All Hazard Mitigation Plan 2009

1.2 - Definition / Purpose

1.3 - Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

1.4 - Hazard Mitigation Plan Requirement

1.5 - Legal Authority / Overview

1.6 - Planning Process (FEMA)

1.7 - The Mower County Planning Process

1.12 COUNTY OVERVIEW

1.7.1 - Documentation of the Planning Process

1.7.2 - Public Participation

1.7.3 - Continued Public Involvement

1.7.5 - Assets Inventory Survey

1.7.6 - Hazards Profile and Risk Assessment Surveys

1.7.7 - Townships Meeting

1.7.8 - Cities Meeting

1.10 Implementation

1.10.1 - Plan Adoption and Maintenance

1.10.3 - Incorporating into Existing Planning Mechanisms

For the fourteen municipalities in the County, the individual mitigation strategies will be implemented and administered by each governmental unit unless the activity transcends several jurisdictions then it will be a multiple approach. The City Council will be the primary responsible agency for the cities since they are also charged with determining the cost benefit of the proposed activities. When they are doing their yearly budgets, the City Councils will use their All Hazard Mitigation Plan and discuss how they can address the goals, objectives & strategies identified and to look at the most cost effective method of achieving those results. They will be requested to forward their results to the Environmental Services Department or Emergency Management Department. By using this approach, the city council will be able to determine what is the best financial interest of the community. When each city Developed their implementation strategies, they were cognizant of the cost benefit of the items that they were selecting.

As of 2009, Mower County's population is 38,040 people. Since 2000, it has had a population growth of 0.16 percent.

1.1 - Planning Process

Guidance for HMA applications submitted during the FY 2010 grant cycle and for disasters occurring on or after June 1, 2009

Resource Record Details

FY 2010 Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Unified Guidance

Back to Table of Contents

Titles of Opportunities:
	Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
	Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM)
	Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)
	Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC)
	Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL)
Funding Opportunity Numbers:
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) numbers for the five Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs are:

	97.039 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
	97.047 Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM)
	97.029 Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)
	97.092 Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC)
	97.110 Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL)
Federal Agency Name: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was established to address all hazards. During the cold war, the focus was on nuclear catastrophe. In the past decade the focus was on natural disasters. Most recently, in response to a variety of human caused disasters, such as terrorism and hazardous materials spills, the definition has shifted to mitigation for these types of hazards:

Hazard Mitigation means any action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from natural disasters. (FEMA publication 44CFR, Chapter 1, subpart M, SOURCE: 55fr 35529, August 30, 1990.

All Hazard mitigation planning is designed to decrease the amount of damage and costs to a community in the event of a disaster. All types of hazards, categorized as natural, technological, or human, are considered in this planning process. Mitigation projects are developed in response to the perceived risk of such hazards occurring based on historical occurrence and analysis.

The purpose of the Mower County All Hazard Mitigation Planning project is to identify and prioritize hazards, and to develop and implement projects that will decrease the damages from these hazards in Mower County.

Back to Table of Contents

The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides grants to States and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. The HMGP is authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.

HMGP Guiding Documents

For disasters declared on or after June 1, 2009, please refer to FY2010

Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Unified Guidance.

For disasters declared prior to June 1, 2009, please refer to the HMGP Desk Reference.

Frequently Asked Questions

Last Modified: Thursday, 09-Jul-2009 11:58:56 EDT

Back to Table of Contents

For Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC), or Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) grants

In accordance with 44 CFR Part 201, all Applicants for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), PDM, FMA, RFC, or SRL must have a FEMA-approved State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Hazard Mitigation Plan by the application deadline and at the time of obligation of the grant funds. In addition, all sub-applicants to the PDM, FMA, and SRL for mitigation projects must have a FEMA-approved local hazard mitigation plan by the application deadline and at the time of obligation of grant funds. The RFC program does not currently have a requirement for a local hazard mitigation plan. There is no local hazard mitigation plan requirement for any HMA program if the sub-applicant is applying for a planning sub-grant.

Applicants for HMGP funding must have a FEMA-approved State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Hazard Mitigation Plan at the time of the disaster declaration and at the time plan at the time of the declaration will have 30 calendar days from the date of signing the FEMA-Tribal Agreement to formally submit an approvable Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan for FEMA review and approval.

HMGP sub-applicants must have a FEMA-approved local hazard mitigation plan at the time of obligation of plan requirement in extraordinary circumstances, when justification is provided. If this exception is granted, a local hazard mitigation plan must be approved by FEMA within 12 months of the award of the project sub-grant to that community. Extraordinary circumstances exist when a determination is made by the Applicant and FEMA that the proposed project is consistent with the priorities and strategies identified in the State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan, that the project is an essential component of the community’s recovery, and that the jurisdiction meets at least one of the following criteria:

	Meet the small impoverished community criteria (see Part VIII B.2);
	Have been determined to have had insufficient capacity prior to the current disaster;
	Have been considered to be at low risk from hazards; or
	Have experienced significant disruption from the declared incident which impacts their ability to complete the planning process prior to award of a project grant.

In determining whether to grant the exception, FEMA will take into consideration factors

including whether an Applicant has prioritized their authorized HMGP project assistance for use in those communities with an approved local hazard mitigation plan, whether there are additional project funds available for award to a jurisdiction that does not have an approved local hazard mitigation plan, and whether an Applicant has placed higher priority for grant funding on communities with higher risks. In all cases, a local hazard mitigation plan must be completed and approved by FEMA within 12 months of the award of the project subgrant to that subgrantee. If a local hazard mitigation plan is not provided to FEMA within this timeframe, the project subgrant will be terminated and any costs incurred after the notice of the subgrant’s termination will not be reimbursed by FEMA. For additional information, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office.

D.5.1 Conformance with Hazard Mitigation Plans

Projects submitted for consideration for HMA funding must be consistent with the goals and objectives identified in the current, FEMA-approved State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Hazard Mitigation Plan and local or Tribal hazard mitigation plan for the jurisdiction in which the activity is located.

Back to Table of Contents

Mower County has long had an Emergency Operations Plan in place to serve as a guide for county, city, and emergency operations response teams in emergency situations. Now, in addition to the Emergency Operations Plan, the county has accepted the additional responsibility of creating and implementing an All Hazard Mitigation Plan (AHMP).

Legal Authority for the Mower County AHMP is derived from U.S. Pubic Law 106-390, created through the approval of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Section 322 of this statute requires that a state hazard mitigation plan be prepared following a disaster declaration, and among other things states that mitigation plans are a new prerequisite for hazard mitigation funding. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 also requires open public involvement in the (planning) process, and coordination with neighboring communities.

MN Statutes, Chapter 12 provides that the Minnesota Division of Emergency Management (DEM) be responsible for local emergency operations managers. The Governor’s Executive Order 99-20 assigns emergency responsibilities (including hazard mitigation) to state agencies. The DEM is the coordinating agency for disaster preparedness, emergency response and disaster recovery assistance. In addition, in Minnesota the legal basis for planning is via Minnesota Statutes 462: Housing, Redevelopment, Planning and Zoning.

Mower County has an Emergency Operations Plan. Part of the introduction for that plan describes some of the hazards that require attention in Mower County:

Tornadoes, floods, blizzards, and other natural disasters can affect Austin/Mower County. In addition, major disasters such as train wrecks, plane crashes, explosions, hazardous materials releases, emergency levee failures, pipeline leaks, and national security emergencies pose a potential threat to public health and safety in Austin/Mower County. An emergency plan is needed to ensure the protection of the public from the effects of these hazards. Hazards that have a probability of involving Austin/Mower county would be flooding in the City of Austin due to the Dobbins Creek, Turtle Creek and Cedar River Watershed which join in the City of Austin. In addition, we have experienced numerous tornado warnings and a few touchdowns resulting in property damage as well as the transportation routes carrying hazardous material on Interstate 90 and the Soo Line Railroad which involves both the City of Austin and the County of Mower.

Three pipelines are located in Mower County. The Dome Pipeline runs across the southwest corner with the AMOCO Pipeline in the northeast corner and Northern Natural Gas along the north boundary and from there into the City of Austin. These Pipelines carry petroleum products, propane heating oil and natural gas.

The difference between the Emergency Operations Plan and the Hazard Mitigation Plan is that the Operations Plan describes how to react to specific emergencies, while the Hazard Mitigation Plan describes potential hazards and ways to mitigate the negative effects of those hazards.

- Printed and other printed resources

Back to Table of Contents

The four basic hazard mitigation planning steps outlined by FEMA were utilized during the Mower County planning process:

Organize Resources
Existing Emergency Response plans
Interested Community Members
Technical Experts

Assess Risk
Identify and prioritize natural, technical and human caused hazards
Prioritize those hazards
Identify how those hazards could affect key facilities

Develop Mitigation Plan
Develop mitigation strategies
Determine priorities of addressing potential hazards

Implement the plan and Monitor the progress
Community members and emergency response personnel put the plan into action
Evaluate efforts for effectiveness
Revisit and revise plans as necessary as changes occur

Back to Table of Contents

The Mower County planning process incorporated a series of strategic planning sessions, public meetings and surveys to gather the information, data and prioritization necessary for the mitigation plan. The county involved organizations, cities, townships and county officials in the process. The process was initiated through a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Planning Grant from the Minnesota Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. It began in early 2003, and was completed in November 2004.

FEMA requires the All Hazard Mitigation plan be updated every 5 years. The plan was adopted by Mower County in April of 2005 making the FEMA and State updated plan needs to be adopted by April of 2010. The Emergency Management department of Mower County started the planning process necessary to update the plan in the spring of 2009.

Back to Table of Contents

During the process of developing the All Hazard Mitigation Plan the key committee used the City of Austin and Mower County’s Comprehensive Plans as a source of background information for the County. The Maxfield Housing Analysis for the City of Austin and Mower County were also used to provide a detailed analysis of current housing situations and the needed housing. The City of Austin in 2002 had a Hazard Mitigation Plan completed by Pettipiece Cesario Development Solutions, Inc. which addressed flooding. These documents provided detailed information to the committee and consultant so we didn’t have to rediscover information which was already available. Letters were sent out to all Mower County Townships and cities in 2003, asking them to be involved in the planning process. The county received a one hundred percent positive response from the fourteen cities and twenty townships.

The 2005 All Hazard Mitigation plan was reviewed and updated to digital form. The 2005 plan was the source of background information for the updates.

Back to Table of Contents

The first step was to get consensus from each of the local government units in the County. Toward this end the County Commissioners sent letters to each LGU in February, 2003, asking them to be involved in the planning process. The county received a one-hundred percent positive response from the fourteen cities and twenty townships.

