and Alternatives P. 9 

There are two priority groupings, each with sever

discussion explains how priority actions were ran

Required Revisions: • Describe the method for prioritizing actions. (In 

cost benefit review, considerations may include impact, technical feasibility, administrative capapolitical and legal effects, as well as environme

For a detailed description of the development of tstrategy or action plan, see Developing the Mitiga

(FEMA 386-3), Step 3. 

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?) 

Mitigation Goals and Alternatives P. 11 

Eight of the ten actions are identified as “ongoingno discussion regarding how the actions will be imor by whom they will be administered. Required Revisions:

• Identify how the actions will be implemented an

administered. Include in the description the resparty(s)/agency(s), the funding source(s), and tcompletion dates for each action. 

Recommended Revisions: • Include a cost estimate and/or resources requir

action, when possible. 
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

For a detailed description of the development of tstrategy or action plan, see Developing the Mitiga

(FEMA 386-3), Step 3. 

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? 

 There is no cost-benefit review found in the plan. 

Required Revisions:

• Describe the cost benefit review performed dur

prioritization process to identify actions/projects greatest benefits. (If cost and benefit data are qualitative assessment of the comparative benesuffice.) 

For a detailed description of the development of tstrategy or action plan, see Developing the Mitiga(FEMA 386-3), Step 3; and Mitigation Benefit Co(BCA) Toolkit Compact Disc (CD). 

SUMM

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv): For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction 

or credit of the plan.

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

A Does the plan include at least one identifiable 

action item for each jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval of the plan? 

SUMM
1

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.
2

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
3

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.
4

78

Small Group Results

Plan Maintenance Process

A. Continued public involvement 

explained

§ 201.6 (c) (4) (iii) Continued Public Involvement

A. Other planning mechanisms for 

incorporating the requirements of the 

mitigation plan identified

§ 201.6 (c) (4) (ii) Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms

C. Method and schedule for updating the 

plan within a 5 year cycle

B. Method and schedule for evaluating 

the plan

A. Method and schedule for monitoring 

the plan

§ 201.6 (c) (4) (i) Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan

Group 

10

Group 

9

Group 

8

Group 

7

Group 

6

Group 

5

Group 

4

Group 

3

Group 

2

Group 

Element 1
10

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. 
11

MITIGATION PLAN EVALUATION

Mitigation Recommendation Number: ________ 

Annual Review

September 2003__________ September 2006__________ 

September 2004__________ September 2007__________ 

September 2005__________ 

 Statement of Progress

 Community Profile, Hazard, Risk Assessment Evaluation/Changes

 Finding - Recommendation
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

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 mo

updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

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?) 

Mitigation Goals and Alternatives P. 11, 12 

Although the plan indicates that it will be revieweannual basis, it is not clear that this review will incmonitoring of mitigation actions. Review of the pnecessarily the same as monitoring of the plan. Required Revisions: • Include a description of the method and schedu

the plan. Include in the description the party(s)responsible for ensuring that the monitoring proaccomplished, and how and when the plan will monitored. 

Recommended Revisions: • Monitoring may include periodic reports by age

involved in implementing actions; parameters to the progress of the actions; and action complet

For guidance on monitoring the plan, see BringinLife (FEMA 386-4), Step 2. 

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?) 

Mitigation Goals and Alternatives P. 11, 12 Recommended Revisions: 

• The evaluation should assess whether goals an

address current and expected conditions; naturmagnitude of risks has changed; current resouappropriate for implementing the plan; outcomeoccurred as expected; and agencies and other participated as originally proposed. 

For guidance on evaluating the plan, see Bringing 

Life (FEMA 386-4), Step 3. 

C. Does the plan describe the method and schedule for 

updating the plan within the five-year cycle? 

Mitigation Goals and Alternatives 

The plan calls for annual reviews and updating as which the reviewer accepts as meeting the requir
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

P. 11 five-year cycle update. 

Recommended Revisions:

• Allow ample time for the review and adoption p

ensure the plan is adopted within the five-year 

For guidance on updating the plan, see Bringing Life (FEMA 386-4), Step 4. 

