27
[SECTION 4]
Plan
Maintenance
Mitigation
Strategy
Risk Assessment
Planning Process
Prerequisite
309
Mitigation Strategy
SECTION 4: MITIGATION STRATEGY
HAZARD MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The mitigation strategy of this plan serves as the long-term blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in
the risk assessment. The mitigation strategy includes the development of goals, objectives and prioritized
mitigation actions. Mitigation goals are broad policy statements that explain what is to be achieved. The planning
area’s hazard reduction goals, as described in the plan, along with the corresponding objectives, guide the
development and implementation of mitigation actions. These goals were mainly developed through meetings
and discussion with the Planning Committees during development of the 2010 Jones County HMP. The guiding
document for these goals was the State’s hazard mitigation plan (2007), and the committees consulted other local
hazard mitigation plans from the area for guidance, including the Central City plan, the Belle Plaine plan, the Cedar
Rapids Metro Area plan, the Oxford Junction plan, and the Neosho County (Kansas) multi-hazard mitigation plan.
When the 2010 plan was revised the committee used the State of Iowa 2012 Hazard Mitigation plan for guidance
and determined during meetings held in October 2014 that the goals and objectives developed in 2010 were still
current and are comprehensive of Jones County’s mitigation strategy. Therefore, no changes were made to the
goals and objectives from 2010.
Goal 1: Protect critical facilities, infrastructure and other community assets from the impacts of hazards
Goal 2: Protect the health, safety and property of residents of the planning area
Goal 3: Improve education and awareness regarding hazards, risk and reducing vulnerability in the
planning area
Goal 4: Ensure that public funds are used in the most efficient manner
The above goals are supported by the following mitigation objectives, which will serve as guidance during future
project development. The objectives are numbered as to correspond with the above goals.
Objective 1.1: The participating jurisdictions will engage in activities and practices that will help mitigate
the impacts of natural hazards
Objective 1.2: The participating jurisdictions will integrate mitigation principles into the capital
improvements planning process
Objective 2.1: The participating jurisdictions will continue to participate in the NFIP and consider options
to reduce the impact of future flooding
Objective 2.2: The participating jurisdictions will work to prevent infrastructure extensions from occurring
in hazardous areas to reduce the risk of residents being subjected to unsafe conditions
Objective 3.1: The communities will strengthen communication between agencies and the public
regarding risk reduction
310
Mitigation Strategy
Objective 3.2: The participating jurisdictions will inform the public of private-side risk reduction
techniques and disaster preparation
Objective 4.1: The participating jurisdictions will work to develop in such a way that growth does not
occur in known or predictable pathways of natural or man-made hazards
Objective 4.2: The participating jurisdictions will coordinate mitigation efforts with surrounding entities to
provide efficient provision of services
311
Mitigation Strategy
MITIGATION ACTIONS
The participating jurisdictions are required to list potential loss reduction actions identified during the planning
process and analyze various actions that achieve the communities’ goals and objectives to reduce or avoid the
effects of the identified hazards. Mitigation actions fall into six broad categories: prevention, property protection,
public education and awareness, natural resource protection, and structural projects. Awareness of these six
categories helped the committees generate and evaluate various mitigation options. The six categories are as
follows:
1. Prevention: Government, administrative or regulatory actions or processes that influence the way land and
buildings are developed and built. These actions also include public activities to reduce hazard losses. Examples
include land use regulations including zoning and subdivision ordinances, building codes, floodplain regulations,
capital improvement programs (if applicable), watershed planning, drainage district management, and storm water
management regulations.
2. Property Protection: Actions that involve (1) modification of existing buildings or structures to protect them
from a hazard or (2) removal of the structures from the hazard area. Examples include acquisition, elevation,
relocation, structural retrofits, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass.
3. Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, and property owners
about hazards and potential ways to mitigate them. Such actions include outreach projects, real estate disclosure,
hazard information centers, and school-age and adult education programs.
4. Natural Resource Protection: Actions that minimize hazard loss and also preserve or restore the functions of
natural systems. These actions include sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed
management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation.
5. Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property, during and immediately following, a disaster or
hazard event. Services include warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential
facilities.
6. Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Such
structures include dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
Mitigation actions included in this section were originally identified by the 2010 planning committees with
assistance from a variety of sources including FEMA recommendations and a review of existing hazard mitigation
plans in Iowa. Additional mitigation actions were obtained from the FEMA publication “Mitigation Ideas.” All
mitigation actions were selected and prioritized using the methods outlined and suggested by Iowa Homeland
Security and Emergency Management Division, as detailed below. During meetings held in October 2014 the
existing mitigation measures were reviewed by committee members and their status was determined. The
committee members had copies of FEMA’s publication “Mitigation Ideas” available to them. Committee members
were unanimous in their contention that the existing mitigation measures accurately reflected and were
comprehensive of Jones County’s mitigation needs. None of the committee members presented any new
mitigation measures to include in the plan. Members of the Center Junction, Morley and Onslow communities that
were not included in the 2010 plan also participated in this process and verified the applicability of the 35
mitigation measures to their communities.
312
Mitigation Strategy
In addition to the projects that will be outlined as follows, all jurisdictions will continue to participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) throughout the life of this plan and beyond. All jurisdictions are currently
meeting the minimum NFIP requirements, and will continue to do so. Additionally, jurisdictions will consider
expanding participation, expanding outreach/education efforts, and consider CRS status as appropriate.
313
Mitigation Strategy
PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION ACTIONS
After identifying the mitigation actions, the actions must be prioritized in the order in which actions will be
implemented. Considerations that may be used to prioritize the action plan include the STAPLEE analysis as well as
analysis by the committees. The committees considered the benefits that would result from the mitigation actions
versus the cost of those actions, but note that a full benefit cost analysis was not performed. Rather, an economic
evaluation is essential for selecting one or more actions from the list of identified mitigation actions. The
Committee ranked the mitigation actions on the following pages based on the criteria described below. An
additional consideration was the overall impact of that action item.
The planning committees evaluated the mitigation options using the STAPLEE method outlined by FEMA. Rather
than assigning a score to each criterion, the committee discussed the pros and cons of the STAPLEE criteria, and
the high points of the discussion are included in the table associated with each mitigation strategy. This technique
assists in identifying, evaluating and prioritizing mitigation actions based on existing local conditions:
Table 146: STAPLEE Criteria
S
Social
The public must support the overall implementation strategy and specific
mitigation actions. Therefore, the project is evaluated in terms of community
acceptance.
T
Technical
A
Administrative
The proposed option must be technically feasible, must reduce losses in the long
term, and have minimal secondary impacts.
The anticipated staffing, funding and maintenance requirements to determine if
existing capabilities exist or if outside staffing is needed.
P
Political
L
Legal
E
Economic
E
Environmental
Determining how community leadership feels about issues to gauge the level of
political support for proposed mitigation objectives
Identifying what level of government (or other entity) has the legal authority to
undertake the mitigation action.
Differentiating between cost effective mitigation actions that can be funded in
the near future and those that are only economically feasible in a post-disaster
scenario.
Impact on the environment is evaluated, including compliance with statutory
considerations such as NEPA
After the identification of mitigation actions was performed by the Planning Committee, it became clear that a
number of related hazards have the same mitigation actions, and for the purposes of streamlining the analysis
process, these items have been grouped together.
Priority 1 and Priority 2 hazards have been analyzed for mitigation actions as follows. Priority 3 hazards are those
hazards that the Committee determined to have an acceptable level of risk, and establishing mitigation projects
solely for Priority 3 hazards would not be cost effective. However, many action steps relating to Priority 1 and
Priority 2 hazards would also apply to Priority 3 hazards, and those instances are noted at the end of the analysis.
For a list of which hazards fall into which category, please refer to page 103.
314
Mitigation Strategy
BENEFIT-COST REVIEW
The cost analysis for the mitigation options are fairly broad, and each mitigation option would need to be
specifically priced by an expert in that field, and additional options would be evaluated at that time. For the
purposes of this analysis, the cost analysis consists of three categories: High, Medium and Low. As much as
possible, the costs and benefits of the projects have been weighed to arrive at the final rank. Any projects listed
above previously and not included below did not pass this cost benefit review.
High Cost: Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed project, and in some
circumstances, funding may only be available after a presidential disaster declaration. These are items anticipated
to cost in excess of $100,000. This amount was selected as it corresponds to a change in procurement policy under
44CFR.
Medium Cost: The project could possibly be implemented with existing funding but would require a
reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or possibly a bond option. These items have an
anticipated cost between $10,000 and $100,000.
Low Cost: The project could be funded immediately under the existing budget, generally at levels under $10,000.
Some low cost options could be funded nearly entirely as volunteer or general office staff time projects.
The benefit analysis examines the short and long term impact the mitigation option would have on decreasing risk
and increasing ability to respond to events.
High Benefit: Projects will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk and exposure to hazards, and are
generally well supported by the community. These are also projects that are within the City’s legal jurisdiction.
Medium Benefit: Projects will have a long term impact on the reduction of risk and exposure to hazards or project
will have an immediate impact on the above. These projects may require more work to obtain full community
support or may impact a smaller percentage of the community than High Benefit Projects.
Low Benefit: Benefits of the project may be difficult to quantify or the project may not result in a significant
improvement over existing conditions. Project may involve private/governmental property rights issues or other
aspects that are generally outside of city control, or improvement of coordination with agencies where existing
levels of cooperation are acceptable.
The anticipated cost of each action is listed in the following section outlining the description of each mitigation
action step.
315
Mitigation Strategy
MITIGATION ACTION STEPS
Planning committee members reviewed existing (non-DMA 2000 compliant) mitigation plans and mitigation
planning resources provided by FEMA to generate a list of possible mitigation actions for the planning area. The
following section is a list of all mitigation actions discussed, with additional information provided outlining which
jurisdiction favored that particular mitigation action step, how the mitigation action step would be implemented
and who would be the lead agency, any partner agencies, funding sources, estimated costs, benefits, STAPLEE
considerations and timeframe. The following steps are listed in no specific order and do not indicate prioritization;
priorities are identified by each jurisdiction’s implementation plan.
*Note:* All action steps that show a completion date of July 20, 2020 are actions steps that for a variety of
circumstances are ongoing.
316
Mitigation Strategy
Action 1
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Acquisition of Flood-prone Structures
Acquisition of structures that have an extensive history of flood damage may
be a good option to permanently reduce flood related disaster losses.
Property Protection
Goal 2 Objective 1
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
x
X
X
Various programs exist for implementing this strategy, and different agencies
frequently have different program guidelines and qualifications. However,
nearly all programs available require the City (or in the unincorporated area,
the County) to submit an application, individual property owners cannot
normally apply directly to the funding agency. Thus, the administrative
department at the participating jurisdiction would normally be responsible
for implementation, frequently with assistance from the EMA
Local Jurisdiction
Jones County EMA and ECICOG
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program,
Severe Repetitive Loss Program, USACE, CDBG or other
High; cost is typically the fair market value of the property plus
administration fees, relocation costs, and demolition
No future disaster payments on that particular property; if larger areas are
cleared, restoration of wetlands may reduce flood depths in other areas.
Social issues may arise if a community must decide which properties to
acquire. Acquisition is usually technically feasible, but asbestos or other
contamination may complicate the project. Program can require extensive
administration. Depending on title of building and land being acquired, legal
issues could prevent acquisition. Not all buildings that a community may
wish to acquire will pass a benefit cost analysis. Demolition of structures can
result in large quantities of waste being sent to the landfill.