The process gathered steam in early 2004 when the county Environmental Services department held a series of mitigation planning forums that were part of on-going city and township meetings. In April 2004 the county hired a consultant to assist with project coordination, and shortly thereafter a number of strategic planning sessions were sponsored in the county. In July a large public information meeting was held to summarize the results of a series of surveys that had been undertaken, and to gather additional input on hazard prioritization and risk assessment. The public participation component of the Mower County project concluded with another information meeting in September, several DRAFT review meetings in October, and County Board review and approval meetings in November.

The department’s first step was to send an initial packet on May 6, 2009 to the ten cities and twenty townships which included a request to update a data base of mitigation plans and actions entities have taken for hazards that have occurred or have been identified in Mower County. Mitigation strategies, goals and objectives for these hazards were developed in 2004-2005. The updated plan will act as a follow-up on how and if the mitigation plans have been implemented updated and results of mitigation actions. The price to implement any actions in the plan if available will be included in the update. The second step was to send two department personnel to an 8 hour update training session in Alexandria, Minnesota. FEMA presented expectations for the updated plan. On July 8, 2009 letters of commitment to participation in the updating of the plan were mailed to cities and townships in Mower County. These were to be signed, dated and returned to the Mower County Emergency Management.

Back to Table of Contents

As with the initial process, public participation is an essential ingredient of the All Hazard Mitigation Plan or a comprehensive planning process. One needs to use the addage that instead of “planning for people you are planning with people”. By using this approach, we will end up with a more successful project. The following procedure will be used each year: Representatives of the Environmental Services and/or Emergency Management Department will make speaking engagements at the Mower County Township Association meeting, in May or October and with the League of Municipalities at their October meeting to discuss the All Hazard Mitigation Plan. This person will explain what has been done and will encourage them to use the document as they are conducting their business. A Mower County city/township meeting was held on August 26,2009.

Back to Table of Contents

1.7.4 - All Hazards Survey

The county used a series of surveys to gather the base data for the hazard mitigation plan. The first survey went to organizations, cities, townships and county staff. This All Hazards Survey listed (16) natural hazards, (5) technological hazards, and (19) human-caused hazards and asked the respondents to provide historical data for the events, and to prioritize each of the hazards. The results of this survey provided the basis for the remainder of the mitigation planning process.

An All Hazards Survey was sent out in May, 2009 again asking the respondents to provide historical data for the events, and to prioritize each of the hazards. The results of this survey provided the basis for updating the All Hazards Mitigation plan.

Back to Table of Contents

The second survey, called the “Assets Inventory” survey was distributed to each city and township in the county. The respondents were provided with an extensive list of community assets ranging from medical facilities, emergency services, schools, churches, and other public resources. They were asked to describe these resources in their community so that the county could compile a list of critical assets county-wide. The received nearly one hundred percent response from this survey. This same survey was sent out on May 8, 2009. The changes have been incorporated in to the updated plan.

Back to Table of Contents

The third and fourth “surveys” were distributed at the public meeting on August 26th, 2009, and mailed to any city, township or organization representatives not in attendance. These surveys were actually variations of the standard “Hazard Profile” and “Risk Assessment” Worksheets templates provided by the state and FEMA. Another excellent response to these surveys resulted in an “Overall Priority” hazards database for the county.

Back to Table of Contents

On September 16, 2004, county officials met with township representatives at a regularly scheduled township meeting. The primary purpose of this meeting was to provide the township officers with a DRAFT of the All Hazard Mitigation Plan DRAFT report, and to solicit specific mitigation activity suggestions. This meeting was well attended, and resulted in a number of the mitigation activities described in this plan.

On Wednesday August 26, 2009 a meeting was held with all Mower County cities and townships.

Back to Table of Contents

On October 21, 2004 county officials met with city representatives at a regularly scheduled League of Cities meeting. The primary purpose of this meeting was to provide the city officials with a DRAFT of the All Hazard Mitigation Plan DRAFT report, and to solicit specific mitigation activity suggestions. This meeting was well attended, and resulted in a number of the mitigation activities described in this plan.

On Wednesday August 26, 2009 a meeting was held with all Mower County cities and townships.

Back to Table of Contents

1.7.9 - 2009 Cities and Township Meeting

On August 26, 2009 county officials met with city and township representatives at a special meeting. The primary purpose of this meeting was to give an update on the actions that have been accomplished with previously sent worksheets.

Back to Table of Contents

1.8 Draft Review and Approval Meetings

Also in September, a DRAFT of the MCAHMP was distributed to the state Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management for comments and suggestions. That department responded with a “Crosswalk” that listed specific areas needing attention in the Mower County Plan. The County’s consultant and county staff responded to each of those suggestions to create the Final Plan.

On October 26, 2004, county staff also presented the revised DRAFT Plan to the Mower County Board of Commissioners for their review and approval. The Plan was discussed and the Board was asked to expect to see an HSEM-approved Plan in November for their final approval.

On January (blank), 2010, a draft of the MCAHMP was submitted to the State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management for comments and suggestions. A crosswalk was submitted with the MCAHMP.

Back to Table of Contents

1.9 Goals and Objectives

The Goals of the Mower County All Hazard Mitigation Plan include:

	Protect Life and Property
	Prevent Loss of Life and limit damage
	Protect emergency response personnel and resources

The Objectives include specific mitigation activities designed to address hazards in the county in relation to the stated goals.

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Once the Mower County Plan has been approved by the HSEM, the Plan will be brought before the County Board for their approval. The finalized Plan will also be re-distributed to each county, city, and township for review and approval. Each local government unit will be asked to pass a resolution adopting the Mower County Plan.

Back to Table of Contents

1.10.2 - Adoption by the Local Governing Board

The County adopted the plan in April 2005 The finalized Plan was re-distributed to each county city and township for review and approval. Attached is the proposed resolution to be used for adoption of the plan once it has been approved by the Department of Homeland Security (Attachment B).

Back to Table of Contents

All government agencies and non-governmental agencies that have participated in the All Hazard Mitigation Plan process will be send a copy of the approved plan for their use. When they are doing their yearly budgets, the City Councils will use their All Hazard Mitigation Plan and discuss how they can address the goals, objectives, and strategies identified and to look at the most cost effective method of achieving those results. They will be requested to forward their results to the Environmental Services Department or Emergency Management Department.

Back to Table of Contents

1.10.4 - Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption

Once the plan has been approved by the Department of Homeland Security and Mower County, the communities will adopt it. Attached is the proposed resolution to be used by the municipalities for adopting the plan. Copies of each resolution from the adoption of the plan by the cities is included in the appendix to the plan (Attachment C).

Back to Table of Contents

1.10.5 - Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan

Each local government was asked to pass a resolution adopting the Mower County Plan. There are ten of the fourteen cities letters authorizing the adoption of the plan in 2005. Elkton, Lyle, Mapleview and Taopi did not have letters. The Mower County Environmental Services Director and/or Emergency Management Director will be sending out to all cities in the County their mitigation activities that have been approved in the plan and request for an update in December of 2006. This request will ask for information on what has been done, and if not done, has a different mitigation strategy been replaced? This process will go on each year in December for calendar years 2006 through 2011. In the year of 2010 the Environmental Services Department or Emergency Management Department will again institute the update of the All Hazard Mitigation Plan for the entire County. The key committee members and all of the municipalities and townships will b contacted to participate in this process. From out perspective, we see the All Hazard Mitigation Plan as a process similar to the comprehensive Plan process where you receive goals, strategies, implementation ideas and these are then reviewed yearly by the appropriate governmental agencies and if changes are necessary, the changes are made. It is a constant process that goes on. After this update is completed in 2009/2010, the Plan will be resubmitted to Homeland Security for approval.

January 2010 update completed and submitted to the State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management for review.

Back to Table of Contents

1.10.6 - Project Implementation

The Mower County All Hazard Mitigation Plan includes individual implementation activities to be undertaken by each local government unit in the county. Responsible officials in each LGU will ensure that the individual activities are undertaken according to the plan. The county Environmental Services office will coordinate this process and provide assistance to each community, as requested. In the year of 2010 the Environmental Services Department or Emergency Management Department will again institute the update of the All-Hazard Mitigation Plan for the entire County. The key committee members and all of the municipalities and townships will be contacted to participate in this process. From our perspective, we see the All Hazard Mitigation Plan as a process similar to the Comprehensive Plan process where you receive goals, strategies, implementation ideas and these are then reviewed yearly by the appropriate governmental agencies and if changes are necessary, the changes are made. It is a constant process that goes on. After this update is completed in 2009/2010, the Plan will be resubmitted to Homeland Security for approval.

January 2010 update completed and submitted to the State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management for review.

Back to Table of Contents

1.10.7 - Implementation of Mitigation Activities

Back to Table of Contents

1.10.8 - Updates and Responsible Parties

The county Emergency Management department will be responsible for annual review and updates to the Plan. County staff will review progress made by each community toward their individual mitigation activities, and will make adjustments to the plan as warranted.

As Mower County evolves, the All Hazard Mitigation Plan will also evolve. As they become available, new data and demographic information will be incorporated or updated. In addition, mitigation projects will be completed and new projects advanced.

Back to Table of Contents

Section II - Mower County Community Profile

1.11 Mower County Community Profile

The following profile sections provide a description of the county, and a basis for creating and implementing the All Hazard Mitigation Plan. Please refer to the maps in the Community Assets section of this report for additional detail.

Back to Table of Contents

The Types of House-holds in Mower County in 2005-2007

Married-couple families

Other families

People living alone

Other nonfamily households

	The median home cost in Mower County is $108,100. Home appreciation the last year has been -6.80% (depreciation).
	Compared to the rest of the country, Mower County's cost of living is 19.82% Lower than the U.S. average.
	Mower County public schools spend $5,703 per student. The average school expenditure in the U.S. is $6,058. There are about 12 students per teacher in Mower County.
	The unemployment rate in Mower County is 7.30% (U.S. avg. is 8.50%). Recent job growth is Negative. Mower County jobs have decreased by 0.50%.

High Risk Populations

Type Of Population Needs	Estimated Population Size	Anticipated
People with disabilities	6327	Handicap
Senior Citizens (age 65+)	7547
Residents with limited English proficiency	1261	Language

Mower County is in the Upper Mississippi River Valley of the Midwest with rolling hills and relatively flat farm land. The City of Austin is an urban area on the far western end of the county. The area experiences a temperate climate with both warm and cold season extremes. Winter months can bring occasional heavy snows, intermittent freezing precipitation or ice, and prolonged periods of cloudiness. While true blizzards are rare, winter storms impact the area on average about 4 times per season. Occasional arctic outbreaks bring extreme cold and dangerous wind chills.