SUMM

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 

planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate.

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan identify other local planning mechanisms 

available for incorporating the requirements of the mitigation plan? 

Mitigation Goals and Alternatives P. 11 Recommended Revisions: 

• Prepare a matrix showing the range of other pla

mechanisms and identify which apply to each a

For more information on integrating hazard mitigain other initiatives, see Bringing the Plan to Life (F

Step 2. 

B. Does the plan include a process by which the local 

government will incorporate the requirements in other plans, when appropriate? 

Mitigation Goals and Alternatives P. 11 

There is no explicit language to indicate that this 

“incorporated” into any of the cited other mechan

Required Revisions:• Describe the process to incorporate the mitigat

requirements into local planning mechanisms. 

For more information on integrating hazard mitigain other initiatives, see Bringing the Plan to Life (FStep 2. 

SUMM
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

Continued Public Involvement Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue 

plan maintenance process.

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

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?) 

Mitigation Goals and Alternatives P. 11 

The plan does not provide information about how and interested groups will be involved in the mainthe plan. Required Revisions: • Describe public participation opportunities that 

community will have during the plan’s monitorinand updates (e.g., soliciting input, holding meethe proposed changes to the plan on the Web, 

Recommended Revisions: • Include a schedule for public participation oppo

will be responsible for organizing events, who wthe Web site, etc. 

• Explain how and when public comments will be 

into the plan updates. 

For more information on  keeping the public involved, see Getting Started 

1), Step 3 and Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 38

and 3. 

SUMM
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 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 thehazard 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 fo

“N” for any element of any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its 

comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk. 

Hazards Identified 

Per Requirement 

§201.6(c)(2)(i)

A. Location B. Extent C. Previous Occurrences D. Probability of Hazard Type Future Events 

Yes N S N S N S N 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 Other 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?
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 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 therequirement. 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 fo

“N” for any element of any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its 

comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk. Note: Receiving an N in the shaded columns will not preclude the plan from passing. 

Hazards 

Identified Per 

Requirement 

§201.6(c)(2)(i) 

A. Overall 

Summary 

Description of 

Vulnerability 

B. Hazard 

Impact 

A. Types and 

Number of 

Existing 

Structures in 

Hazard Area 

(Estimate) 

B. Types and 

Number of 

Future 

Structures in 

Hazard Area 

(Estimate) 

A. Loss Estimate B. Method

Hazard Type 

Yes N S N S N S N S N S N 

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 Other Other 

§201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview 

§201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures 

§201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses 

Legend: §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview A. Does the plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction’s 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 

infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the ide

§201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating A. Does the plan estimate potential dollar losses to vuB. Does the plan describe the methodology used to pr
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVI EW CROSSWALK 

Jurisdiction: City of Darwin, Iowa March 31, 2004 Version 

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 consieach 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 “N” for any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related short

of the Plan Review Crosswalk. 

Hazards Identified

Per Requirement 

§201.6(c)(2)(i) 

A. Comprehensive 

Range of Actions 

and Projects Hazard Type 

Yes N 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 Other 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? 

To chec

click o

change th

to “c
1

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
1

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
2

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
3

Date 85

Unit 8:

Manmade Hazard Considerations

Required? No.

Recommended? Maybe...

 Where might manmade hazards show up in plans?

Local expectations

Value of awareness

Date 86

Manmade Hazard Considerations

Technical assistance

 In-house

 FEMA guidance

http://www.fema.gov/fima/antiterrorism

http://www.fema.gov/fima/rmsp.shtm
4

Date 87

Manmade Hazard Considerations

pp. 2-5 and 2-6

pp. 3-4 and 3-5

Date 88

Manmade Hazard Considerations

Information sensitivity

 Legal aspects

Public Participation

 Handling practices

 Reality check

http://www.ioss.gov
5

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 FAQ’s

NEMIS and the Plan Repository

Final Rule development and the contributions plan reviewers can 

make
6

91

Odds and Ends

What happens after November 1, 2004? in terms of:

monitoring implementation of the plan’s 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?
1

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
2

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?
3

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.
4

98

Plan Review Comments

For example:

Under § 201.6 (c) (2) (ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview, the 

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?”
5

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.”
6

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.
7

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 a “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.
8

106

Plan Review Comments

Rule of Pinkie:

5. 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
9

108

Course Summary

Course Review

Feedback
UNIT 10 - EXERCISE A 

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Plan Review – Reference Manual 

Mitigation Plan Review – Course E293 – NETC/EMI 

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 - EXERC

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Plan Review – Reference Manual Mitigation Plan Review – Course E293 – NETC/EMI 

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 

planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate.