 Monticello has bought out 6 residences and 3 businesses in the last
five years.
 Olin received funds to buy out and remove 13 structures after the
floods of 2008 and is in the process of buying out 3 more in 2014
As needed or as grants are available; typically more funding exists after a
large flood event by July 1, 2020
317
Mitigation Strategy
Action 2
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Backup Generators
Acquisition and installation of backup generators at critical facilities in the
planning area
Emergency Services
Goal 1, Objective 1 and 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Each participating jurisdiction would likely be responsible for the implementation of this
project, particularly the administrative branch of the participating jurisdiction, or at the
County level, the particular department interested in the generator. If critical facilities
identified for this project are not City or County owned facilities, the local government will
need to coordinate with the owner of that particular facility to develop the mitigation project
Local Jurisdiction
Jones County EMA, ECICOG, HSEMD. possibly private businesses or human
service providers
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program
Mid to High. Cost of a single generator is normally a mid-range expenditure
depending on the electrical needs of the equipment the generator is
designed to run. If a community required the operation of more than one
well, the project would likely become a high cost mitigation action.
Dependent on the location of the generator. May allow for the provision of
medical, ventilation or climate control services at a shelter site, provision of
water or possibly sewer services, or emergency communications equipment.
Funding can be difficult to obtain
 Monticello has installed backup generators at City Hall, the Public Safety
Building and the Sewage treatment plant.
 In Wyoming, backup generators have been installed at the City Hall,
Reception Center and Water Tower. City Hall is the backup EOC and the
Reception Center is an emergency shelter.
 The county installed a new generator at the courthouse and moved the
old generator to the Jones County Secondary Roads
 Anamosa purchased a portable generator for use at its wastewater lift
stations.
As funding opportunities become available; main funding source is 5%
initiative that does not occur on a regular basis. May also be written into the
CIP process where communities have funds available. July 1, 2020
318
Mitigation Strategy
Action 3
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Bury or Harden Power Lines
Overhead power lines can be buried to prevent damage from storms.
Storms may damage lines by causing poles or tree branches to snap and
break lines, or by coating lines in ice and again causing breakage. Burying
lines can prevent this damage, but comes at a higher cost to install and
maintain. Hardening power lines can be an option for communities where
burying is not technically feasible or desirable
Property Protection
Goal 1, Objective 1 and 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cooperative effort between participating jurisdiction and electrical utility
provider/owner of power lines in question.
Local Jurisdictions and/or Energy Providers
Jones County EMA, ECICOG
HMGP, PDM
High; Cost varies depending on the distance of underground wiring required,
but project is typically high cost when carried out over a large enough area to
provide a noticeable upgrade in service.
High; reduce the likelihood of costly future repairs and prevent interruptions
of service, especially during/after ice storms when temperature regulation of
buildings, vehicle access (garage doors) and communications are critical.
Some communities like the possibility of improved service and reduction in
tree trimming while others may be opposed to the amount of construction
required or the high cost involved. Action is a large project but normally
technically feasible; the jurisdictions who were uncertain as to whether this
would be a viable project were those who had the most concerns regarding
the status of their water or wastewater infrastructure and determined that
having the electrical infrastructure located adjacent to frequently failing
water infrastructure could be problematic. Project would require
administration. However, these projects are typically initiated by the utility.
Legal jurisdiction is not normally a problem though sufficient right of way is
required, as is participation from the owner of the power lines.
 Since 2010 Maquoketa Valley REC has buried 17.4 miles of power
lines and replaced the copper wire in all of its power lines
319
Mitigation Strategy

Timeframe
Monticello has buried some power lines, but it has been very
minimal.
This is a long term project as it comes at a high cost that would need to be
planned into the utility company’s budget; involves major construction and
requires coordination between the participating jurisdiction and the utility
provider. July 1, 2020.
320
Mitigation Strategy
Action 4
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Community Outreach
Local governments and partner agencies can continue to increase public
awareness about a variety of hazards and available mitigation techniques as
well as insurance options for property owners.
Public Education and Awareness
Goal 3 Objectives 1 and 2
Goal 4 Objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cooperative effort between local jurisdictions, EMA, non-profit agencies,
schools, other governmental agencies and insurance providers
EMA
Local Jurisdictions, COG, FEMA
Varies by outreach/education subject
Low to Medium
High; education and often reduce losses through preventing individuals from
engaging in high risk practices (fire safety, food safety, education regarding
floodplains, etc.) or allow people to take steps to become physically or
financially more disaster-resistant (smoke detectors, flood insurance, etc.)
The breadth of topics covered by this category may increase the difficulty of
administration, as multiple parties could take on the roll of lead agency
depending on the type of outreach. Outreach often involves public-private
partnerships, and depending on the type of agency (especially something
such as insurance), conflict of interest concerns could arise if a public entity
appeared to be encouraging residents to seek the services of a particular forprofit entity.
 Most of what has been done is through Jones County EMA. Did the
entire 20 weeks of preparedness, have a booth at the fair, weather
spotter training. Social media and newspaper posting
 Jones County is in the process of establishing the Emergency
Volunteer Center (EVC) for managing spontaneous volunteers to
disasters.
Ongoing—July 1, 2020
321
Mitigation Strategy
Action 5
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Critical Infrastructure Protection
Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) is a concept that relates to the
preparedness and response to serious incidents that involve the critical
infrastructure of the communities. The Department of Defense has
identified ten sectors of critical infrastructure: financial services,
transportation, public works, global information grid command control
(GIG/C2), intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), health affairs,
personnel, space, logistics, and defense industrial base.
Property Protection and/or Structural Projects
Goal 1, Objectives 1 and 2
Goal 3, Objective 1
Goal 4, Objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Jurisdictions
Local Jurisdiction or entity
EMA, COG, local educational resources (Kirkwood Community College, ISU
Extension Office, etc.)
HSEMD Threat Information and Protection Program (TIPP)
FEMA Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP)
Mid to High; TIPP has two objectives. The information sharing networking
objective is likely a mid-cost scenario for the planning area, whereas
protection of critical infrastructure and key resources would likely be a
higher cost. The BZPP program supports the implementation of Buffer Zone
Plans (BZPs) by providing the funding to buy equipment and support
planning efforts.
High; provides protection against worst-case scenario disasters and also
establishes communications, networking and public-private partnerships that
can enhance day-to-day service provisions throughout the planning area.
TIPP is primarily a counter-terrorism project, and some communities may not
feel the need (politically, economically, publically) to support counterterrorism as risk in smaller communities located in the central US is generally
perceived to be very low. BZPP potential projects sites are prioritized by the
322
Mitigation Strategy
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
DHS and the locations and potential funding levels are not public
information.
 Wyoming has added a security alarm to its water tower.
 Midland Community Schools and Olin Community Schools have
installed new higher security locking systems for the school’s doors.
 Monticello installed backup generators at critical facilities.
Ongoing—July 1, 2020
323
Mitigation Strategy
Action 6
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Dam Warning Signage and/or Water Safety Signage
Dams can pose a serious safety hazard for people navigating waterways if
those people are not aware that the dams are there, or do not know how far
back they need to stay from the dam. Placing signage upstream from dams
indicating the location of the dam and the correct turn around location can
prevent boaters, swimmers and fishers from inadvertently becoming trapped
above the dam or accidentally going over the dam.
Public Education and Awareness and/or Prevention
Goal 3, Objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Governments
Jones County Conservation
COG, EMA, Iowa DNR
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Low-Head Dam Public Hazard Program
Iowa Water Trails Mini Grants
Estimated Cost
Low to Mid
Low-Head Dam Public Hazard Program (FY 2010 program)
50% cost share for projects including signage, portage trail construction and
modifications/removals of low-head dams.
80% cost share for warning signage only
Iowa Water Trails Grant Program (FY 2010 program)
Program funded with $50,000 annually for water trail creation (wayfinding, informational
kiosks, hazard signage, access points, restroom facilities, etc.)
Benefits
A number of DNR identified canoe routes exist in Jones County, as do a number of
DNR identified water hazards. Signs could be placed at these locations and also
along other sections of waterways to alert water traffic to potential dangers and/or
provide a point of reference (wayfinding) along waterways to aid rescue efforts.
Technical feasibility would likely be the greatest concern, although most installations
would not be too complex. Dam owners must be willing participants. Water Trails
program involves some community organization.
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe


Jones County Conservation is obtaining signs for the dam at Monticello.
DNR erected Dam Ahead signs upstream of the Mill Dam in Anamosa in
2014
July 1, 2017.
324
Mitigation Strategy
Action 7
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
(Increased) E911 Capabilities and Cell Phone Triangulation
Expanding E911 capabilities allows first responders to have access to a more
accurate location of the call to which they are responding. Cell phone
triangulation abilities are also important as there is no fixed address point
associated with a cell phone. As technology advances so does the need for
new equipment and capabilities. Hence this is an ongoing need.
Emergency Services
Goal 3, Objective 1
Goal 4, Objective 4
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EMA
Jones County E911
HSEMD, Iowa Statewide Interoperable Communications System Board (DPS),
Iowa 911 Communications Council / HSEMD
Wireless E911 Emergency Communications Carryover Funds PSAP (HSEMD),
Next Gen Project
High
High
Economic and technical hurdles exist. Some community members may have
privacy concerns or may choose not to supply information/register for
alerts/participate in full capabilities of selected system.
Jones County E911 Board has purchased and installed “next generation”
NG911 cell phone triangulation capabilities using $100,000 in 911 surcharge
funding from the State of Iowa. The system became functional January 20,
2015.
Ongoing--July 1, 2020
325
Mitigation Strategy
Action 8
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Early Warning Systems
A variety of early warning systems exist that are tailored to whichever
specific hazard the community wishes to address. Examples of early warning
systems of interest in the planning area re expanded tornado siren coverage
(outdoor warning systems) and county-wide reverse 911 capabilities.
Emergency Services
Goal 1, Objective 1
Goal 3, Objective 1 and 2
Goal 4, Objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Governments
Local Jurisdiction
COG, EMA, HSEMD
5% Initiative
Mid range. Base costs typically around $15,000+ per siren. Additional costs
could include solar panels, activation/monitoring software, encoders and
installation, bringing total project closer to $20,000 to $25,000 per siren
depending on project specs.
The planning area is at high risk for severe storms and tornados, warning
systems are an efficient way to alert people to take shelter and reduce risk.
The planning area also has a number of hazardous materials storage tanks,
particularly anhydrous ammonia, located near population centers and the
warning systems could assist in the evacuation process.
Program requires a local cost share, may eventually lead to increased local
maintenance expenses.




Timeframe
Martelle installed a new storm warning siren in 2011.
Jones County has become part of the Alert Iowa System, a
program that sends text messages regarding severe weather and
other hazards.
Monticello installed 4 new sirens in 2013.
Anamosa added a new storm warning siren, replaced two others
and upgraded the remaining three
As grant program becomes available. July 1, 2020
326
Mitigation Strategy
Action 9
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Elevation of Flood-prone Structures
Structures (and infrastructure) that are located within the 100 year
floodplain or in other areas that have a history of flooding may be costbeneficial to elevate. This typically involves raising the structure off of its
existing foundation and building a new, higher elevation underneath, then
lowering the house back down onto the new, higher footings. Properties
may be elevated only a foot or two for floodplain regulation purposes, or
properties may be elevated an entire floor or more. Infrastructure such as
roads may also be elevated to prevent road closures during a time of flood.