Thunderstorms occur on average 30 to 50 times a year, mainly in the spring and summer months. The strongest storms can produce associated severe weather like tornadoes, large hail, or damaging wind. Both river flooding and flash flooding can occur along with urban-related flood problems. Heat and high humidity is occasionally observed in June, July, or August. The autumn season usually has the quietest weather. Dense fog occurs several times during mainly the fall or winter months. High wind events can also occur from time to time, usually in the spring or fall.

Back to Table of Contents

1.13 Geography

Back to Table of Contents

1.13.1 - Location, Area and Municipalities

Mower County is located in the rich agricultural region of Southeastern Minnesota. It contains fourteen cities and twenty townships. The largest city is Austin with a population of 23,671. Other than Austin, all of the other cities have a population of 922 or less. The County has a total land are of 453,205 acres, or 708 square miles. Surrounding Mower County are three Iowa counties to the South (Worth, Mitchell, and Howard), and from West to East, the Minnesota counties of Freeborn, Steele, Dodge, Olmsted and Fillmore.

Mower County contains the following incorporated and unincorporated cities:

Adams	Austin	Brownsdale	Dexter
Elkton	Grand Meadow	LeRoy	Lyle
Mapleview	Racine	Rose Creek	Sergeant
	Taopi	Waltham

The largest city, Austin, is the county seat for Mower County, and is located along Interstate 90. Austin is known for its agricultural processing facilities, and specifically, Hormel Inc., the producer of the world-renowned “Spam” processed meat products. Each of the other communities serves a variety of important roles in the county.

The county also contains the following townships:

Adams	Austin	Bennington	Clayton
Dexter	Frankford	Grand Meadow	Lansing
LeRoy	Lodi	Lyle	Marshall
Nevada	Pleasant Valley	Racine	Red Rock
Sargeant	Udolpho	Waltham	Windom

Back to Table of Contents

1.13.2 - History

The settlement of Mower County began in earnest in the 1850’s. Seeking to take advantage of the County’s rich agricultural soils, settlers from throughout the world homesteaded the county. The population of the county grew dramatically between 1860 and 1870 with the introduction of the railroad to the region. During the railroad era, virtually every existing village, except Austin, was given birth by the railroads, which crisscrossed the County in every direction. Austin grew as a railroad division center, a major agricultural shipping point and a center for the lumber trade.

Villages also grew with the railroads as the centerpiece of their economies. Several of them were developed as railroad stations while others became small industrial hubs, reliant on railroad service. Throughout its history, Mower County has remained primarily an agricultural economy.

People Quick Facts (US Census Bureau)	Mower County	Minnesota
Population, 2008 estimate Mower County	37,859	5,220,393
Population, percent change, April 1, 200 to July 1, 2008	-1.9%	6.1%

The County continued to grow until 1960, when it reached a population of 48,498. Surprisingly, the small cities maintained a relatively stable population in spite of the loss of the railroads while the townships and the City of Austin declined substantially in population due, in large part, to the leveling off of employment growth and the loss of basic industry. This trend of population loss began to change in the 1990’s into 2000. Since 1990 the population has increased, but the household size has continued to decrease. During that period Austin showed an increase in the number of households and population, but household size declined.

The cities, on the other hand, have exhibited a different growth pattern. Austin’s population grew in response to a growing economy, which included the founding of the George A. Hormel Company in 1891. The other cities as a group also continued to grow modestly until 1960. Since then their collective population has essentially remained stable, although a number have declined including Austin whose population fell from 27,908 in 1960 to 23,314 in 2000. However, data from the past decade begin to show a reversal of this trend, particularly with Austin’s population increasing during that time.

Household Population Comparisons – Cities and Townships, 2007 to 2004

MCD Name	2007 Pop.	2007 House-holds	2007 Persons per House-hold	2006 Pop.	2006 House-holds	2006 Persons per House-hold	2005 Pop.	2005House-holds	2005 Persons per House-hold	2004 Pop.	2004 House-holds	2004 Persons per House-hold
Adams city	761	324	2.14	768	324	2.15	771	324	2.16	777	325	2.17
Adams township	459	151	3.03	484	158	3.06	479	156	3.07	482	156	3.08
Austin city	23671	10341	2.24	23702	10276	2.24	23761	10267	2.25	23749	10277	2.26
Austin township	1345	499	2.62	1371	507	2.63	1372	506	2.64	1378	507	2.64
Bennington township	164	62	2.64	174	65	2.67	176	65	2.7	176	65	2.7
Brownsdale city	702	291	2.41	704	291	2.41	706	291	2.42	711	292	2.43
Clayton township	149	52	2.86	164	56	2.92	167	56	2.98	170	56	3.03
Dexter city	325	131	2.48	335	134	2.5	337	134	2.51	339	134	2.52
Dexter township	282	100	2.82	298	405	2.83	297	104	2.85	294	103	2.85
Elkton city	148	54	2.74	149	54	2.75	150	54	2.77	151	54	2.79
Frankford township	351	125	2.8	370	131	2.82	373	132	2.82	371	131	2.83
Grand Meadow city	922	407	2.14	922	406	2.16	935	408	2.18	938	405	2.2
Grand Meadow township	331	107	3.09	355	114	3.11	351	112	3.13	348	111	3.13
Lansing township	1234	477	2.51	1261	486	2.52	1294	498	2.52	1295	496	2.54
LeRoy city	902	421	2.13	903	418	2.15	903	415	2.16	910	415	2.18
LeRoy township	370	134	2.76	397	143	2.77	400	144	2.77	404	145	2.78
Lodi township	213	78	2.73	241	87	2.77	243	87	2.79	242	86	2.81
Lyle city	568	216	2.62	569	216	2.63	570	216	2.63	565	213	2.65
Lyle township	363	137	2.64	387	145	2.66	386	144	2.68	389	144	2.7
Mapleview city	170	84	2.02	170	83	2.04	172	83	2.07	174	83	2.09
Marshall township	371	121	3.06	382	124	3.08	385	125	3.08	383	124	3.08
Nevada township	327	120	2.72	341	124	2.75	345	125	2.76	348	125	2.78
Pleasant Valley township	309	103	3	317	105	3.01	316	104	3.03	316	104	3.03
Racine city	403	140	2.87	411	142	2.89	402	139	2.89	395	136	2.9
Racine township	409	169	2.42	429	174	2.46	428	171	2.5	435	171	2.54
Red Rock township	713	278	2.56	729	283	2.57	722	279	2.58	722	278	2.59
Rose Creek city	387	160	2.41	394	162	2.43	391	160	2.44	385	157	2.45
Sargeant city	74	30	2.46	72	29	2.48	76	30	2.53	77	30	2.56
Sargeant township	296	91	2.51	308	95	2.54	310	96	2.56	299	96	2.58
Taopi city	78	30	2.6	82	31	2.64	83	31	2.67	87	32	2.71
Udolpho township	439	159	2.76	452	163	2.77	449	162	2.77	453	163	2.77
Waltham city	191	67	2.85	192	67	2.86	192	67	2.86	194	68	2.85
Waltham township	397	142	2.79	410	146	2.8	410	146	2.8	411	146	2.81
Windom township	599	213	2.81	610	216	2.82	613	217	2.82	616	218	2.82

Back to Table of Contents

1.13.3 - Physical Characteristics

Mower County has some of the richest agricultural land in the country. It is primarily flat and is contains parts of four watershed districts.

The County is classified within the Central Lowland physiographic province and is largely a broad, flat or slightly undulating, well-drained plain. The extreme northeastern section of the County lies in the Dissected Till Plains of the Central Lowlands. This area is characterized by rugged terrain and two streams: Deer and Bear Creeks, which are cutting into the soil and the underlying limestone bedrock, thereby forming deep valleys.

The dominant physiographic feature in the area is the deep Cedar River valley and the hummocky hills and poorly drained depressions of the Wisconsin terminal moraine located northwest of Austin.

The plateau upon which Mower County is situated rises over 1,400 feet above sea level and is the highest part of the upland surface. Elevations range from 1,435 feet above sea level in the east central section of the County near Dexter and Elkton to 1,160 feet at the Cedar River in the southwest corner of the County.

Back to Table of Contents

1.13.4 - Karst Geology

Of particular relevance to the county’s all hazard mitigation plan is the Karst geology of the region. Mower County contains significant Karst areas. Karst is a limestone landscape that is characterized by sinkholes, disappearing and underground streams, caves, and cracks in the bedrock. Karst features and the active processes that form Karst features can potentially have a significant impact on human activities and the County will need to address and plan for appropriate land uses in Karst regions. For instance, one of the key concerns with Karst topography is the susceptibility to ground water pollution and contamination.

The most visible Karst features are sinkholes. Over 125 sinkholes have been mapped in LeRoy Township, and field observations indicate that there are many more to be mapped. Many of the sinkholes have been modified by human activity or road construction and drain-tile have modified the hydrologic characteristics of sinkholes. Although humans have modified existing sinkholes, new ones are still forming. In 1994, a sinkhole formed in County Highway 12 south of LeRoy.

The second kind of Karst features is disappearing streams. Theses surface streams end suddenly where all surface water flow sinks into the subsurface and flow through the subsurface drainage system. A disappearing stream may have more than one point where it disappears, which are called stream sinks. Two stream sinks have been identified in LeRoy Township south of the City of LeRoy at the Iowa border.

The third kind of Karst features is springs and seeps. Karst springs and seeps are the points where ground water is naturally returned to the surface. Karst springs range in size and type (diffuse and conduit). A recent inventory conducted by the MN DNR, the County, and the Minnesota Geological Survey shows that there are at least twelve springs surrounding the City of LeRoy.

Back to Table of Contents

1.13.5 - Surface Waters/Wetlands

The County is divided by four major watersheds. They include the Cedar River, the Root River, the Upper Iowa River and the Upper Wapsipinicon River watersheds. The major topographic divide, which separates the major watersheds (Root and Cedar), occurs in central Mower County.

07040008 Root; state(s): IA, MN, WI

07060002 Upper Iowa; state(s): IA, MN

07080102 Upper Wapsipinicon; state(s): IA, MN

07080201 Upper Cedar; state(s): IA, MN

The largest watershed unit, the Cedar River, embraces most of western Mower County and contains 487.6 square miles. Its headwaters are located six miles northeast of Blooming Prairie and it drains south into the Iowa River, which in turn drains to the Mississippi River. The Cedar River has a fall of 145 feet over its 40 miles of length within Minnesota.