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

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? 

SUMM
UNIT 10 - EXERCISE A – S

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Plan Review – Reference Manual Mitigation Plan Review – Course E293 – NETC/EMI 

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 

planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate.

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan identify other local planning mechanisms 

available for incorporating the requirements of the mitigation plan? 

 The plan does identify planning mechanisms ava

incorporating mitigation strategies 

B. Does the plan include a process by which the local 

government will incorporate the requirements in other plans, when appropriate? 

 Although the plan states that the County will inco

mitigation strategies through the identified plannimechanisms, it does not describe the process to Required Revisions:

• Describe the process to incorporate the mitigat

requirements into local planning mechanisms. 

For more information on integrating hazard mitigain other initiatives, see Bringing the Plan to Life (F

Step 2. 

SUMM
UNIT 10 - EXERCISE A – SAMPLE REVISIONS 

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Plan Review – Reference Manual 

Mitigation Plan Review – Course E293 – NETC/EMI 

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 

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Plan Review – Reference Manual 

Mitigation Plan Review – Course E293 – NETC/EMI 

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 City’s 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 plan’s 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 - EXERC

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Plan Review – Reference Manual Mitigation Plan Review – Course E293 – NETC/EMI 

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 mo

updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

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?) 

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?) 

SUMM
UNIT 10 - EXERCISE B – S

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Plan Review – Reference Manual Mitigation Plan Review – Course E293 – NETC/EMI 

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 mo

updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.

Element 

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments 

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?) 

 The plan does not make a clear distinction betwe

and evaluating the plan. Although related, monitoprogress of the mitigation actions is not the same the effectiveness of the plan. See Bringing the P

(FEMA 386-4), Step 2 and 3. There is no description of the method that will be monitor the plan. Although there is a statement about the schedule the actions, it is not clear what this schedule is. The plan states that the Hazard Mitigation Commwith the City’s planning staff will establish a methmonitoring the plan, and that local agencies will mactions. However, It is not clear what agencies wresponsible for monitoring the plan and what the Required Revisions: • Include a description of the method and a sch

monitor the plan. Include in the description the parties/agencies responsible for ensuring that tprocess is accomplished, and how and when thmonitored. 

Recommended Revisions: • Monitoring may include periodic reports by age

involved in implementing actions; parameters to the progress of the actions; and projected date 
UNIT 10 - EXERCISE B – S

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Plan Review – Reference Manual Mitigation Plan Review – Course E293 – NETC/EMI 

completion. 

For guidance on monitoring the plan, see BringinLife (FEMA 386-4), Step 2. 

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?) 

 The plan briefly describes how the City will evalu

including the effectiveness of the programs changdevelopment and mitigation programs, goal and adetermine changing conditions and ensure that it current and expected hazard conditions, etc. Howplan does not provide a schedule for these activitIt is also not clear which agencies will be responsevaluating the plan. Required Revisions:

• Describe the schedule to evaluate the plan. In

description the parties/agencies responsible fothe plan, and how and when the plan will be ev

For guidance on evaluating the plan, see Bringing Life (FEMA 386-4), Step 3. 

SUMM
UNIT 10 - EXERCISE B – SAMPLE REVISIONS 

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Plan Review – Reference Manual 

Mitigation Plan Review – Course E293 – NETC/EMI 

Monitoring and Evaluating the Plan 

The Hazard Mitigation Committee (HMC) with support and recommendations from the City’s 

planning staff will establish 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, Tthe 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 monitoring schedule includes a 

timeline and identifies local agencies that will monitor the actions.

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 plan’s 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.