Other infrastructure such as pump stations, well houses and
water/wastewater facilities may also benefit from elevation where
technically feasible.
Property Protection
Goal 1, Objective 1 and 2
Goal 2, Objective 1
Goal 3, Objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Private property owners and/or local governments
Local Jurisdiction or property owners
EMA, COG, NFIP, HSEMD
HMGP, PDM, SRL, FMA, increased cost of compliance NFIP coverage
Medium; most start at $15,000 for a small, simple structure, and cost can run
substantially above that figure for larger or more complex structures.
Reduced flood damage in the future
Elevation can be costly, and obtaining grant funding for these types of
projects is greatly enhanced when communities have a detailed Flood
Insurance Study (showing 10, 50, 100 and 500 year flood levels), which the
communities currently do not have.
 There have been at least 12 structures elevated along the Wapsipinicon
River in rural Jones County.
 The City of Anamosa has implemented a program to elevate and/or
protect flood prone structures
Ongoing July 1, 2020
327
Mitigation Strategy
Action 10
Description
Emergency Operations Plans
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Emergency Services
Goal 1, Objective 1
Goal 2, Objective 1
Goal 3, Objective 1
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Governments
EMA
HSEMD, COG
Emergency Management Performance Grants,
Low to Mid
Planning efforts could range from locating and updating existing emergency
operation plans to writing a new municipal emergency plan based on the
sample plan provided by HSEMD, to hiring a consultant to draft a plan.
Better organization post-disaster, can prevent situations from becoming
worse or streamline the clean-up bid process. Planning for an event can also
ensure that costs are incurred correctly so that the local government can be
reimbursed by FEMA
Concerns were mainly administrative and economic. While EOPs are
valuable, they are rarely used and easily fall out of date.
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Emergency operations plans provide a description of how a community will proceed
in the event of a disaster. These plans may be specific to one hazard, such as
flooding, or may be more general in nature. Once plans are developed, they should
be maintained so that they meet current national guidelines and so that staff or
other community members are aware of the contents of the plan and what role they
may be called upon to fulfill in the event of a disaster. While local governments
should participate in this type of planning, many businesses and schools may also
find it beneficial to participate in emergency operations planning or similar
continuity of operations (COOP) planning.




Timeframe
Jones County Attorney has started COOG-COOP plan for the county
Monticello is working on a COOG-COOP.
Jones County EMA is current with all ESF’s and does the required revisions every
year.
Anamosa updates its Emergency Plan every two years.
Ongoing—July 1, 2020
328
Mitigation Strategy
Action 11
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Emergency Assistance Registration
An emergency assistance registration is a list of individuals with special
needs or who otherwise may require additional assistance during a time of
disaster. This may include people who would have difficulty evacuating on
their own or who may be unable to understand warning systems, or who
may have specific medical needs.
Emergency Services
Goal 1, Objective 1
Goal 4, Objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EMA
EMA
Local Governments, Non Profit Agencies
Homeland Security Grant Program
Low to Medium; dependent on scope
Allow targeted response in the event of a disaster, could save lives and
reduce response costs
Privacy concerns exits, list may be incomplete. List would also have to be
monitored and kept up to date to remain useful. Need common definition of
who can register.
Jones County and DHS have established a list of areas with citizens that need
assistance with life functions.
Ongoing. July 1, 2020
329
Mitigation Strategy
Action 12
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Study/Evaluate and Maintain Existing Structural Flood Mitigation Projects
Some participating jurisdictions have existing structural flood mitigation
projects that are dated, have potentially not been maintained, and/or may
actually worsen flooding. Jurisdictions that were particularly concerned
about existing structural flood mitigation projects were Monticello (dam on
Kitty Creek) and Olin (berm/floodwall on the Wapsipinicon River). Both
planning committees noted that these structures should be evaluated and
possibly removed or structurally revised.
Property Protection and/or Structural Projects
Goal 1, Objectives 1 and 2
Goal 2, Objective 1
Yes
No/Unlikely
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Government
Local Jurisdiction
COG, EMA, HSEMD
PDM, HMGP, USACE
High
High; benefits must equal or exceed cost to allow project to be funded by
above programs.
If costs exceed benefit, project will not be funded. Current floodplain data
may not be accurate or detailed enough to support projects passing benefits
cost analyses. Projects are administratively and technically complex.
Successful projects can substantially reduce disaster losses.
Nothing has been accomplished with this action. However, the City of
Anamosa may be required to conduct a study and the committee felt the
measure should be retained in the plan.
July 1, 2020
330
Mitigation Strategy
Action 13
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Floodplain Management
Floodplain management involves regulating the type of development that
occurs within the delineated special flood hazard area, at a minimum. The
jurisdictions within the planning area all participate in the NFIP and thus
enforce the minimum NFIP regulations, which, from a simplistic construction
perspective, involve the requirement of 1 foot of freeboard in the 100 year
floodplain.
Prevention and/or Natural Resource Protection
Goal 1, Objective 1
Goal 2, Objective 1
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Government
Local Jurisdiction
HSEMD, EMA, NFIP, FEMA
FMA, SRL, HMGP, PDM, USACE
Low to high dependent on scope
Reduction in flood risk, reduced negative environmental impacts from
flooding
Requires additional regulation of private property; requiring any more than 1
foot of freeboard is extremely controversial and would be difficult to
enforce. May require additional staff training, but staff training in floodplain
management is frequently provided free of cost via the Emergency
Management Institute and other local/state opportunities through HSEMD.
Jones County EMA Coordinator is the county’s Floodplain Manager.
Nothing significant has been done in the last five years.
This is an ongoing activity that requires action when there is an opportunity.
July 1, 2020.
331
Mitigation Strategy
Action 14
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Flood-proofing Infrastructure
Infrastructure that can be subject to flood damage includes but is not limited
to roads, bridges, electrical and gas utility lines, water treatment facilities,
well houses, pump and lift stations and sewer treatment facilities. Floodproofing of these types of facilities may be an option when they either
cannot be moved or it would not be cost effective to move the facility.
Techniques for flood-proofing may involve partial floodwalls, elevation of
specific interior mechanical improvements, or sealing various walls, all of
which generally fall into the category of dry flood-proofing. Wet floodproofing, which allows water to flow through designated areas or spaces in
the infrastructure may also be an option. Another possibility is an increase in
the capacity of certain types of infrastructure such as storm sewers or
placing backflow valves.
Property Protection and/or Structural Projects
Goal 1, Objectives 1 and 2
Goal 2, Objective 1
Goal 4, Objective 1
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Governments, PNP utility providers
Local Jurisdiction or energy provider
EMA, COG, HSEMD
PDM, HMGP
High
High
Projects are almost always structural and have a high economic, technical
and administrative cost. However, projects almost always involve some type
of critical infrastructure with a high loss of service value to the community.
Additionally, environmental concerns may stem from not pursuing the
project when the project involves sewer plants or runoff. Local match is
typically large enough to require full budget process; should be included in
Capital Improvement Programs/Plans

In Monticello the Sewer system was damaged in the last flood
and Highway 38 also had damage. City is repairing and taking
steps to prevent from occurring again.
332
Mitigation Strategy






Timeframe
Monticello constructed a berm to help prevent sewage treatment
plant from flooding.
State funding has been secured to do structural modifications to
a bridge in Monticello to prevent further flood damage.
Anamosa Wastewater Treatment plant was raised up above
flood plain.
An earthen levy was constructed in Anamosa north of the
Wapsi Bridge to help control flood waters
Jones County engineer has removed approximately 30 bridges
in the last five years and replaced with box culverts.
The engineer has also reinforced some bridges with sheet piling
in order to prevent or control erosion.
July 1, 2020
333
Mitigation Strategy
Action 15
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Hazardous Materials Response
Hazardous materials response is provided from Linn County, and thus
response times can in some cases be longer than might be ideal. A greater
supply of containment materials available locally could prevent spills and/or
leaks from spreading while the jurisdictions wait for the HAZMAT team to
arrive. Additional training would also be necessary to implement this action.
Emergency Services
Goal 3, Objectives 1 and 2
Goal 4, Objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Governments
EMA
HSEMD, Linn County HAZMAT, PHMSA
Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grants (PHMSA/DOT)
Household Hazardous Materials General Awareness Grants Program (DNR)
Environmental Education Grants (EPA). Grant available through local LEPC’s.
Medium
Can reduce spread of hazardous materials events, prevent hazardous
materials incident from triggering another hazard
Requires administrative time, those without proper training should not
attempt to respond to hazardous materials incidents
 Jones County is maintaining its contract with the Linn County Haz.
Mat. Team for assistance at hazardous materials incidents.
 Through the LEPC that Jones County belongs to the county is
conducting a commodity flow study in order to determine the
amount and types of hazardous materials that flow through the
county on its highways. The study will be completed in 2015.
Ongoing—Jones County will need assistance with hazardous materials
incidents indefinitely—July 1, 2020
334
Mitigation Strategy
Action 16
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Mass Casualty Preparation
Mass casualty events require medical response beyond the normal, day to
day capabilities of most of the jurisdictions. Planning for these events will
allow first responders to quickly categorize and treat victims. Beyond
planning and training, exercises are critical to the preparedness process.
Emergency Services and/or Public Education and Awareness
Goal 2, Objective 1
Goal 3, Objective 1
Goal 4, objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EMA
EMA
HSEMD/DHS
MMRS
Low to Mid
Many of the smaller communities and the rural areas within the County do
not have medical facilities capable of handling a mass casualty event nearby.
Largest considerations would likely be the administrative time necessary to
coordinate the event. Preparation could also involve purchase of additional
materials necessary to respond to an event. Another overall consideration is
that grants available in this area are often targeted toward larger
communities.
 Jones County has acquired two Mass Sheltering Trailers.
 Jones County EMA conducted a Mass Casualty exercise in 2012 that
involved Monticello and Anamosa
Ongoing July 1, 2020
335
Mitigation Strategy
Action 17
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Relocation of Flood-prone Structures
As an alternative to acquisition and demolition of flood-prone structures,
buildings that pass a BCA for relocation and are structurally viable may be
relocated out of the floodplain to prevent future flood damages.
Property Protection
Goal 1, Objective 1
Goal 2, Objective 1
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Governments
Local Jurisdiction
COG, EMA, HSEMD
HMGP or PDM, USDA, CDBG
Mid to High
Mid to High
Administratively complex and costly project. Substantial community input is
usually required. Legal expertise is required. Environmental considerations
include restoration of floodways after demolition, and the impact of added
material from demolition in local landfills.
There have been no structural relocations of flood prone structures but the
committee feels it is a viable alternative to be considered for such structures.
As needed (likely to be pursed after a major flood event). July 1, 2020
336
Mitigation Strategy
Action 18
Description
Maintaining Adequate Emergency Response Personnel
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Emergency Services
Goal 1, Objective 1
Goal 4, Objective 2
Yes
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Governments
Local Public Safety Entity
EMA
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Timely and accurate response to hazard situations can prevent situations from
worsening. Additional personnel or additional training opportunities for response
personnel would accomplish this action step. Training opportunities could include
on-site workshops, off-site training at various federal institutes, table tops or drills.