A fifth watershed area, the Turtle Creek Watershed, (not identified on the map) has sections of it located in Udolpho, Lansing and Austin townships in Mower County. The major portions of Turtle Creek Watershed are not located in Mower County, but during floods it greatly effects the county.

Mower County is very unusual in that it is laced with rivers, creeks and ditches but has only four man-made ponds and no natural lakes. Ponds include the Lake Louise Mill Pond, East Side Lake, Mill Pond in Austin, and the Ramsey Mill Pond in Lansing Township.

Most of the rivers, creeks and ditches are categorized by the MDNR as tributary river segments for purposes of State mandated shoreland management. Only segments of the south branch of the Root River, Deer Creek, the north branch of the Root River, Deer Creek, the north branch of the Root River and the Cedar River are categorized as agricultural river segments. The Ramsey Mill Pond is classified as a natural environment lake. All are required to be regulated in accordance with the 1989 Minnesota Shoreland Management Rules and Regulations.

With the introduction of farm field tiling, many of the wetlands that originally existed in Mower County have been drained. Wetlands needing protection under the State’s Wetland Management rules are still in the process of being identified and categorized. Lakes, rivers, creeks and streams depend on wetlands to remain healthy. Vegetation found in wetlands acts as a filter for water. It removes phosphates and other plant nutrients from surrounding land. This, in turn, reduces the growth of aquatic weeds and algae. Otherwise, the waterway could choke by stealing oxygen that plants and animals need. Wetlands are an important part of the ecosystem in other ways. They can prevent flooding by holding water. Wetlands are also important habitat for water fowl and wildlife. It’s easy to understand why wetlands are important and why they need surface water management and flood control and a 10-year plan by the Cedar River Water Shed District to accomplish those two goals. For more information go to www.cedarriverwd.org. or visit the following links.

MN Association of Watershed Districts
A.	Local Agencies
	Mower County
	Mower SWCD
	Turtle Creek Watershed District
	Freeborn County
	Freeborn SWCD
	Shell Rock River Watershed District
	Steele County
	Steele SWCD
	Dodge County
	Dodge SWCD
B.	Minnesota State Agencies
	Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR)
	Minnesota DNR
	DNR Division of Waters
	Minnesota Government Offices
	Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
	University of Minnesota Extension Service
C.	Federal Agencies
	Minnesota USGS
	United States Geological Survey (USGS) water resources
	U.S. EPA Water
	U.S. Fish & Wildlife
	EPA - Office of Water
	National Technical Information Service
	FEDWORLD
	Climatology Working Group - DNR
	National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center
	U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
	Surf Your Watershed District, US Environmental Protection Agency
	Surf Your Minnesota Watershed District, US Environmental Protection Agency
	Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
D.	Water Related Associations
	Freshwater Foundation
	Minnesota Waters
	Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
	Irrigation Association
	White Bear Lake Conservation District
	Minnesota Association of Floodplain Managers
	Minnesota Ground Water Association
E.	Water Information
	Water Online
	Pollution Online
	SEEK+Sharing Environmental Education Knowledge
	American Water Resources Association
	Public Works Line
	Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization
	New Strategies for America's Watersheds
	The Drainage Outlet
	LCMR/McKnight Foundation Report
F.	Water Experts
	Barr Engineering
	EcoSpeakers
	Emmons & Olivier Resources
	HDR Engineering, Inc .
	Houston Engineering, Inc.
	Mead & Hunt
	Rinke-Noonan Law Firm
	UofM Extension Service On-Site Sewage Treatment Program
	Water Laws
	Wenck Associates, Inc.
	Westwood Professional Services

Back to Table of Contents

1.13.6 - Flooding

Flooding is a fairly common occurrence along a number of the river segments in Mower County, especially when spring snow melt and major rainfalls coincide. Generally speaking, runoff rates are rapid and the river is subject to peak flows only for short durations. Areas susceptible to flooding are delineated and are regulated by the County’s Shoreland Management and Floodplain Management Ordinances.

Flooding along the Cedar River and other streams has been a concern of Mower County for several years. In order to address this issue, Mower County, City of Austin, Adams, Brownsdale, LeRoy, Mapleview, Rose Creek and Waltham participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Mower County and City of Austin also participate in the Federal Community Rating System which provides a ten percent yearly reduction on flood insurance premiums to policy holders in Mower County. Since the 1978 flood until 1993, the City of Austin, through the Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA), has purchased and removed 234 homes from the floodplains of Austin. After the flooding of 1993, the county made an application for funding for a flood buy-out program to remove homes from the floodplain. In 1995 and 1996, thirteen homes were removed from the flood plain and the land dedicated as permanent open space.

After the 2000 flooding, the county again administered a buy-out program and purchased another six homes. There were major floods in 2004 and 2008 with more buy-out programs. The buyout program for repetitive flooding in an ongoing process for Mower County.

Since 1998, Mower County has been included in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Disaster Declaration five times:

1998 – Severe storms

2000 – Severe storms/flooding

2001 – Flooding

2004 – Severe storms/flooding

2008 – Severe storms/ flooding

Flood Mitigation Program for the City of Austin, Minnesota

FLOOD MITIGATION

1. Project Descriptions

The City of Austin is in the midst of undertaking many projects relating to flooding issues. Outlined below are the different capital projects the City of Austin plans to undertake. More projects will be identified as engineering studies are completed.

a) North Main:

This project would provide for structural protection of properties from 4th Avenue NE (Cedar River Dam) to I-90. A preliminary project scope has been developed with an estimated budget of $13,100,000 (in 2006 dollars). The project can be completed in a phased sequence. The funding for this project is from a proposed DNR Bonding bill grant ($6,550,000) and the local options sales tax ($6,550,000). The project are scheduled as follows: Phase 8 – structural protection from 2nd Avenue to Packer Arena. The estimated cost is $1,400,000 and is scheduled for 2009.

Design Work – required to be done for the North main Area. The estimated cost is $1,200,000 and is scheduled for 2008/2009. Property Acquisition – North main property is needed to be acquired to construct structural solutions. The estimated cost is $3,000,000 and is scheduled for 2008- 2010.

North Main Structure – The construction of the flood protection in the North main area is estimated at $8,500,000 and is scheduled for 2009-2011.

b) Scattered Site Acquisition:

Property located throughout Austin has been subject to repetitive flood losses. A number of these parcels cannot be cost effectively protected and the only feasible mitigation effort is acquisition. All acquisition would be based on repetitive loss criteria to determine eligibility. The total estimated cost of the project is $5,000,000 and the funding for this project is from a proposed DNR Bonding bill grant ($2,500,000) and the local options sales tax ($2,500,000). The project is scheduled for 2009 through 2012.

c) Lions Park:

The property on 2nd Avenue NE from the Cedar River east to 8th Street is proposed to be structurally protected or acquired. The total estimated cost for the project is $500,000 and the funding for this project is from a proposed grant ($250,000) and the local option sales tax ($250,000). The project is scheduled for 2010 through 2011.

d) Turtle Creek Area:

The Turtle Creek area from I-90 to the confluence with the Cedar River is being impacted more often and to a greater degree. The project would provide for acquisition and structural work. The total estimated cost of the project is $6,000,000 and the funding for this project is from a DNR Bonding bill grant ($3,000,000) and the local options sales tax ($3,000,000). The project is scheduled for 2010 through 2012.

e) Dobbins Creek:

This project would involve the acquisition and structural protection of property and infrastructure from 28^th Street NE to the Cedar River. The total estimated cost of the project is $1,000,000 and the funding for this project is from a DNR Bonding bill grant ($500,000) and the local options sales tax ($500,000). The project is scheduled for 2012 through 2013.

f) Stream Bank Protection:

To stabilize stream banks throughout Austin that is adjacent to public property. The program would involve riprap and native vegetation. The total estimated cost of the project is $500,000 and the funding for this project is from the local options sales tax The project is scheduled for 2009 through 2013

2. Project Schedule

Description 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

a) North Main: $6,550,000 $4,250,000 $2,300,000

b) Scattered Site: $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000

c) Lions Park: $250,000 $250,000

d) Turtle Creek: $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000

e) Dobbins Creek: $500,000 $500,000

f) Stream Bank: $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000

Total Expenses $8,650,000$8,600,000 $5,650,000 $2,600,000 $600,000

3. Funding Summary

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

a) Grants: $4,275,000 $4,250,000 $2,775,000 $1,250,000 $250,000

b) Local Sales Tax: $4,375,000 $4,350,000 $2,875,000 $1,350,000 $350,000

Total Flood Mitigation $8,650,000 $8,600,000 $5,650,000 $2,600,000 $600,000

See Section II for a review of the Grants.

On the Move: A Minnesota City Creatively Battles Repetitive Flooding - Full Mitigation Best Practice Story Mower County, Minnesota

Austin, MN - In the spring of 2000, floodwaters in Austin, Minnesota, crested at 23.4 feet, the highest on record. But far fewer homes received flood damage than in the multiple flood events of the last 30 years. A first-of-its-kind acquisition program was conducted after two major floods in 1978. With additional buyouts occurring after succeeding floods, a total of 163 structures were eventually removed from the flood plain before the flood of 2000.

An in-depth study bears out the cost effectiveness of the buyout program in terms of moneys saved by avoiding damages in future flooding. The report concludes that the "losses avoided" analysis has demonstrated the economic viability of the various acquisition projects in Austin, Minnesota since 1978. The implementation of an acquisition program and the development of a park system along the river illustrate what we've learned about our close connections with a river. We no longer need to live right on the riverbanks for our water and power needs. The community of Austin has made it possible to reduce the suffering from nature's power when rains swell the river and its destructive waters escape overland. In addition, the natural beauty of the water resources and recreational possibilities can be shared by all in the community through the establishment of public open space. After the second devastating flood hit within 10 days in July 1978, residents and City officials in Austin knew something had to be done. Concerned citizens formed the Floodway Action Citizens Task Source (FACTS) to investigate ways to solve the flooding problem. The group, with a membership that reached 450, met and dialogued with the Austin City Council, Turtle Creek Watershed Board, the Department of Natural Resources, the Governor's office and state and local agencies to gather as much information as possible.

Although moving from a home, especially as a result of a natural disaster, can be a very traumatic event, the active participation of Austin residents, through the FACTS group, helped smooth the transition as government agencies worked together on voluntary buyouts. Most flood-damaged houses were torn down and the debris removed. Houses that were structurally sound were auctioned off with the condition that they be moved out of the floodplain. The sales proceeds went back into the HRA acquisition fund to purchase more flood-damaged homes.