No/Unlikely
Varies, EMI or FLETC through HSEMD offer various training courses
SAFER (Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response) Grants (offered through
FEMA)
Assistance to Firefighters Grants
Low for additional training, high for additional personnel
Mid
One of the most cost effective ways to address the need for additional staff and/or
staff training would be to coordinate within the planning area as much as possible. In
some instances, jurisdictions may be able to share staff, or arrange for training
opportunities to be offered to representatives from all jurisdictions. The main
drawbacks to doing this are economic; even training programs that are provided
without cost to the local communities require staff time that may not always be
available, and hiring additional staff is not financially possible at this time. Financial
concerns could be addressed by applying for grants. Specifically related to fire
response, SAFER grants may be an option as the goal of the program is to enhance
the local fire departments’ ability to comply with staffing, response and operational
standards established by the NFPA and OSHA. The Assistance to Firefighters grant
helps firefighters obtain equipment, protective gear, emergency vehicles, training
and other resources.
Nothing formal has been identified or documented, though individual public safety
jurisdictions have undertaken their own initiatives to recruit and train emergency
response personnel.
Ongoing July 1, 2020
337
Mitigation Strategy
Action 19
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Safe Rooms (Tornado)
Tornado safe rooms constructed to FEMA publication 361 guidelines provide
a high level of protection against tornados. Construction of safe rooms,
either as new build projects or retrofits of existing buildings, would reduce
vulnerability to tornado and high wind events. This project may involve
coordination between local jurisdictions and other entities such as school
districts if a school is identified as the appropriate site for a safe room
Structural Projects (new construction) and/or Property Protection (retrofit)
Goal 1, Objective 1
Goal 2, Objective 2
Goal 3, Objective 1
Goal 4, Objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Governmental Body
Local Jurisdiction or School District
COG/EMA, HSEMD
HMGP, PDM
High, $225 per square ft
High
Administratively and technically complex project. Safe rooms are generally
socially and politically accepted in cities, sometimes concerns are raised
about maintenance, safety (when not in use) and supervision in more rural
areas. Property ownership issues (Legal) can also arise as the site must be
under the control of an eligible planning entity. All other factors were
favorable.
 The Anamosa Community School District constructed a Safe Room at
the Middle School in 2012
 Little Eagle Learning Center day care in Wyoming installed a level 3
safe room in 2012
Whenever construction plans and grant opportunities coincide. July 1, 2020
338
Mitigation Strategy
Action 20
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Interoperability of Communications Systems
All of the jurisdictions involved expressed concern over either a general lack
of communications equipment or the inability of various departments (i.e.
responders and public works) to communicate using existing
communications equipment. In the event of a disaster, cell phone systems
may become overwhelmed and another means of communication between
all branches of local government (and partner agencies) should be available.
Emergency Services
Goal 1, Objective 1
Goal 3, Objective 1
Goal 4, Objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Government/County (PSIC grants)
Jones County E911
EMA/COG
Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grants. Assistance to
Firefighter (AFG) grants, Iowa Statewide Interoperable Communications
System Board / PSIC
High
High
The implementation of narrow-banding requirements is an ongoing issue
being handled at the state level. Retrofitting of existing systems to enhance
the current lack of interoperability and comply with coming standards
changes will require substantial investments in communications equipment
as well as administrative time. However, no hindrances outside of time and
cost were identified, and all other factors were favorable. Maintaining
interoperable communications is an ongoing effort in response to changes in
communications technology.
 More communications towers have been added at Temple Hill,
Martell and Wyoming.
 The Martelle site has also been upgraded for better narrowband
capabilities.
339
Mitigation Strategy

Timeframe
Jones County EMA now uses ARES (Amateur Radio Service) in all
drills and disaster events. They have a mobile ARES base in the
mobile EOC which also has 800 MHZ, UHF and VHF capabilities.
As funds are available. July 1, 2020
340
Mitigation Strategy
Action 21
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Storm Drainage System Improvements
Problems with storm drainage systems are a common cause or contributing
factor to flash flooding. A variety of problems can occur with storm drainage
systems, such as low capacity, poor maintenance or clogs and illegal tie-ins.
Typically expanding capacity and removing illegal tie-ins can substantially
reduce surface flooding on roadways or in other areas that experience flash
flooding as a result of improper drainage.
Property Protection and/or Structural Projects
Goal 1, Objective 1
Goal 2, Objective 1
Goal 2, Objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Local Governments (Cities)
Local Jurisdictions
COGs, HSEMD, IDED
HMGP or CDBG
High
High
Very costly project that is also administratively and technically complex.
Depending on availability of appropriate easements, legal issues may arise.
Addressing storm drainage issues is typically very beneficial to the
environment, and when storm drainage issues are addressed to alleviate
damage from flooding, they are usually socially and politically accepted.
Removing illegal tie-ins may cause some opposition from residents or
business owners who utilize them.
 Oxford Junction has made some drainage system improvements.
 Monticello in 2014 made improvements to a drainage ditch that
handles the majority of the city’s storm water drainage.
 Monticello has also constructed holding ponds in key locations to
contain runoff water.
 Anamosa now budgets $35,000 a year to address storm drainage
issues.
As funding is available. July 1, 2020
341
Mitigation Strategy
Action 22
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
System Improvements (Sewer/ Wastewater)
A number of concerns about wastewater systems were identified. These
included flooding of lagoons or sewer plants during high water conditions,
stormwater infiltration, lack of sufficient valves to prevent flooding,
insufficient capacity, treatment techniques requiring storage of large
quantities of hazardous materials, and low quality of effluent. In the cities,
these concerns are the responsibility of the local government to address,
while private septic systems exist in the county and can be more difficult to
regulate.
Property Protection and/or Structural Projects
Goal 1, Objective 1
Goal 2, Objective 1
Goal 2, Objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Governments (Cities)
Local Jurisdictions
COGs, IDED, EPA, HSEMD
HMGP or CDBG
EPA funding from the Clean Water State Revolving
High
High
Considerations vary based on the type of improvement considered. Backflow
valves receive generally favorable remarks on all criteria as they are
comparatively low in cost, usually not difficult to install and have minimal
environmental considerations other than that they prevent flood damage
and thus keep materials out of the landfill. Larger projects that would include
any type of excavation would have some environmental impacts that would
need to be off-set by losses avoided. Larger projects also have obvious
economic considerations and are administratively and technically
challenging. Because of the cost and likely disruption caused by excavation,
social and political support for the project would vary depending on project
specifics.
 In rural Jones County the unincorporated area of Fairview installed a
community sewer system.
342
Mitigation Strategy

Timeframe
The Anamosa State Penitentiary is currently working on making
some improvements to their wastewater system.
 Onslow is undergoing a $1.4 million wastewater system
improvement in 2014. $400,000 was paid for with a CDBG grant
As funding is available. July 1,2020
343
Mitigation Strategy
Action 23
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
System Improvements (Water)
Water systems are important for health and fire protection. All communities
expressed concern regarding insufficient line capacity and strength, which
prevents the use of modern firefighting equipment (the pressure from many
new fire trucks would cause lines to collapse). Additionally, storage capacity
is a concern; all of the cities have densely built cores where fires can spread
quickly so communities need sufficient water for potentially large fires.
Property Protection and/or Structural Projects
Goal 1, Objective 1
Goal 2, Objective 1
Goal 2, Objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Governments (Cities)
Local Jurisdiction
COGs. EPA, IDED
HMGP or Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
EPA funding from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
High
High
Technically and administratively complex project. Cost associated with
project is also very high and funding can be difficult to secure as competition
for grant funding is high across the state.
 Wyoming installed a new well in 2012
 Oxford Junction a new well in 2013
 Martelle has a new water tower
 The Anamosa State Penitentiary has installed 2 new wells.
 Center Junction installed a new water treatment facility in 2012.
 Anamosa completed a total renovation of its municipal water supply
system.
As funding is available. July 1,2020
344
Mitigation Strategy
Action 24
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Stormwater Management Ordinances and Amendments
Quality and quantity of stormwater runoff can also significantly influence
flooding and water quality. Stormwater management ordinances can apply
to new development or address existing development to attempt to increase
the quality and decrease the quantity of runoff. Many of these types of
ordinances and amendments will relate to private property regulation and
general education of the public about best management practices.
Prevention
Goal 1, Objective 1
Goal 2, Objective 2
Goal 3, Objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Governments
Local Jurisdiction
COGs, land owners, EPA, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
The EPA’s website provides technical support for stormwater management.
The EPA offers Targeted Watershed Grants, Wetland Program Development
Grants, Section 319 Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants, Section 106
Water Pollution Control Program Grants and Section 104(b)(3) Water Quality
Cooperative Agreements. The DNR offers program such as Watershed
Improvement Grants (Section 319) for the creation of watershed projects.
NCRS offers various programs typically appropriate for rural areas including
funding to purchase easements to restore farmland to wetland, REAP water
quality protection practices and projects, State Cost-Share to control erosion
and reduce sediment, Local Water Protection Loan Program to improve
water quality from open feedlots, General Non-Point Source Program
providing low interest loans to a variety of stormwater related projects, the
Conservation Reserve Program offering site restoration, and the CREP
program to remove nitrate from tile-drained water from cropland.
Low
Low to Medium depending on community
Social and political concerns were the greatest potential complication,
largely due to concern over regulation of private property. Administrative
345
Mitigation Strategy
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
time would be required. Costs are generally low, however benefits may be
low for urban stormwater management ordinances in areas lacking growth.
Wyoming has begun enforcing its existing sump pump ordinances by not
allowing sump pumps to hook into wastewater system
July 1, 2020
346
Mitigation Strategy
Action 25
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Martelle
Monticello
Olin
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Updated Floodplain Mapping and Studies
All of the participating jurisdictions expressed concern that flooding occurs
outside of the delineated floodplain on a regular basis. Although floodplain
maps were in the process of being updated at the time this plan was written,
the drafts of the new maps presented were noted by many communities to
not be a substantial improvement from the old maps. While some
communities believed that areas that should be in the SFHA were not
included, others noted that areas had been added to the SFHA that did not
flood during the 500 year event in 2008. The jurisdictions would like to see
another map update and flood study using more accurate terrain data.
Prevention
Goal 1, Objective 1
Goal 2, Objective 1
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Governments or FEMA, possibly USACE
FEMA
EMA
Local government or FEMA
Mid to High
Mid to High
The largest hindrances to producing more accurate floodplain maps would
likely be economic, technical and administrative concerns associated with
hiring out some type of additional study. Support for this would vary by
jurisdiction as some areas have more accurate flood mapping than others.
Although this would predominantly be an issue concerning FEMA and local
governments, in some areas such as Monticello, where the USACE has
previously done studies in relation to existing flood mitigation structures,
that agency may become involved and/or provide funding for that study.
This mitigation measure was completed on April 4, 2011 when FEMA release
updated FIRM maps and a Flood Insurance Study for Jones County. Included
were the cities of Center Junction, Morley and Onslow which had not been
previously mapped.
Completed April 4, 2011
347
Mitigation Strategy
Action 26
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Updated or New Building Codes
Adoption and administration of building codes can ensure that structures are
constructed in a safe manner. However, all participating jurisdictions had
concerns about the cost of enforcing building codes, noting that no single
jurisdiction would likely be able to support the cost of hiring a building
inspector. The best possibility for adopting and enforcing building codes
would be for Anamosa and Monticello to adopt the same codes and share an
inspector. Many of the other communities experience a slow rate of growth
and/or new construction and had not experienced problems with not having
building codes.
Prevention
Goal 1, Objective 1
Goal 3, Objective 2
Goal 4, Objective 1
Goal 4, Objective 2
Yes/Possibly
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Governments
Cities of Anamosa, Monticello, Olin and Wyoming
International Code Council
Local Governments
Mid
Low to Mid
The main reasons for not implementing building codes seem to be due to the
cost of implementing those codes (i.e. hiring an inspector) and the
administrative time needed to issue permits. Other social and political
considerations stemmed from the frequently held belief that inspections are
not necessary within the planning area, as the communities are generally
smaller and bad contractors have a reputation as such and can be avoided.
Once City, Olin, has made minor changes to its Building Codes in the last five
years.
Ongoing—revisions may need to be made at any time. July 1, 2020
348
Mitigation Strategy
Action 27
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Oxford Junction
Onslow
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Smoke Detectors and Fire Prevention Measures
Installation of smoke detectors and proper maintenance of smoke detectors
(changing batteries, etc.) can help save lives and reduce the spread of fires.
Other fire prevention measures such as fire safety education and property
maintenance education can also reduce the risk of fire or, should a fire occur,
prevent such a fire from spreading out of control.
Prevention and/or Public Education and Awareness
Goal 1, Objective 1
Goal 2
Goal 3, Objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local fire departments, Homeowners
Local fire departments
EMA
Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Grants, Private funding, Occasional
programs provided by the State of Iowa Fire Marshall’s Office
Low to Mid
Mid
To a large extent, local fire departments are already providing public
outreach and educational services regarding smoke detectors and other fire
prevention techniques. All planning committees noted that these programs
are important to the community and should be continued and expanded as
possible. The primary limitations are funding, all other criteria received
positive marks.
Monticello FD continues to provide and install smoke detectors and will
continue this service in the future
Ongoing—July 1, 2020
349
Mitigation Strategy
Action 28
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Sprinkler Systems
Installation and use of sprinkler systems is gaining popularity to prevent the
spread of fires. This technique requires not only the installation of sprinklers
themselves, but requires water mains of sufficient capacity to support the
sprinkler system.
Property Protection and/or Prevention
Goal 1, Objective 1
Goal 3, Objective 2
Yes/Possibly
No/Unlikely
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Private (or owner of facility, could be installed in a government building)
Local Jurisdictions or private property owners
EMA, HSEMD, COG
Private
Medium to High, depends on size of structure and condition of municipal
water infrastructure
Medium
Installation can be very costly if water infrastructure does not support
volume of water required to make sprinklers effective. Sprinklers may not
be advantageous in all applications as severe water damage could be caused
by a false alarm. Suitability of application should be determined on a case by
case basis.
The new Jones County Regional Medical Center in Anamosa was sprinklered
Ongoing—July 1, 2020
350
Mitigation Strategy
Action 29
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Property Maintenance/Rehabilitation
Maintaining property can prevent structural failure and fire, and can also
make buildings better able to withstand high winds, hail, temperature
extremes or other harsh weather conditions. Additionally, property
maintenance may play a preventative measure in decreasing the spread of
certain types of disease. May be an entirely privately funded initiative, or
supported by local governments through programs such as CDBG housing
rehabilitation, Federal Home Loan programs, or even though disaster
recovery programs.
Property Protection and/or Prevention
Goal 2, Objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Government
Local Jurisdiction
COG
CDBG, FHLB
Low to Medium
Low to Medium; higher in critical facilities
Administration of CDBG funding can be a long process. Selection of
properties to rehabilitate can be difficult. Federal environmental regulations
and corresponding funding thresholds can hinder the amount of
rehabilitation reasonable to provide to a site.
 Wyoming is currently using SDBG funds to renovate 6 properties
 Olin has used CDBG funds for renovation of 6 properties in the last 5
years
Ongoing as funding becomes available—July 1, 2020
351
Mitigation Strategy
Action 30
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
StormReady City/County Designations
StormReady municipalities are better prepared to reduce injuries and lives in
the event of a severe storm through increased local safety programs and
education
Public Awareness and Education and Emergency Services
Goal 2, Objective 2
Goal 3, Objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Jurisdiction
EMA
NWS/NOAA (Davenport office)
Local, EMA
Low
Medium
Requires staff time (administrative). ISO may provide CRS points to
participating communities, which may lower NFIP rates. May require
purchase/upgrade of emergency preparedness infrastructure (warning
radios, etc).
Jones County EMA continue to work towards StormReady status
3 years—July 1, 2018
352
Mitigation Strategy
Action 31
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Wetland Protection
Wetland protection and restoration can improve stormwater quality and
quantity, reduce some types of flooding, and improve overall water quality.
Protecting wetlands can also prevent development from occurring in areas
not suitable to development and thus at greater risk of incurring disaster
losses.
Natural Resource Protection
Goal 1, Objective 1
Goal 2, Objective 1
Goal 2, Objective 2
Goal 4, Objective 1
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local Jurisdictions, Private property owners
Local Jurisdictions
DNR, NRCS, USACE
Numerous Grant Programs
Low to High depending on scope of project
Medium
Projects may require unusually high amounts of administrative time as many
funding sources are federal and/or have very specific performance and
monitoring requirements. Also requires participation of private land owners.
May have long term economic benefits because of low maintenance cost
with restoration of natural vegetation. Some programs may take land off of
tax base or require new zoning techniques, which could be controversial in
some areas.
Jones County Secondary roads routinely undertakes erosion control
measures on projects that involve wetlands
Ongoing—July 1, 2020
353
Mitigation Strategy
Action 32
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Road Signage
Additional signage along roads can alert motorists to hazardous road
conditions (entering/exiting traffic, sharp turns, lack of shoulder, etc.)
Prevention
Goal 3, Objective 1
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Entity Owning Road
Local Jurisdiction
DOT, County Engineer
Entity Owning Road; some trails signage grants available
DOT Small Town Sign Replacement Program (pop < 5000)
Low; Small Town Sign Replacement Program offers up to $5,000 to replace
signs and sign posts.
Low
Administrative or legal difficulties may arise when the local government does
not own the road in question. Generally this is a low cost project and is easy
to complete once permission to pursue project is obtained.
 Jones County Secondary Roads has purchased LED signs on trailers
that can be posted along highways and roads to display special
messages about hazards
 Monticello updated its signage ordinance in 2014
Ongoing—July 1, 2020
354
Mitigation Strategy
Action 33
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Morley
Monticello
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Basement Backflow Protection
Insufficient backflow valves can extend flood effects well beyond the
floodplain
Property Protection
Goal 2, Objective 1
Yes
No/Unlikely
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Private or Local Government
Local Jurisdiction
HSEMD/FEMA (Design specification manuals)
Private / Local
Low to Medium; backflow valves are usually under $1,500 for a combined
gate/flap valve or less than half that for a flap valve only in residential
construction. On larger lines with more complicated installation, valves
could be upward of $30,000.
High; Basement backflow cleanup can run as high as $10,000 per event in
finished properties
Determining who pays for the backflow valve can be controversial; could be
paid for by the property owner, the City, or via a cost-share arrangement
between the two. Valves have ongoing maintenance costs and should be
tested yearly.
The only devices that have been installed is by private property owners
Ongoing—July 1, 2020
355
Mitigation Strategy
Action 34
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Timeframe
Increased Security at Tier II Facilities
Chemicals stored at Tier II facilities can be released accidentally as the result
of theft of chemicals (most commonly anhydrous ammonia) or as the result
of an intentional act.
Prevention and/or Property protection and/or Structural Projects
Goal 3, Objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Owner of Tier II Facility
Local Jurisdiction and Private Property Owners
HSEMD, EMA, Iowa DNR Emergency Response and Homeland Security Unit
(EPCRA)
Private
Low to Medium
Medium
Tier II facilities are privately owned, and owners may not be willing or
financially able to install costly security systems before an event requiring
them to make such security upgrades. Security systems will not prevent all
events.
Nothing was reported as having been accomplished.
Ongoing—July 1, 2020
356
Mitigation Strategy
Action 35
Description
Mitigation Category
Goal(s) Addressed
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Implementation
Lead Agency
Partners
Funding Source
Estimated Cost
Benefits
STAPLEE Considerations
Accomplished since
2010
Improved Fire Response Capabilities
Improve fire response capabilities through increased supplies, training, drills,
equipment and facilities
Emergency Services
Goal 1, Objective 1
Goal 1, Objective 2
Yes
No/Unlikely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fire department
Local government or township fire department
Local government, COG, EMA
FEMA Assistance to Firefighters grants
FEMA SAFER grants
FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Station Construction Grants (SCG)
HSEMD Public Safety Interoperability Communications Grant Funds
High
High
Economic cost is the primary limiting factor. Complications can arise from
inadequate water infrastructure to support fire response capabilities.
Addressing existing infrastructure can be technically challenging, and
construction can involve land acquisition, which could present legal issues.






Timeframe
Olin purchased two new fire trucks
Anamosa purchased two new fire trucks
Wyoming has purchased a new tanker
Martelle has purchased a new fire truck
Monticello expanded its fire station and purchased two new
trucks
Anamosa has implemented a feasibility committee to address
facility issues with the intent of building a new fire station.
Ongoing--July 1, 2020
357
Mitigation Strategy
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
A requirement of mitigation plans is that they include an action plan (in this case, referred to as the implementation strategy). This section describes how the
mitigation strategies identified in the previous section will be prioritized, implemented and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a
special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.
Jurisdictions were asked to identify their top ten (or so) mitigation actions. While these actions will be priorities for implementation, this does not mean that
the other actions identified in the previous section will not be pursued; in the event that unanticipated funding becomes available, a jurisdiction may change
their prioritization and purse one option ahead of their anticipated schedule. These actions were identified by the committees as actions that were believed to
be cost effective and were well supported by the community.
Implementation strategies were originally completed with the 2010 Jones County Hazard Mitigation Plan. As part of the 2015 revision process each individual
jurisdiction reviewed their 2010 mitigation strategies and revised them as they felt necessary. This included changing priorities, updating cost and timeframe
estimates and in some cases changing mitigation projects. In Center Junction, Morley and Onslow, the communities developed their first mitigation strategy
with the assistance of consultant Steve Meyer.