Because of the flood protection work of the city, flood insurance policyholders have lower premiums. The Community Rating System (CRS) was developed to reward communities that are doing more than meeting the minimum National Flood Insurance Program requirements to help their citizens prevent flood losses. Community participation is voluntary. The CRS schedule identified 18 creditable activities, organized under four categories The City of Austin has received credit for 15 out of 18 activities. This has earned the City of Austin a Class 5 rating and a reduction of 25% in flood insurance premiums for policyholders. A riverside park is now being developed where houses once stood. A church building purchased in the buyout program was renovated into a flood-proof park structure through the determination of city leaders, following strict Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) guidelines.

An example of buy-out homes and locations are represented here (see floodplain maps in the Community Assets section):

Year	# of Homes	Location
95/96	7	Section 26, Lansing Township
95/96	6	Section 10, Austin Township
2000	1	Section 23, Lansing Township
2000	3	Section 27, Austin Township
2000	1	Section 15, Austin Township
2000	1	Section 28, Lyle Township
2007	15	Wildwood Park, Austin Township

The City of Austin is trying to implement another flood mitigation project.

As written in the July 21, 2009 edition of the Austin Daily Herald, Jon Erichson briefed the city council on flood mitigation proposals. Currently, the City of Austin is planning to build a combination of walls and berms along the Cedar River with city money and a number of grants. Erichson said the North Main area near Mill Pond is the priority, but the preventative system is slated to continue along the river past 11th Avenue Northwest toward Interstate #90. Where possible, the city would like to construct berms, but walls will be necessary at some points. Under discussion is whether the walls will be permanent brick walls or “invisible” walls that can be planked in when flood waters rise. The invisible wall would cost roughly $540,000 more but would be less restrictive between Main Street and Mill Pond. Either type of wall would stand about 7.5 feet tall during a flood. Erichson said the council didn’t need to reach a conclusion during the tour but should begin thinking heavily about what they’d prefer. He added that construction would ideally begin late this year or early in 2010. The walls and berms would protect approximately 59 acres from flooding.

In Austin Minnesota, losses avoided analysis has demonstrated the economic viability of the 163 property acquisitions. During the first phase, in a time span of about 20 years, the investment of $1.7 million (normalized to $4.8 million to the year 2001) from HUD has saved more than $3.9 million in losses avoided. This savings in disaster costs represents greater than 80% return on mitigation investment. Later, in the aftermath of 1993 floods, an investment of $5.5 million (normalized to $7 million to the year 2001), with the HMGP has saved $2.6 million; a return on investment of more than 36%

The 9-Point Flood Protection Plan – How are we doing today?

Completed: Wildwood Park. This neighborhood is located north of I-90 west of the Hormel Corporate Office on 1^st Street NE. Properties subject to repetitive flood events have been acquired through a FEMA grant.

In Process: North Main. This project provides for protection of properties from 4^th Avenue NE (Cedar River Dam) to I-90. It will consist of many elements including raised berms, “invisible walls” with removable panels, a storm water pump station, and acquisition.

Completed: Railroad Revitalization Project. Provide for the voluntary acquisition of commercial properties which had been subjected to repetitive flooding. As part of the project, repetitive flood property owners (Jim’s Super Valu and Eagles Club) have redeveloped on the railroad redevelopment site on 10^th Street NE.

Ongoing: Scattered Site Acquisition. Includes acquisition of properties located throughout Austin which have experienced repetitive flood losses.

Completed: East Side Lake: A berm was constructed to protect residential properties on 14^th street NE between 4^th avenue and 6^th Avenue NE – properties that had been subjected to flooding.

Grant Application Submitted: Turtle Creek. The Turtle Creek area from I-90 to the confluence with the Cedar River is flooding more often and to a greater degree. The City proposes to conduct a structural and acquisition review to determine the necessary mitigation required and then take corrective action.

Ongoing: Dobbins Creek. Projects need to be designed for the Dobbins Creek area from I-90 to 21^st Street NE. A number of properties have developed their own protective measures, but a comprehensive review needs to be completed and additional corrective action taken.

Cedar River Watershed District Created: Regional Flood Mitigation. In order to reduce the amount of water flowing into Austin by 20%, the City is working with regional governments in a joint effort to manage surface water in the Upper Cedar River Watershed.

Ongoing: Stream Bank Protection. There are a number of areas adjacent to public property subject to erosion with unstable banks from repetitive flooding. A comprehensive program using rock and native vegetation to stabilize banks in these areas would minimize future flooding.

Source: Mower County Austin Public Schools, City of Austin, News, May 2009

Back to Table of Contents

1.13.6.1 - Mower County Flood Plain Map by Jurisdiction

Vulnerability Assessment – There are relatively numerous assets within Mower County, which are exposed to flooding hazards. There are currently 13,302 residential properties 1094 commercial, office & industrial facilities, 1150 religious, government, educations, and non-profit institutional facilities, and 6317 agricultural areas located with Mower County. Continued enforcement of development regulations and the land use plan will significantly reduce vulnerability and prevent future development projects and building critical infrastructure in flood prone areas.

Assets Exposed to Hazard - The major area of concern in Mower County that have repetitive flood loss is within the City of Austin (non-residential and residential). The City of Austin sustained significant damage in 2004 and again in 2008. The City of Austin and Southwest portion of the county suffered significant damages with flooding during both of these events. The data was collected from the various municipalities and the Mower County Tax Assessors Office.

Damage Assessment - Complete losses of those properties located within flood zones in Mower County would result in significant losses and damages.

Land Use and Development Trends - Mower County has and continues to make significant efforts to eliminate the placement of structures identified in flood hazard areas. The County and all municipalities have enacted and vigorously enforce land use plans. These land use plans provide guidance for the prevention of development within flood prone areas. The county promotes the safety and general welfare by regulating land use, the location, height and size of buildings, the density of population and the division of the county into districts for residential, industrial and agricultural uses, thereby ensuring orderly future development outside the limits of incorporated municipalities. The county also promotes the safety and community welfare through building plan review, permit requirement, inspection of construction and application of International and State of Minnesota Building Codes. The following are participants in the NFIP in Mower County:

Mower County NFIP Participation as of 01/01/2010:

Communities Participating in the National Flood Program

CID

Community Name

County

Init FHBM

Init FIRM

Curr Eff

Reg-Emer Date

Tribal

Identified

Map Date

270308#

ADAMS, CITY OF

MOWER COUNTY

7/30/1976

8/15/1979

275228#

AUSTIN, CITY OF

MOWER COUNTY

5/14/1971

8/18/1992

5/14/1971

27310

BROWNSDALE, CITY OF

MOWER COUNTY

05/10/1974

NFIP

03/18/1985

270583#

LEROY, CITY OF

MOWER COUNTY

12/27/1974

5/15/1980

270586#

MAPLEVIEW, CITY OF

MOWER COUNTY

4/18/1975

5/15/1984

270307#

MOWER COUNTY *

MOWER COUNTY

3/21/1975

7/16/1979

270598#

ROSE CREEK, CITY OF

MOWER COUNTY

6/10/1977

7/16/1979

270311#

WALTHAM, CITY OF

MOWER COUNTY

8/9/1974

10/16/1979

The below municipalities do not participate in the NFIP due to not being sanctioned and not being mapped for flood plain at this time. Also depending on staff levels in the future may wish to participate in the NFIP and the feasibility of participation for the individual jurisdictions.

	Communities Not Participating in the National Flood Program

CID	Community Name	County	Init FHBM	Init FIRM	Curr Eff	Reg-Emer Date	Tribal
CID	Community Name	County	Identified	Identified	Map Date	Reg-Emer Date	Tribal
None issued	DEXTER, CITY OF	MOWER COUNTY	N/A	N/A	Not mapped	N/A	No
None issued	GRAND MEADOW, CITY OF	MOWER COUNTY	N/A	N/A	Not mapped	N/A	No
None issued	ELKTON, CITY OF	MOWER COUNTY	N/A	N/A	Not mapped	N/A	No
None issued	LYLE, CITY OF	MOWER COUNTY	N/A	N/A	Not mapped	N/A	No
None issued	RACINE, CITY OF	MOWER COUNTY	N/A	N/A	Not mapped	N/A	No
None issued	SARGEANT, CITY OF	MOWER COUNTY	N/A	N/A	Not mapped	N/A	No
None issued	TAPOI, CITY OF	MOWER COUNTY	N/A	N/A	Not mapped	N/A	No

Multi-Jurisdictional Concerns – All jurisdictions within Mower County can potentially be affected by flooding. There are many areas throughout the county where localized flooding has been an issue (due to flash floods). There are also rivers and streams throughout the entire county. All mitigation efforts will focus on countywide improvements.

Hazard Summary – Floods pose a significant threat in Mower County. The Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee has identified mitigation efforts related to flooding. Mower County and its cities and townships have worked hard to mitigate the loss of life and property in our community from flood hazards. This has been accomplished by taking a countywide approach to code enforcement and seeking mitigation grant funding to reduce flood hazards.

Back to Table of Contents

1.13.6.2 - Mitigated/Unmitigated Repetitive Loss

Mower County its Cities and townships have found the most effective way to control repetitive loss from flooding is by property acquisition. The City of Austin has acquired 250 homes as part of the Flood Mitigation Program. Mower County in conjunction with the City of Austin have had studies conducted in 1969-Corp of Engineers Study, 1979-Corps of Engineers Study, 2001-FEMA Property Acquisition Study, 2002-Corps of Engineers Study, 2002-Mower County/City of Austin Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2004-FEMA Post Event Mitigation Study and 2005-City of Austin North Main Street Study. The following chart is the most current information on unmitigated/mitigated properties located in Mower County.