Table 147: Unincorporated Implementation Strategy
Rank
Mitigation
Action/
Program/
Project
Hazard
Addressed
Applies to Existing
or New Assets
Existing Local Implementation
Mechanism
Primary Responsible
Agency
1
Interoperable
Communications
Systems
All
New and Existing
Capital Improvement Program
EMA
3
$2M
2
Backup
Generators
Energy
failure, Flash
Flooding,
Tornadoes,
Windstorms,
Severe Winter
Storms
New and Existing
Capital Improvement Program
EMA
2
$500,000
3
Adequate
Response
Personnel
Staffing and
Training
All
New and Existing
N/A
County/ Fire/ EMS/EMA
Estimated
Cost
Years
5
$100,000
Funding
Source
See
actions 7
& 20
Related
Goals and
Objectives
G-1, O-1
G-3, O-1
G-4, O-2
G-2, O- 2
See
action 2
See
action 18
G-1, O-1
G-4, O-2
358
Mitigation Strategy
4
Increased Fire
Response
Capabilities
Structural
Fires,
Wildland Fires
Existing
Capital Improvement Program
Fire Departments
3
$250,000
G-1, O-1
See
G-1, 0-2
action 35
5
E911/Cell Phone
Triangulation
All
Existing
Capital Improvement Program
Jones County E911
3
$1 million
See
action 7
6
Elevation of
Floodprone
Structures
Flood (Flash
and Riverine)
Existing
N/A
Environmental Services
As Needed
$3M
See
action 9
7
Acquisition of
Floodprone
Structures
Flood (Flash
and Riverine)
Existing
N/A
Environmental Services
As Needed
$5M
See
action 1
8
Bury or Harden
Power Lines
Severe Winter
Storm,
Tornado,
Windstorm,
Thunderstorm
and Lightning,
Energy Failure
Existing
N/A
Utility providers
1
$20 million
See
action 3
9
Public
Outreach/
Education
All
New and Existing
N/A
Environmental Services
1
$50,000
See
action 4
10
Increased Tier II
Facility Security
Fixed
Hazardous
Materials
Incident
Existing
N/A
Facility Owner
4
$25,000
See
G-3, O-2
action 34
G-3, O-1
G-4, O-4
G-1, O-1
G-1, O-2
G-2, O-1
G-3, O-2
G-2, O-1
G-1, O-1
G-1, O-2
G-3, O-1
G-3, O-2
G-4 O-2
359
Mitigation Strategy
Table 248: Anamosa Implementation Strategy
Rank
Mitigation
Action/
Program/
Project
Hazard Addressed
Applies to
Existing or New
Assets
Existing Local
Implementation
Mechanism
Capital Improvement
Program
City or School District
Primary Responsible
Agency
Years
Estimated
Cost
Funding
Source
1-2
$225/sq
ft
See
action
19
1
Safe Rooms
Tornado, Extreme Wind
New and
Existing
2
Structural Flood
Control
Flooding (Riverine and Flash)
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City
2
$3M
See
action
12
3
Flood Proofing
Infrastructure
Flooding (Riverine and Flash)
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City
2
$2M
See
action
14
4
Wastewater
System
Improvements
Flooding (Riverine and Flash)
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City/Infrastructure
3
$1.5M
See
action
22
Flooding (Riverine and Flash),
Tornado, Extreme Wind
New and
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City or School District
1
$250,000
Flooding (Riverine and Flash)
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City
4
$1.5M
Wildfire, Structural Fire, Public
Disorder
New and
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
Fire Dept
3
$1 million
All
Existing
N/A
EMA or City
2
$25,000
Waterway or Water Body Incident,
Dam Failure, Flash Flooding
New and
Existing
N/A
City or Dam Owner
2
$5,000
N/A
Property owner and
City
3
$15,000+
each
5
6
7
8
9
10
Backup
Generators
Storm Drainage
System
Improvements
Improved Fire
Response
Capabilities
Emergency
Operations
Planning
Dam/Waterway
Safety Signage
Elevation of
Floodprone
Structures
Flooding (Riverine and Flash)
Existing
See
action 2
See
action
21
See
action
35
See
action
10
See
action 6
See
action 9
Related
Goals and
objectives
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-3, O-1
G-4, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-1, O-2
G-2, O-1
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-3, O-1
G-4, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-1, O-1,2
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-1, 0-2
G1, O1
G2, O1
G3, O1
G-3, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-1, O-2
G-2, O-1
G-3, O-2
360
Mitigation Strategy
Table 149: Center Junction Implementation Strategy
Ran
k
1
2
Mitigation
Action/
Program/
Project
Property
Maintenance/
Rehabilitation
Backup
Generators
Hazard
Addressed
Applies to
Existing or
New Assets
Existing Local
Implementation
Mechanism
Primary Responsible
Agency
Years
Estimated
Cost
Funding
Source
Related
Goals and
objective
Structural
Failure,
Structural Fire
Energy Failure,
Flash Flooding,
Tornadoes,
Windstorms,
Severe Winter
Storms
Tornadoes, High
Wind, Fixed
Hazardous
Materials
Incident,
Hailstorm,
Thunderstorm
Tornado,
Thunderstorm,
Extreme Wind
Existing
N/A
City/Cog/
3
$25,000 per
structure
See action
29
G-2, O- 2
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City
3
$30,000
See Action
2
G-1, O- 1,2
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City5
5
$25,000.
See action
8
G-1, O-1
G-3, O 1-2
G-4, O-2
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City/Facility Owner
2
$225/sq. ft.
See action
19
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-3, O-1
G-4, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-3, O-1
G-4, O-2
3
Early Warning
Systems
4
Safe Rooms
5
Interoperable
Communicatio
ns Systems
All
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
E911 Board
5
$200,000
See actions
7 and 20
6
Increased Fire
Response
Capabilities
Adequate
Response
Personnel
Staffing and
Training
Wildfire,
Structural Fire
New and
Existing
N/A
Fire Department
3
$250,000
See action
35
G-1, O-1
G-1, 0-2
Fixed Hazardous
Materials
Incident,
Transportation
Hazardous
Materials
Incident,
Existing
N/A
Fire Departments, Sheriff’s
Dept., Wyoming
Ambulance Service
5
$10,000
See action
18
G-1, O-1
G-4, O-2
7
361
Mitigation Strategy
8
Hazardous
Materials
Response
9
Emergency
Operations
Plan
10
Mass Casualty
Preparation
11
Smoke
Detectors
12
Road Signage
Highway
Transportation
Incident,
Structural Fire,
Wildfire,
Waterway or
Waterbody
Incident, Public
Disorder, Enemy
Attack, Terrorism
Fixed Hazardous
Materials
Incident
Transportation
Hazardous
Materials
Incident
All
Existing
N/A
County
5
$5,000
See action
15
G-3, O-1, 2
G-4, O-2
New and
Existing
N/A
City/ EMA
2
$5,000
See action
10
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-1
G-3, O-1
Tornado, Human
Disease
Pandemic,
Hazardous
Materials
Incident,
Highway
Transportation
Incident, Air
Transportation
Incident,
Terrorism
Structural Fire
New and
Existing
N/A
City/County/ EMA
2
$5,000
See action
16
G-2, O-1
G-3, O-1
G-4, O-2
Existing
N/A
Fire Department
2
$20/detector
See action
27
G-1, O-1
G-2
G-3, O-2
Highway
Transportation
Incident
Existing
N/A
City/County/State
2
$5,000
See action
32
G-3, O-1
362
Mitigation Strategy
Table 350: Martelle Implementation Strategy
Rank
Mitigation Action/
Program/ Project
Hazard Addressed
Applies to
Existing or New
Assets
Existing Local
Implementation
Mechanism
Primary Responsible
Agency
Years
Estimated
Cost
1
Storm Drainage
System
Improvements
Flash Flooding
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City/ InfrastructureStreets
3
$600,000
2
Increased Tier II
Facility Security
Fixed Hazardous Materials
Incident
New and
Existing
N/A
Facility Owner
3
Water System
Improvements
Wildfire, Structural Fire, Human
Disease Epidemic,
Animal/Plant/Crop Disease
Epidemic, Flash Flooding, Drought
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City/ InfrastructureStreets
5
$400,000
4
Increased Fire
Response
Capabilities
Wildfire, Structural Fire
New and
Existing
N/A
Fire Department
3
$1M
5
Basement Backflow
Protection
Flash Flooding
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City/ Property
owners
4
$1,000
each
6
Emergency
Operations Plan
All
New and
Existing
N/A
City/ EMA
2
$5,000
7
Public Outreach/
Education
All
New and
Existing
N/A
City/ EMA/ County
0.5
$20,000
Structural Failure, Human Disease
Epidemic, Animal/Plant/Crop
Disease Epidemic, Structural Fire,
Wildfire
Existing
N/A
City/ COG
3
$5,000/
structure
All
New and
Existing
N/A
City/ EMA
2
$2,500
All
New and
Existing
N/A
City/ Fire/ EMA
5
$30,000
8
9
10
Property
Maintenance/
Rehabilitation
Programs
Emergency
Assistance
Registration
Response
Personnel Staffing
and Training
2
$20,000
Funding
Source
See
action
21
See
action
34
See
action
23
See
action
35
See
action
33
See
action
10
See
action 4
See
action
29
See
action
11
See
action
18
Related
Goals and
objectives
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-3, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-1, 0-2
G-2, O-1
G1, O1
G2, O1
G3, O1
G-3, O-1
G-3, O-2
G-4, O-2
G-2, O- 2
G-1, O-1
G-4, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-4, O-2
363
Mitigation Strategy
11
Backup Generators
Energy Failure, Flash Flooding,
Tornadoes, Windstorms, Severe
Winter Storms,
New and
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City/ InfrastructureStreet/, Fire
1
$60,000
See
action 2
Years
Estimated
Cost
Funding
Source
1-2
$225/ sq
ft
G-1, O-1,2
Table 4: Monticello Implementation Strategy
Rank
Mitigation Action/
Program/ Project
Hazard Addressed
Applies to
Existing or New
Assets
Existing Local
Implementation
Mechanism
Primary Responsible
Agency
Capital Improvement
Program
City or School
District
See
action
19
1
Safe Rooms
Tornado, Extreme Wind
New and
Existing
2
Elevation of
Floodprone
Structures
Flood (Flash and Riverine)
Existing
N/A
City Admin/Property
Owner
As
Needed
$3M
See
action 9
3
Acquisition of
Floodprone
Structures
Flood (Flash and Riverine)
Existing
N/A
City Admin/Property
Owner
As
Needed
$1M
See
action 1
4
Storm Drainage
System
Improvements
Flooding (Riverine and Flash)
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City
4
$2M
See
action
21
5
Early Warning
Systems
Tornadoes, High Wind, Fixed
Hazardous Materials Incident,
Hailstorm, Thunderstorm
New and
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City Admin and/ or
EMA
2
$50,000
Wildfire, Structural Fire
New and
Existing
N/A
Fire Department
3
$1M
All
New and
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
EMA
3
$2M
All
New and
Existing
N/A
City/ EMA
2
$5,000
6
7
8
Increased Fire
Response
Capabilities
Interoperable
Communications
Systems
Emergency
Operations Plan
See
action 8
See
action
35
See
actions
7 & 20
See
action
10
Related
Goals and
Objectives
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-3, O-1
G-4, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-1, O-2
G-2, O-1
G-3, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-3, O 1-2
G-4, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-3, O 1-2
G-4, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-1, 0-2
G-1, O-1
G-3, O-1
G-4, O-2
G1, O1
G2, O1
G3, O1
364
Mitigation Strategy
Energy Failure, Flash Flooding,
Tornadoes, Windstorms, Severe
Winter Storms,
Waterway or Water Body Incident,
Dam Failure, Flash Flooding
9
Backup Generators
10
Dam/Waterway
Safety Signage
11
Wastewater System
Improvements
Flooding (Riverine and Flash)
12
Bury or Harden
Power Lines
Severe Winter Storm, Tornado,
Windstorm, Thunderstorm and
Lightning, Energy Failure
New and
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City/ InfrastructureStreet/, Fire
1
$250,000
New and
Existing
N/A
City or Dam Owner
2
$5,000
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
Existing
N/A
City/Infrastructure
Utility
3
1
$2M
$8M
See
action 2
See
action 6
See
action
22
See
action 3
G-1, O-1,2
G-3, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-1, O-2
Table 5: Morley Implementation Strategy
Ran
k
1
Mitigation
Action/
Program/
Project
Backup
Generators
2
Community
Outreach
3
Critical
Infrastructure
Protection
4
Early Warning
Systems
Hazard
Addressed
Applies to
Existing or
New Assets
Existing Local
Implementation
Mechanism
Primary Responsible
Agency
Years
Estimated
Cost
Funding
Source
Related
Goals and
objective
Energy Failure,
Flash Flooding,
Tornadoes,
Windstorms,
Severe Winter
Storms
All
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City
3
$25,000
See Action
2
G-1, O- 1,2
New and
Existing
N/A
City/EMA
5
$10,000
See Action
4
City
2
$20,000
See action
5
G-3, O-1
G-3, O-2
G-4, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-1, O-2
G-3, O-1
G-4 O-2
Energy Failure,
Flash Flooding,
Tornadoes,
Windstorms,
Severe Winter
Storms,
Terrorism
Tornadoes, High
Wind, Fixed
Hazardous
New and
Existing
N/A
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City5
5
$30,000.