Losses	Total Paid	Average Pay	Data Type	As of Date	Local Property Identifier	County Name
4	74,942.87	18,735.72	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
4	177,013.95	44,253.49	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	6,442.70	3,221.35	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	32,062.38	10,687.46	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008	16.040.0020	MOWER COUNTY
2	25,145.11	12,572.56	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	12,396.20	6,198.10	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	7,091.02	3,545.51	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	20,757.90	10,378.95	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	39,823.81	13,274.60	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	17,487.44	5,829.15	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
4	123,249.32	30,812.33	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	19,498.49	9,749.25	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	54,610.07	18,203.36	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	72,563.32	24,187.77	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
4	133,869.97	33,467.49	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	40,617.30	13,539.10	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	109,720.47	36,573.49	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	39,549.65	13,183.22	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008	08-051-0140; 08-051-0150; 08-051 - 0160	MOWER COUNTY
2	48,212.04	24,106.02	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	14,287.60	4,762.53	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008	02-012-0190	MOWER COUNTY
2	17,961.61	8,980.81	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	79,067.96	39,533.98	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	31,684.50	10,561.50	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	30,981.51	15,490.76	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	23,300.00	11,650.00	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	18,203.39	9,101.70	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	77,724.30	25,908.10	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	42,800.00	14,266.67	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	39,598.74	19,799.37	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	156,870.10	78,435.05	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	158,100.49	79,050.25	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008	08-051-012-	MOWER COUNTY
2	29,218.67	14,609.34	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	47,516.42	15,838.81	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	18,028.80	9,014.40	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	86,327.18	28,775.73	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	8,818.13	4,409.07	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	92,584.49	46,292.25	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	35,362.44	17,681.22	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
4	139,918.00	34,979.50	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	5,230.20	2,615.10	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	26,879.87	13,439.94	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	115,477.49	57,738.75	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	30,740.51	15,370.26	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	17,120.68	5,706.89	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008	08.023.0120	MOWER COUNTY
4	24,879.14	6,219.79	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
5	147,918.82	29,583.76	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
5	36,837.51	7,367.50	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	24,613.05	8,204.35	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
4	72,776.97	18,194.24	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
4	16,524.07	4,131.02	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	3,622.13	1,811.07	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
4	105,499.22	26,374.81	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
4	44,401.72	11,100.43	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	8,930.90	4,465.45	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
4	129,470.94	32,367.74	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	23,728.55	7,909.52	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008	08.011.0090	MOWER COUNTY
6	49,264.78	8,210.80	Unmitigated Data only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
163	3,087,324.89	18,990.73
Losses	Total Paid	Average Pay	Data Type	As of Date	Local Property Identifier	County Name
2	37,702.02	18,851.01	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	22,977.08	11,488.54	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	33,466.68	16,733.34	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	29,340.80	14,670.40	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	14,215.65	7,107.83	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	15,417.79	7,708.90	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	10,866.14	5,433.07	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	80,426.52	40,213.26	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	39,032.99	19,516.50	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	22,411.28	11,205.64	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	6,194.40	3,097.20	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	17,975.84	8,987.92	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008	08-023-0040	MOWER COUNTY
3	27,504.22	9,168.07	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	19,232.61	6,410.87	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
4	66,727.20	16,681.80	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	16,777.48	8,388.74	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	19,979.35	9,989.68	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	19,301.16	9,650.58	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	4,640.57	2,320.29	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	17,320.26	8,660.13	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	11,242.82	5,621.41	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	13,345.68	6,672.84	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	31,306.55	10,435.52	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	9,481.67	4,740.84	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	13,610.18	6,805.09	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	101,597.30	50,798.65	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	12,566.26	6,283.13	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	20,271.90	10,135.95	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	17,465.38	8,732.69	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	12,802.32	6,401.16	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	2,982.87	1,491.44	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	24,363.04	8,121.01	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	24,782.70	12,391.35	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
5	24,629.73	4,925.95	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	16,908.56	5,636.19	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
6	183,270.12	30,545.02	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008	08.023.0030	MOWER COUNTY
2	14,278.83	7,139.42	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
4	53,136.75	13,284.19	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	9,675.95	3,225.32	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	19,291.03	9,645.52	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
4	71,285.52	17,821.38	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	14,252.18	4,750.73	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	3,218.00	1,609.00	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	21,013.19	7,004.40	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	20,045.10	6,681.70	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	17,711.73	8,855.87	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	23,677.88	7,892.63	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	37,202.28	12,400.76	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	15,389.89	7,694.95	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	27,415.65	9,138.55	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	7,687.54	3,843.77	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	16,239.56	8,119.78	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	26,853.73	8,951.24	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	34,390.60	11,463.53	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008	02.007.0412	MOWER COUNTY
3	6,753.79	2,251.26	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	11,197.35	3,732.45	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	31,955.31	15,977.66	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	17,609.80	5,869.93	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	10,000.00	5,000.00	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
2	12,053.87	6,026.94	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	26,860.87	8,953.62	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	10,756.63	3,585.54	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	54,689.33	18,229.78	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
3	25,491.27	8,497.09	Mitigated Data Only	07/31/2008		MOWER COUNTY
164	1,696,702.96	10,013.62

Back to Table of Contents

1.13.7 - Groundwater

The glacial drift and Paleozoic limestones and sandstones are the chief water bearing formations in Mower County. While shallow drift wells produce sufficient water supplies for farms and domestic use, municipal and industrial wells tap the St. Peter sandstone at depths of 400-700 feet. Water can also be found in the Dresbach sandstone formation at considerably greater depths.

Mower County relies on several aquifer systems for domestic, agricultural and industrial water supplies. The Cedar Valley-Galena aquifer system of the Middle Devonian (385 mya) to Late Middle Ordovician age (460 mya) is referred to as the upper system. The lower system is comprised of the St. Peter (sandstone)-Prairie Du Chien (carbonate)- Jordan (sandstone) group which is the Middle Ordovician (480 mya) to Late Cambrian (580 mya) age. Ground water movement through the sandstone units is basically through intergranular flow. Ground water movement through the carbonate units is basically through fracture flow. The fractures range from microscopic openings to large, pipe like cracks. The Cedar Valley and the Galena are separate aquifers with the Maquoketa functioning as an aquitard.

Back to Table of Contents

1.13.8 - Climate / Precipitation

According to the 1989 Soils Survey of Mower County, Minnesota, the average temperature in winter is 15° F and the lowest temperature on record was -34° at Grand Meadow on January 30, 1951. In summer the average daily temperature is 68° F and the highest recorded temperature was 100° F on August 22, 1955 also at Grand Meadow.

Precipitation averages 31.6 inches per year with 23 inches or 70% falling between April and September. Thunderstorms occur on about 42 days each year and most of those occur during the summer. The average seasonal snowfall is 52 inches.

The sun shines 65% of the time during the summer and 40% of the time in the winter. Average relative humidity is approximately 65% and the prevailing winds are from the south with average wind speed being the highest at 14 mph during the spring.

	Austin average annual snowfall is 41 inches per year
	The average winter temperature is 15 degrees F
	The average summer temperature is 73 degrees F
	Average Yearly Rainfall: 31.97’
	National Average: 38.64’

TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION

(Recorded from 1951-1980 at Grand Meadow, MN)

TEMPERATURE							PRECIPITATION
MONTH	AVERAGE	AVERAGE	AVERAGE	2 YEARS IN 10		AVERAGE	AVERAGE	2 YEARS IN 10		AVERAGE	AVERAGE
	DAILY	DAILY		WILL	HAVE	# OF		LESS	MORE	# OF	SNOW-
	MAX	MIN		MAX<	MIN>	GROWING		THAN	THAN	DAYS	FALL
						DEGREE				0.10 IN
						DAYS*				OR MORE
	° F	° F	° F	° F	° F	Units	Inches	Inches	Inches		Inches
JAN	20	1.1	10.6	42	-27	0	0.95	0.29	1.48	3	13.10
FEB	26	6.4	16.2	46	-21	0	0.87	0.25	1.37	3	9.40
MAR	36.1	18.1	27.1	64	-11	0	2.08	0.93	3.05	5	11.80
APR	53.7	34	43.9	84	13	35	2.77	1.60	3.81	7	7.90
MAY	67.5	45.7	56.6	88	27	242	4.14	2.62	5.51	8	0.00
JUN	76.6	55.6	66.1	93	41	483	4.61	2.67	6.32	8	0.00
JUL	81	59.8	70.4	95	46	632	4.1	1.80	6.05	7	0.00
AUG	78.8	57	67.9	92	42	555	4.07	1.39	6.27	7	0.00
SEP	70.2	47.9	59.1	89	30	278	3.27	1.17	5.01	6	0.00
OCT	59.3	37.4	48.4	85	19	104	2.24	0.72	3.48	4	0.30
NOV	41.5	23.6	32.6	68	-5	0	1.51	0.36	2.42	4	4.40
DEC	26.7	10.2	18.5	53	-20	0	0.99	0.38	1.49	3	9.80
Average	53.1	33.1	43.1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Extreme	-	-	-	96	-28	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total	-	-	-	-	-	2,329	31.60	24.98	37.6	65	51.7
* A growing degree-day is a unit of heat available for plant growth. It can be calculated by adding the maximum and minimum daily temperatures, dividing the sum by 2, and subtracting the temperature below which growth is minimal for the principal crops in the area (50 degrees F).
Source: Soil Survey of Mower county, MN, USDA, SCS.

Average Climate in Austin, Minnesota

Based on date reported by over 4,000 weather stations

Climate and weather gives you a meaningful look at Austin, MN 55912’s weather patterns and risks. Average high/low temperatures are shown for January and July. Weather risk provides you with a percentage of the national average (100) for select environmental events. A score of 50 would be half the national average, while a score of 200 would be double the national average.

Weather risk

Back to Table of Contents

1.13.9 - Commissioner Districts

There are five Commissioner Districts in Mower County. Each of the districts except District 2 contains wards and precincts within the City of Austin. Districts 4 and 5 are comprised entirely of Austin wards and precincts.

Mower County Board of Commissioners

Five people are elected as Mower County Commissioners, serving staggered four year terms. Commissioners work to provide services to people and communities while overseeing the cost of such services. The Mower County Board meets the first, second, and fourth Tuesday each month in the Board Room located in the Lower Level of the Mower County Courthouse. The first meeting of the month begins at 1:00 PM while the remaining begin with departmental business at 8:30 AM with general business starting around 10:00 AM.

1st District

2nd District

3rd District

4th District

5th District

Commissioner Tim Gabrielson

23264 570th Ave

Austin, MN 55912

(507) 433-2598

Commissioner Raymond Tucker

P.O. Box 28

Dexter, MN 55926

(507) 584-6366 or (507) 584-6767

Commissioner David Hillier

1613 31st Street S.W.

Austin, MN 55912

(507) 437-4216

Commissioner Dick Lang

11027 4th Avenue N.E.

Austin, MN 55912

(507) 437-3414

Commissioner Mike Ankeny
102 22nd Street N.W.
Austin, MN 55912
Home: 507-433-4157

The 1st District includes the following townships: Lansing, Red Rock, Udolpho, and Waltham. The following Cities are in the first District: Brownsdale, Mapleview, Waltham, and the 1st ward, 1st Precinct of the City of Austin.

The 2nd District includes the following townships: Adams, Bennington, Clayton, Dexter, Frankford, Grand Meadow, LeRoy, Lodi, Marshall, Pleasant Valley, Racine and Sargeant. The following cities are in the 2nd District: Adams, Dexter, Elkton, Grand Meadow, LeRoy, Racine, Sargeant and Taopi.

The 3rd District includes the following townships: Austin, Lyle, Nevada and Windom. The following cities are included in the 3rd District: Lyle, Rose Creek and the 2nd Ward, 2nd Precinct of the City of Austin.

The 4th District includes all of the 3rd Ward of the City of Austin.

The 5th District includes the 1st Ward, 2nd Precinct and the 2nd Ward 1st Precinct of the City of Austin.

Back to Table of Contents

1.13.10 - Zoning

Mower County has countywide zoning and planning covering the entire county excluding the fourteen (14) cities of the county which all have some planning and zoning. At the present time four (4) townships Lansing, Pleasant Valley, Udolpho and Red Rock have their own planning and zoning ordinances.

Back to Table of Contents

1.13.11 - Public Schools

Public education is under great stress in rural communities where there is a high incidence of obsolete school facilities combined with small and shrinking enrollments and too few dollars to commit to quality education. These characteristics are evident in Mower County.

The County is served by nine independent school districts with 2008 enrollments ranging from 268 to 4,056. Four of the eight districts providing enrollment information lost students between 1990 and 1990 - paralleling the general decline in population. Much more significant enrollment shrinkage occurred during the late 1970’s.

Wherever possible, school districts in rural areas should be expected to service an area within a radius of 15 miles or 40 to 50 minutes travel time from a high school and have a minimum K-12 student enrollment of 1,500 to 2,000 students. This translates to many less districts than the nine that currently serve Mower County.

PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS

DISTRICT NAME		1975	1980	1985	1990	% CHANGE 1980-1990	2008	% CHANGE 1990-2008
203	Hayfield	N/A	1,054	968	1,025	-2.8	902	-13.63%
492	Austin	6,613	4,786	4,211	4,056	-15.3	4318	+6.7
497	Lyle	330	322	269	268	-16.8	240	-11.67
499	LeRoy/Ostrander	N/A	375	378 ¹	383 ²	+2.1	319	-20.01
500	Southland	1,073	794	680	627	-21.0	672	-6.7
534	Stewartville	1,841	1,784	1667	1,636	-8.30	1809	+9.56
756	Blooming Prairie	1,219	963	963	1,051	+9.1	755	+39.21
495	Grand Meadow	514	427	377	416	-2.6	416	0.0
	Kingsland						757

In 2008 there were five school districts located completely in Mower County. Austin School District, LeRoy/Ostrander School District, Lyle School District, Grand Meadow School District and Southland School District. Student enrollments ranged from 240 to 4318.

District Name	Phone	County	Students	Schools
AUSTIN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 401 NW Third Avenue, Austin, MN 55912	(507) 433-0966	Mower	4,318	16
CEDAR RIVER EDUCATION DISTRICT 401 3rd Avenue NW, Austin, MN 55912	(507) 433-0966	Mower	N/A	0
GRAND MEADOW PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT Box 68, Grand Meadow, MN 55936	(507) 754-5318	Mower	416	3
LEROY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT Box 1000, LeRoy, MN 55951	(507) 324-5743	Mower	319	2
LYLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 700 2nd Street, Lyle, MN 55953	(507) 325-4146	Mower	240	2
SOUTHLAND PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT Box 351, Adams, MN 55909	(507) 582-3283	Mower	672	3

Back to Table of Contents

1.14 Demographics

Back to Table of Contents

1.14.1 - Population Trends

Mower County’s population grew steadily though erratically between 1860 and 1960 from 3,217 to 48,498 people in large part because of the availability of jobs in and related to agriculture. Substantial population growth occurred between 1860 and 1880 attributable to the first major incursion of eastern farmers, the advent of the railroads, and the growth of commerce related to both. The County’s population continued to grow, but as a slower rate, between 1880 and 1930, as a result of more diversified farming practices, farm tiling and the growth of Austin as a railroad center. Between 1930 and 1960 growth again accelerated due to the coming of age of the George A. Hormel meat packing company that employed approximately 5,000 workers in Austin in the early 1940’s. After 1960, the County’s population declined substantially until 1990 for a variety of reasons. Since 1990, there has been resurgence in both employment and population.

The Township populations shrank steadily form 1960 to 1990. Only Frankford Township grew during the 1960’s, Racine Township in the 1970’s and the Townships of Racine and Clayton in the 1980’s. In the 1990’s the population of the Townships began to stabilize with population increases in 10 of the 20 Townships. Collectively, the Townships have lost 36% of their population since 1960 and they comprise just 24.8% (30.9% in 1960) of the County’s population. In 2007 the townships comprise 23.6%.

2007 Data
Mower Population	38,603	Minnesota	4,919,479
Mower Medium Age	38.90	Minnesota	35.40
Mower Females	19,595	Minnesota	848
Mower Males	19,008	Minnesota	435,631
Median Household Income	$36,654	Minnesota	$47,111

In 2008 the population of Mower County was 37,859, a decrease of 744 people from 2007.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division

The Cities also declined in population between 1960 and 1990 but to a lesser degree (18.4%) than the Townships. The Cities began to stabilize in the 1990’s with an increase of almost 1,650 persons, or 6.0%. Austin was the biggest loser in the 1990’s accounting for virtually all of the Cities collective losses. In the 1990’s only four of fourteen municipalities lost population. Cities now comprise 75.2% (69.1% in 1960) of the County’s population. Every unit of government in the County had an appreciably smaller household size in 2000 than in 1960

POPULATION OF MUNICIPALITIES IN MOWER COUNTY

MUNICIPALITY	1960	1970	% CHANGE	1980	% CHANGE	1990	% CHANGE	2000	% CHANGE	2007	% CHANGE
Adams	806	771	-4.3	797	3.4	756	-5.2	800	5.8	761	-5.12
Austin	27,908	26,210	-6.1	23,020	-8.2	21,907	-4.8	23,314	6.4	23,671	1.51
Brownsdale	622	625	0.5	691	10.6	695	0.6	718	3.3	702	-2.28
Dexter	313	252	-19.5	279	10.7	303	8.6	333	9.9	325	-2.46
Elkton	147	134	-8.8	139	3.7	142	2.2	149	4.9	148	-0.67
Grand Meadow	837	869	3.8	965	11.0	967	0.2	945	-2.3	922	-2.49
LeRoy	971	870	-10.4	930	6.9	904	-2.8	925	2.3	902	-2.55
Lyle	607	522	-14.0	576	10.3	504	-12.5	566	12.3	568	0.35
Mapleview	381	328	-13.9	253	-22.9	206	-18.6	189	-8.3	170	-11.18
Racine	180	197	9.4	285	44.7	288	1.1	355	23.3	403	11.91
Rose Creek	351	390	11.1	371	-4.9	363	-2.2	354	-2.5	367	3.54
Sargeant	113	85	-24.8	95	11.8	78	-17.9	76	-2.6	74	-2.70
Taopi	92	59	-35.9	96	62.7	83	-13.5	93	12.0	78	-17.50
Waltham	207	189	-8.7	176	-6.9	170	-3.4	196	15.3	191	-2.62
TOTAL POP	33,535	31,501		28,673		27,366		29,013		38,603
% TOT POP	69.1	70.1		71		27.366		75.2		76.4
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

POPULATION OF TOWNSHIPS IN MOWER COUNTY

TOWNSHIP	1960	1970	% CHANGE	1980	% CHANGE	1990	% CHANGE	2000	% CHANGE
Adams	651	575	-11.7	514	-10.6	458	-10.9	475	3.7
Austin	3,052	2,777	-9.0	2,386	-14.1	1,779	-25.4	1,396	-21.5
Bennington	332	244	-26.5	209	-14.3	182	-12.9	178	-2.2
Clayton	328	275	-16.2	191	-30.5	192	0.5	178	-7.3
Dexter	530	417	-21.3	337	-19.2	285	-15.4	289	1.4
Frankford	425	482	13.4	359	-25.5	348	-3.1	358	2.9
Grand Meadow	549	490	-10.7	364	-25.7	338	-7.1	344	1.8
Lansing	2,101	1,828	-13.0	1,558	-14.8	1,270	-18.5	1,292	1.7
LeRoy	510	446	-12.5	422	-5.4	392	-7.1	396	1.0
Lodi	451	408	-9.5	309	-24.3	267	-13.6	249	-6.7
Lyle	584	511	-12.5	500	-2.2	419	-16.2	402	-4.1
Marshall	515	478	-7.2	411	-14.0	387	-5.8	382	-1.3
Nevada	557	482	-13.5	467	-3.1	391	-16.3	353	-9.7
Pleasant Valley	399	375	-6.0	328	-12.5	292	-11.0	308	5.5
Racine	521	383	-26.5	483	26.1	527	9.1	445	-15.6
Red Rock	1,019	968	-5.0	872	-9.9	754	-13.5	715	-5.2
Sargeant	461	402	-12.8	338	-15.9	271	-19.8	316	16.6
Udolpho	595	577	-3.0	535	-7.3	487	-9.0	458	-6.0
Waltham	626	553	-11.7	477	-13.7	391	-18.0	416	6.4
Windom	757	747	-1.3	657	-12.0	589	-10.4	640	8.7
TOTALS	14,963	13,418		11,717		10,019		9,590
% TOT CP POP	30.9	29.9		29.0		26.8		24.8
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Back to Table of Contents

1.14.2 - Household Composition

A national trend has also had an affect on population trends, that being the general shrinking of household size attributable in part to lifestyle changes and, in rural areas, to declining employment opportunities. Mower County lost 23% of its population between 1960 and 1990 with a substantial part of that decline attributable to Austin. An increase in basic employment allowed the county to grow by 3.3% in the 1990’s.

The number of households in Mower County increased very modestly by 59 during the 1980’s. In spite of this growth, the population deceased by 3,005 due to shrinking household size. According to the 2000 Census the number of households in the County increased substantially between 1990 and 2000 by 554. The number of people per household declined from 2.65 in 1980 to 2.44 in 1990 and continued to decrease through 2000 to 2.42.

Household composition has changed in the County with approximately an 8% decrease in married couples with children and a 14% increase in non-family households between 1990 and 2000. The most significant change during this time was a 57% increase in male households.