See action
8
G-1, O-1
G-3, O 1-2
365
Mitigation Strategy
Materials
Incident,
Hailstorm,
Thunderstorm
Flash flood
G-4, O-2
Existing
N/A
City/property owners
5
$75,000
See action
9
5
Elevation of
Flood prone
Structures
6
Flood Proofing
Infrastructure
Flashflood
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City
5
$100,000
See action
14
7
Adequate
Response
Personnel
Staffing and
Training
Existing
N/A
Fire Departments, Sheriff’s
Dept., Anamosa
Ambulance Service
5
$20,000
See action
18
8
Storm Drainage
System
Improvements
Wastewater
System
Improvements
Property
Maintenance/
Rehabilitation
Increased Fire
Response
Fixed Hazardous
Materials
Incident,
Transportation
Hazardous
Materials
Incident,
Highway
Transportation
Incident,
Structural Fire,
Wildfire,
Waterway or
Waterbody
Incident, Public
Disorder, Enemy
Attack, Terrorism
Flash flooding
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City
3
$250,000
See action
21
Flash Flooding
New
Capital Improvement
Program
City
5
$2.5 million
See action
22
Structural
Failure,
Structural Fire
Wildfire,
Structural Fire
Existing
N/A
City/Cog/
3
$150,000e
See action
29
New and
Existing
N/A
Fire Department
3
$300,000
See action
35
9
10
11
G-1, O-1
G-1, O-2
G-2, O-1
G-3, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-3, O-1
G-4, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-4, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-2, O- 2
G-1, O-1
G-1, 0-2
366
Mitigation Strategy
Capabilities
Table 63: Olin Implementation Strategy
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Mitigation
Action/
Program/
Project
Acquisition of
Floodprone
Structures
Elevation of
Floodprone
Structures
(including
infrastructure)
Storm Drainage
System
Improvements
Wastewater
System
Improvements
Basement
Backflow
Protection
6
Water System
Improvements
7
Increased Fire
Response
Hazard Addressed
Applies to Existing
or New Assets
Existing Local
Implementation Mechanism
Primary Responsible Agency
Flood (Flash and
Riverine)
Existing
N/A
City Admin/Property Owner
Estimated
Cost
Years
5
$4M
Flood (Flash and
Riverine)
Existing
N/A
City Admin/Fire
Dept/Property Owner
5
$8M
Flooding (Riverine
and Flash)
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City
4
$1.5 M
Flooding (Riverine
and Flash)
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City/Infrastructure
3
$3M
Flash Flooding
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City/ Property owners
4
$1,000
each
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City/ Infrastructure-Streets
5
$1M
New and Existing
N/A
Fire Department
3
$3M
Wildfire,
Structural Fire,
Human Disease
Epidemic,
Animal/Plant/Crop
Disease Epidemic,
Flash Flooding,
Drought
Wildfire,
Structural Fire
Funding
Source
See
action 1
See
action 9
Related
Goals and
Objectives
G-2, O-1
G-1, O-1
G-1, O-2
G-2, O-1
G-3, O-2
G-1, O-1
See
G-2, O-1
action 21
G-2, O-2
G-1, O-1
See
G-2, O-1
action 22
G-2, O-2
See
G-2, O-1
action 33
G-1, O-1
See
G-2, O-1
action 23 G-2, O-2
See
action 35 G-1, O-1
367
Mitigation Strategy
Capabilities
8
9
10
11
12
Interoperable
Communications
Systems
Emergency
Assistance
Registration
G-1, 0-2
All
New and Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
EMA
3
$200,000
All
New and Existing
N/A
City/ EMA
2
$2,500
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City
New and Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City/ Infrastructure-Street/,
Fire
Structural Flood
Control
Flooding (Riverine
and Flash)
Backup
Generators
Energy Failure,
Flash Flooding,
Tornadoes,
Windstorms,
Severe Winter
Storms,
Safe Rooms
Tornado, Extreme
Wind
New and Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City or School District
2
1
2
$5M
$180,000
$225/ sq ft
See
G-1, O-1
actions 7 G-3, O-1
& 20
G-4, O-2
G-1, O-1
See
G-4, O-2
action 11
G-1, O-1
See
G-1, O-2
action 12 G-2, O-1
See
action 2
G-1, O-1
G-1, O-1
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-2
See
G-3, O-1
action 19
G-4, O-2
368
Mitigation Strategy
Table 754: Onslow Junction Implementation Strategy
Table 8: Oxford Junction Implementation Strategy
Ran
k
1
2
3
Mitigation
Action/
Program/
Project
Property
Maintenance/
Rehabilitation
Storm Drainage
System
Improvements
Backup
Generators
4
Water System
Improvements
5
Wastewater
System
Improvements
6
Basement
Backflow
Protection
Early Warning
Systems
7
Hazard
Addressed
Applies to
Existing or
New Assets
Existing Local
Implementation
Mechanism
Primary Responsible
Agency
Years
Estimated
Cost
Funding
Source
Related
Goals and
objective
Structural
Failure,
Structural Fire
Flash Flooding
Existing
N/A
City/Cog/
2
$1.5 million
See action
29
G-2, O- 2
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City/Infrastructure
1
$100,0000
See action
21
City
1
$30,000
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-1, O- 1,2
Energy Failure,
Flash Flooding,
Tornadoes,
Windstorms,
Severe Winter
Storms
Wildfire,
Structural Fire,
Human Disease
Epidemic,
Animal/Plant/Cro
p Disease
Epidemic, Flash
Flooding,
Drought
Flash Flooding
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City/Infrastructure
2
$1.5 million
See action
23
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-1
G-2, O-2
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City/Infrastructure
2
$1,250,000
See action
22
Flash Flooding
Existing
N/A
Private Property Owners
2
$5,000/home
See action
33
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-2, O-1
Tornadoes, High
Wind, Fixed
Hazardous
Materials
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City5
1
$25,000.
See action
8
See Action
2
G-1, O-1
G-3, O 1-2
G-4, O-2
369
Mitigation Strategy
8
9
10
11
12
Improved Fire
Response
Capabilities
Emergency
Assistance
Registration
Smoke
Detectors &
Fire Prevention
Measures
Critical
Infrastructure
Protection
Community
Outreach
Incident,
Hailstorm,
Thunderstorm
Wildfire,
Structural Fire
New and
Existing
N/A
Fire Department
1
$5,000
See action
35
G-1, O-1
G-1, 0-2
All
New and
Existing
N/A
City/ EMA
1
$5,000
See action
11
G-1, O-1
G-4, O-2
Structural Fire
Existing
N/A
Fire Department
1
$20/detector
See action
27
G-1, O-1
G-2
G-3, O-2
Energy Failure,
Flash Flooding,
Tornadoes,
Windstorms,
Severe Winter
Storms,
Terrorism
All
Existing
N/A
City
2
$10,000
See action
5
G-1, O-1
G-1, O-2
G-3, O-1
G-4 O-2
New and
Existing
N/A
City/ EMA
5
$5,000
See action
4
G-3, O-1
G-3, O-2
G-4, O-2
370
Mitigation Strategy
Table 955: Oxford Junction Implementation Strategy
Hazard Addressed
Applies to
Existing or
New
Assets
Existing Local
Implementation
Mechanism
Primary Responsible
Agency
Backup Generators
Energy Failure, Flash
Flooding, Tornadoes,
Windstorms, Severe
Winter Storms,
New and
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City/ InfrastructureStreet/, Fire
1
$60,000
2
Interoperable
Communications
Systems
All
New and
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
EMA
3
$200,000
3
Emergency
Operations
Planning
All
Existing
N/A
EMA or City
2
$5,000
New and
Existing
N/A
City or EMA
3
$40,000
See action
18
New and
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City Admin and/ or EMA
2
$50,000
See action
8
G-1, O-1
G-3, O 1-2
G-4, O-2
Existing
N/A
Utility
1
$5M
See action
3
G-1, O-1
G-1, O-2
Mitigation Action/
Program/ Project
1
Rank
4
Maintaining
Adequate
Response
Personnel
5
Early Warning
Systems
6
Bury or Harden
Power Lines
Fixed Hazardous
Materials Incident,
Transportation
Hazardous Materials
Incident, Highway
Transportation
Incident, Structural
Fire, Wildfire,
Waterway or
Waterbody Incident,
Public Disorder,
Enemy Attack,
Terrorism
Tornadoes, High
Wind, Fixed
Hazardous Materials
Incident, Hailstorm,
Thunderstorm
Severe Winter Storm,
Tornado, Windstorm,
Thunderstorm and
Lightning, Energy
Estimated
Cost
Years
Funding
Source
Related
Goals and
Objectives
See action
2
G-1, O-1
G-1, O-1
See actions G-1, O-1
7 & 20
G-3, O-1
G-4, O-2
G1, O1
See action
G2, O1
10
G3, O1
G-1, O-1
G-4, O-2
371
Mitigation Strategy
Failure
7
Community
Outreach
8
G-3, O-1
G-3, O- 2
G-4, O-2
All
New and
Existing
N/A
City/ EMA/ County
0.5
$20,000
See action
4
Wastewater
System
Improvements
Flooding (Riverine
and Flash)
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City/Infrastructure
3
$1M
See action
22
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-1
G-2, O-2
9
Water System
Improvements
Wildfire, Structural
Fire, Human Disease
Epidemic,
Animal/Plant/Crop
Disease Epidemic,
Flash Flooding,
Drought
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City/ InfrastructureStreets
5
$450,000
See action
23
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-1
G-2, O-2
10
Emergency
Assistance
Registration
All
New and
Existing
N/A
City/ EMA
2
$2,500
See action
11
11
Structural Flood
Control
Flooding (Riverine
and Flash)
Existing
Capital Improvement
Program
City
2
$600,000
See action
12
12
Increased Fire
Response
Capabilities
Wildfire, Structural
Fire
New and
Existing
N/A
Fire Department
3
$250,000
See action
35
G-1, O-1
G-4, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-1, O-2
G-2, O-1
G-1, O-1
G-1, 0-2
372
Mitigation Strategy
Table 10: Wyoming Implementation Strategy
Related Goals
and Objectives
Mitigation
Action/
Program/
Project
Hazard
Addressed
Applies to
Existing or New
Assets
Existing Local
Implementatio
n Mechanism
Primary
Responsible
Agency
1
Water System
Improvements
Wildfire,
Structural Fire,
Human Disease
Epidemic,
Animal/Plant/C
rop Disease
Epidemic, Flash
Flooding,
Drought
Existing
Capital
Improvement
Program
City/
InfrastructureStreets
5
2
Wastewater
System
Improvements
Flooding
(Riverine and
Flash)
Existing
Capital
Improvement
Program
City/Infrastruct
ure
1
$3.5 million
See action 22
3
Storm Drainage
System
Improvements
Flooding
(Riverine and
Flash)
Existing
Capital
Improvement
Program
City/Infrastruct
ure
5
$5 million
See action 21
4
Increased Fire
Response
Capabilities
Wildfire,
Structural Fire
New and
Existing
N/A
Fire
Department
3
$300,000
See action 35
Backup
Generators
Energy Failure,
Flash Flooding,
Tornadoes,
Windstorms,
Severe Winter
Storms
New and
Existing
Capital
Improvement
Program
City/
InfrastructureStreet/, Fire
2
$150,000
See action 2
G-1, O-1
G-1, O-1
6
Safe Rooms
Tornado,
Extreme Wind
New and
Existing
Capital
Improvement
Program
City or School
District
2
$225/ sq ft.