The Types of Households in Mower County, Minnesota in 2005-2007

For people reporting one race alone, 95 percent was White; 1 percent was Black or African American; less than 0.5 percent was American Indian and Alaska Native; 2 percent was Asian; less than 0.5 percent was Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and 2 percent was Some other race. One percent reported Two or more races. Seven percent of the people in Mower County was Hispanic. Eighty-nine percent of the people in Mower County were White non-Hispanic. People of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Races in Mower County, Minnesota:
	White Non-Hispanic (93.0%)
	Hispanic (4.3%)
	Other race (2.2%)
	Two or more races (0.9%)
	Vietnamese (0.6%)
	Black (0.6%)
(Total can be greater than 100% because Hispanics could be counted in other races)

Median resident age:	38.9 years
Minnesota median age:	35.4 years

Males: 19,008	(49.2%)
Females: 19,595	(50.8%)

Average wage per job in 2003: $29,809
County population in 2003: 38,859
Jobs in 2003: 17,148

Household type by relationship

Households: 37,745

In family households: 31,690 (8,630 male householders, 1,795 female householders) 8,537 spouses, 10,893 children (9,996 natural, 246 adopted, 651 stepchildren), 267 grandchildren, 269 brothers or sisters, 162 parents, 323 other relatives, 814 non-relatives
In nonfamily households: 6,055 (2,288 male householders (1,815 living alone)), 2,893 female householders (2,730 living alone)), 874 nonrelatives
In group quarters: 858 (603 institutionalized population)

Size of family households: 5,016 2-persons, 1,981 3-persons, 1,921 4-persons, 1,018 5-persons, 296 6-persons, 193 7-or-more-persons.

Size of nonfamily households: 4,545 1-person, 532 2-persons, 42 3-persons, 46 4-persons, 12 5-persons, 4 6-persons.

Language Skills

92.8% of residents of Mower County speak English at home.

4.3% of residents speak Spanish at home (43% speak English very well, 21% speak English well, 23% speak English not well, 13% don't speak English at all).

1.8% of residents speak other Indo-European language at home (76% speak English very well, 15% speak English well, 6% speak English not well, 4% don't speak English at all).

0.8% of residents speak Asian or Pacific Island language at home (32% speak English very well, 24% speak English well, 30% speak English not well, 13% don't speak English at all).

0.3% of residents speak other language at home (75% speak English very well, 25% speak English well).

Back to Table of Contents

1.14.3 Age Trends and Distribution

The County’s population has aged consistent with national trends. It had a median age of 27.9 years in 1950 and has aged by over eleven years since then. The age distribution has also changed rather significantly since 1970 when 29.6% of the County’s population was between five and 17 years of age. In 1990 and 2000, only 19.0% of the population fell in that age group.

The 25 to 44 age group decreased from 26.6% to 25.7% attributable to the aging of the baby boom generation. What was not expected was the decrease in the 65 and over age group.

Generally speaking, Cities have a much higher percentage of their population in the over 65 age group (20.1%) than the Townships (13.2%) while the Townships have a somewhat higher percentage of their population in the 45 to 54 age group (14.0%) than the Cities (11.2%).

Mower County, Minnesota

Population, 2008	37,859	5,220,393
Population, percent change, April 1, 200 to July1, 2008	-1.9%	6.1%
Population base April1, 2000	38,604	4,919,492
Persons under 5 years old, percent 2008	7.0%	6.9%
Persons under 18 years old, percent 2008	24.3%	24.0%

POPULATION OF MOWER COUNTY: From 2005-2007, Mower County had a total population of 38,000 – 19,000 (51%) females and 19,000 (49%) males. The median age was 39.5 years. Twenty-five percent of the population was under 18 years and 10% was 65 years and older.

MOWER COUNTY MEDIAN AGE
1950	27.9
1960	27.4
1970	29.3
1980	33.9
1990	37.4
2000	38.9
2007	39.5
Source: 1950-2000 – U.S. Census Bureau
Source: 2005-2007 – American Community Survey

Back to Table of Contents

1.14.4 - Housing Mix and Tenure Trends

According to 1990 Census data, housing in Mower County (excluding Austin) is predominantly single-family with 93.6% of the stock consisting of single-family and mobile homes. Only 250 or 4.2% are classified as multi-family units having between three and 19 units, with virtually all of these being located in cities.

Housing is predominantly owner-occupied with 84.5% of occupied units outside of Austin being so classified in 1990. More than 70% of the renter occupied housing stock outside of Austin consists of single-family homes.

HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS: From 2005-2007, Mower County had a total of 17,000 housing units, 8 percent of which were vacant. Of the total housing units, 82 percent was in single-unit structures, 15 percent was in multi-unit structures, and 3 percent was mobile homes. Thirteen percent of the housing units were built since 1990.

The Types of Housing Units in Mower County, Minnesota in 2005-2007

Single-unit structures

82%

In multi-unit structures

15%

Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
List of Maps and Charts
Participants
Table of Contents
Appendices

PART ONE
Section 1 - The Hazard Mitigation Planning Process
1.1	Planning Process
1.2	Definition / Purpose
1.3	Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
1.4	Hazard Mitigation Plan Requirement
1.5	Legal Authority / Overview
1.6	Planning Process (FEMA)
1.7	The Mower County Planning Process
	1.7.1	Documentation of the Planning Process
	1.1.2	Public Participation
	1.7.3	Continued Public Involvement
	1.7.4	All Hazards Survey
	1.7.4	Assets Inventory Survey
	1.7.6	Hazards Profile and Risk Assessment Surveys
	1.7.7	Townships Meeting
	1.7.8	Cities Meeting
	1.7.9	2009 Cities and Township Meeting
1.8	Draft Review and Approval Meetings
1.9	Goals and Objectives
1.10	Implementation
	1.10.1	Plan Adoption and Maintenance
	1.10.2	Adoption by the Local Governing Board
	1.10.3	Incorporating into Existing Planning Mechanisms
	1.10.4	Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption
	1.10.5	Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan
	1.10.6	Project Implementation
	1.10.7	Implementation of Mitigation Activities
	1.10.8	Updates and Responsible Parties
Section 2 - The Mower County Community Profile
1.11	Mower County Community Profile
1.12	County Overview
1.13	Geography
	1.13.1	Location, Area and Municipalities
	1.13.2	History
	1.13.3	Physical Characteristics
	1.13.4	Karst Geology
	1.13.5	Surface Waters/Wetlands
	1.13.6	Flooding
		1.13.6.1	Mower County Flood Plain Map by Jurisdiction
		1.13.6.2	Mitigated/Unmitigated Repetitive Loss
	1.13.7	Groundwater
	1.13.8	Climate / Precipitation
	1.13.9	Commissioner Districts
	1.13.10	Zoning
	1.13.11	Public Schools
1.14	Demographics
	1.14.1	Population Trends
	1.14.2	Household Composition
	1.14.3	Age Trends and Distribution
	1.14.4	Housing Mix and Tenure Trends
	1.14.5	Housing Vacancies
	1.14.6	Housing Values
	1.14.7	Employment Trends
	1.14.8	Income
	1.14.9	Agriculture
1.15	Infrastructure
	1.15.1	Highways, Roads and Bridges
	1.15.2	Aviation
	1.15.3	Rail
	1.15.4	Public Transit
	1.15.5	Public Libraries
	1.15.6	Parks, Recreation and Trails
1.16	Emergency Response
	1.16.1	Law Enforcement
	1.16.2	Fire and Rescue Services
	1.16.3	Medical Facilities
1.17	Communications
	1.17.1	Strongest AM Radio Stations in Austin
	1.17.2	Strongest FM Radio Stations in Austin
	1.17.3	TV Broadcast Stations around Austin
	1.17.4	Newspapers
1.18	Utilities
1.19	Wind Farms
Section 3 - Mower County Community Assets
1.20	Mower County Community Assets
Section 4 - Presidential Disaster Declarations
1.21	Presidential Disaster Declarations
PART TWO
Section 1 - Hazards
2.1	Hazards
2.2	Natural Hazards Assessment
	2.2.1	Flooding
	2.2.2	Tornadoes
	2.2.3	Thunderstorm, High Wind & Lightning
	2.2.4	Windstorm
	2.2.5	Hailstorm
	2.2.6	Blizzard
	2.2.7	Excessive Cold
	2.2.8	Excessive Heat
	2.2.9	Drought
	2.2.10	Infectious Disease (Environmental Outbreak)
	2.2.11	Crop Disaster
	2.2.12	Wildfire
	2.2.13	Earthquake
2.3	Technological Hazards
	2.3.1	Hazardous Materials Spill
	2.3.2	Radiological
	2.3.3	Water Supply Contamination
2.4	Human Caused Hazards and Terrorism
	2.4.1	Meth Labs
	2.4.2	Arson
	2.4.3	School Violence
	2.4.4	Other Man-made Hazards
	2.2.5	Vulnerability and Impact to these Hazards
Section 2 - Mitigation Projects
2.5	Mitigation Projects
Section 3 - Estimated Investments & Contributions
2.7	Estimated Investments & Contributions
2.8	Funding & Budgets Statement

APPENDICES
Appendix A
AA1	Emergency Service Contacts
AA2	Documents Referenced
AA3	Glossary of Terms
Appendix B – Public Participation Documents
AB1.1	May 2009 Invitation to Participate in Mower County
	AB1.1.1	Invitation Letter from the County
	AB1.1.2	Sample Letter of Commitment
	AB1.1.3	Letters of Commitment from Cities and Townships
	AB1.1.4	May 2009 Township/City Letter
AB1.2	August 27 2009 Cities and Township Meeting
	AB1.2.1	Request for Data
	AB1.2.2	Request for Meeting
	AB1.2.3	Mitigation Planning Session
	AB1.2.4	Sign in sheets
	AB1.2.5	Handouts
	AB1.2.6	Work Session
	AB1.2.7	Questions and Answers
	AB1.2.8	What’s Next?
AB1.3	August 31, 2009 Public Information Meeting
	AB1.3.1	Request for Notice of Public Hearing in the LeRoy Independent and the Grand Meadow News
	AB1.3.2	Notice of Public Hearing in the LeRoy Independent and the Grand Meadow News
	AB1.3.3	Posting of the Public Hearing
	AB1.3.4	Contacts in Mower County and the Cities and Townships of Mower County
AB1.4	September 2009 Phone Calls to Cities and Townships
	AB1.4.1	Get updates from Cities
	AB1.4.2	Get updates from Townships
Appendix C: Survey Documents, Reports
AC1.1	All Hazards Survey Questionnaire
AC1.2	Asset Inventory Survey Report
AC1.3	Hazard Profile, Risk Assessment, Responses
	AC1.3.1	Public Participation Survey
AC1.4	Overall Priority by Community Report
AC1.5	All Hazards Survey Report
AC1.6	Hazard Mitigation Planning
AC1.7	Mitigation Activities Worksheet
AC1.8	Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk
AC1.9	Hazards
	AC1.9.1	Natural Hazards
	AC1.9.2	Technological Hazards
	AC1.9.3	Human Caused Hazards and Terrorism
AC1.10	Mower County Emergency Management All Hazard Mitigation Plan
	AC1.10.1	Planning Process