See action 19
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-3, O-1
G-4, O-2
7
Early Warning
Systems
Tornadoes,
High Wind,
Fixed
New and
Existing
Capital
Improvement
Program
City Admin
and/ or EMA
3
$25,000
Rank
5
Years
Estimated Cost
$2 M
Funding Source
See action 23
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-2, O-1
G-2, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-1, 0-2
See action 8
G-1, O-1
373
Mitigation Strategy
Hazardous
Materials
Incident,
Hailstorm,
Thunderstorm
8
Interoperable
Communicatio
ns Systems
9
Structural
Flood Control
10
Adequate
Response
Personnel
Staffing and
Training
11
Emergency
Assistance
Registration
All
Flooding
(Riverine and
Flash)
Fixed
Hazardous
Materials
Incident,
Transportation
Hazardous
Materials
Incident,
Highway
Transportation
Incident,
Structural Fire,
Wildfire,
Waterway or
Waterbody
Incident, Public
Disorder,
Enemy Attack,
Terrorism
All
G-3, O 1-2
G-4, O-2
New and
Existing
Capital
Improvement
Program
Jones County
E911
4
$2.5 million
Existing
Capital
Improvement
Program
City
2
$1 million
See action 12
New and
Existing
N/A
City or EMA
3
$20,000
See action 18
New and
Existing
N/A
City/ EMA
4
$5,000
See action 11
See actions 7 &
20
G-1, O-1
G-3, O-1
G-4, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-1, O-2
G-2,O-1
G-1, O-1
G-4, O-2
G-1, O-1
G-4, O-2
374
[SECTION 6]
Plan
Maintenance
Mitigation
Strategy
Risk Assessment
Planning Process
Prerequisite
Jones County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
375
Plan Maintenance
SECTION 6: PLAN MAINTENANCE
Section 201.6(c)(4) of 44 CFR requires a formal plan maintenance process to ensure that the mitigation plan
remains an active and relevant document. The plan maintenance process includes a method and schedule for
monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan at least every five (5) years. When the plan is updated, local
jurisdictions assess how the Local Mitigation Plan maintenance process worked and identify whether changes to
the process are needed. Taking into consideration future updates, adjustments to the method and schedule for
maintaining the plan may be necessary to ensure its value for comprehensive risk reduction.
When the community prepares a plan update, the mitigation planning regulation at 44 CFR Part 201 requires that
the plan discuss how the community was kept involved during the plan maintenance process over the previous five
years. This discussion may take place within the planning process section of the plan update rather than the plan
maintenance section. The plan maintenance section is intended to be forward-thinking and emphasize future plan
maintenance. Plan maintenance has three main components:
Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan
Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
Continued Public Involvement
This chapter provides an overview of the plan maintenance strategy and also outlines the methodology and
timeframe for monitoring, evaluating and updating the plan.
MONITORING, EVALUATING AND UPDATING THE PLAN
The plan will be monitored by the Jones County Emergency Management Agency. The plan will be evaluated by
the engineering staff using the worksheets in the attached appendix after every completed action step with a cost
level of medium, and will be updated every five (5) years unless the Planning Committee or EMA determines that
an update is needed sooner. To ensure that an update is completed on time, the EMA will reconvene the Planning
Committee a maximum of four (4) years after plan adoption to begin the review and update process.
Between updates, the lead departments should make note of any completed mitigation action steps, and the date
by which those steps were completed in a publically available copy of the adopted Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Plan. Any member of City or County staff or any member of the community may submit suggestions to the EMA
for aspects of the plan that may need to be changed. Additionally, a second opinion regarding monitoring or
updates may be sought by contacting the planning consultant or the East Central Iowa Council of Governments.
The planning agency may also provide advice and assistance in any grant projects that may result from
implementation of the mitigation action steps.
During the review process, available representatives of the current Planning Committee and/or any additional
interested residents or new City or County staff will serve as the reviewing committee to retain as much
institutional knowledge about the planning process as possible. The review process should include an evaluation
of the following:

The effectiveness of the planning process
Jones County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
376
376
Plan Maintenance



The effectiveness of the City’s (or County’s) actions
Progress made toward implementing the mitigation action steps
Determination of the relative success of any implemented action steps
Additionally, the plan updates should include a discussion of the following items, to be completed by the Planning
Committee and/or a consultant selected by the EMA:






The goals and objectives address current and expected conditions.
The nature, magnitude, and/or type of risks have changed.
The current resources are appropriate for implementing the plan.
There are implementation problems, such as technical, political, legal, or coordination issues with other
agencies.
The outcomes have occurred as expected (a demonstration of progress).
The agencies and other partners participated as originally proposed.
The updated plan will also include a reviewed and/or revised recommendation on the method and schedule of
plan maintenance. After the above considerations are addressed by the Planning Committee and/or the selected
consultant, the EMA or the selected consultant resubmit the plan for approval.
INCORPORATION INTO EXISTING PLANNING MECHANISMS
Updates of this planning document will include a summary of any mitigation items that were incorporated into
other planning mechanisms. The Planning Committee or the selected consultant should particularly examine the
following when incorporating this document into existing planning mechanisms:







Updates to the floodplain maps or floodplain regulations.
Updates of the zoning code that may include additional regulations on building near identified hazard
areas, which may include steep slopes, unstable soils, special flood hazard areas, proximity of residential
areas to transportation, HAZMAT, flooding and other hazards.
Updates to the comprehensive plan that include the goals of the mitigation strategy or mitigation related
goals.
Updates to the subdivision ordinance relating to setbacks on properties that pose a higher than average
risk from structural failure, hazardous materials incident or fire.
Updates to the building code that may include adoption of a full set of building codes or adoption of more
stringent building codes.
Any new additions to the City/County Code or administrative policies that may include but are not limited
to: solid waste regulations, landscape codes, evacuation plans, response plans, fire mitigation programs,
and construction or retrofit programs.
An overview of how the information contained in the HARA was used in any other planning documents.
The above considerations and any others deemed appropriate will constitute part of the required explanation of
how the Cities and the County incorporated the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms.
Jones County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
377
377
Plan Maintenance
CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Upon review and update of the plan, the participating jurisdictions will host a public strategic meeting to analyze
public opinion about the past mitigation plan and determine what additions may need to be made to the update.
The exact details of public involvement will be determined at the time the involvement is sought based on the
number of jurisdictions participating in the planning process at that time, growth trends and new facilities that
may be constructed between now and that time. However, appropriate methods of public involvement would
include posting notices on public buildings and other community facilities, circulating flyers, and posting proposed
changes on the appropriate City/County website. This information will be used by the Planning Committee and/or
the selected consultant to guide the update of the plan. Upon completion of a final draft of the plan update, the
final draft will be made publically available at the participating jurisdictions city halls or the County office for
review and comment by the public, with a specifically noted end date for the public comment period. Public
comment shall be submitted to the EMA in writing before the end of the public comment period or shall be
delivered in person to the public meeting of the City Councils and County Board of Supervisors for formal adoption
of the revised plan.
Jones County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
378
378
Appendices
APPENDIX A – GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Acceleration: The rate of change of velocity with respect to time. Acceleration due to gravity at the
earth’s surface is 9.8 meters per second squared (9.8 m2). That means that every second that
something falls toward the surface of earth its velocity increases by 9.8 meters per second.
Anchoring: Special connections made to ensure that a building will not float off, blow off or be pushed
off its foundation during a flood or storm.
Asset: Any manmade or natural feature that has value, including, but not limited to people; buildings;
infrastructure like bridges, roads, and sewer and water systems; lifelines like electricity and
communication resources; or environmental, cultural, or recreational features like parks, dunes,
wetlands, or landmarks.
Base Flood: Flood that has a 1 percent probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Also
known as the 100-year flood.
Base Flood Elevation (BFE): Elevation of the base flood in relation to a specified datum, such as the
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. The Base Flood Elevation is used as the standard for the
National Flood Insurance Program.
Basement: Any floor level below grade.
Bedrock: The solid rock that underlies loose material, such as soil, sand, clay, or gravel.
Building: A structure that is walled and roofed, principally above ground and permanently affixed to a
site. The term includes a manufactured home on a permanent foundation on which the wheels and
axles carry no weight.
Community Rating System (CRS): A National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that provides incentives
for NFIP communities to complete activities that reduce flood hazard risk. When the community
completes specified activities, the insurance premiums of policyholders in these communities are
reduced.
Computer-Aided Design And Drafting (CADD): A computerized system enabling quick and accurate
electronic 2-D and 3-D drawings, topographic mapping, site plans, and profile/cross-section drawings.
Consequences: The damages, injuries, and loss of life, property, environment, and business that can be
quantified by some unit of measure, often in economic or financial terms.
Contour: A line of equal ground elevation on a topographic (contour) map.
Critical Facility: Facilities that are critical to the health and welfare of the population and that are
especially important during and following hazard events. Critical facilities include shelters, police and fire
stations, schools, childcare centers, senior citizen centers, hospitals, disability centers, vehicle and
equipment storage facilities, emergency operations centers, and County hall. The term also includes
Jones County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
379
379
Appendices
buildings or locations that, if damaged, would create secondary disasters, such as hazardous materials
facilities, vulnerable facilities, day care centers, nursing homes, and housing likely to contain occupants
who are not very mobile. Other critical County infrastructure such as telephone exchanges and water
treatment plants are referred to as lifelines. See Lifelines.
Dam Breach Inundation Area: The area flooded by a dam failure or programmed release.
Debris: The scattered remains of assets broken or destroyed in a hazard event. Debris caused by a wind
or water hazard event can cause additional damage to other assets.
Development: Any man-made change to real estate.
Digitize: To convert electronically points, lines, and area boundaries shown on maps into x, y
coordinates (e.g., latitude and longitude, universal transverse mercator (UTM), or table coordinates) for
use in computer applications.
Duration: How long a hazard event lasts.
Earthquake: A sudden motion or trembling that is caused by a release of strain accumulated within or
along the edge of earth's tectonic plates.
Emergency: Any hurricane, tornado, storm, flood, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami,
earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, drought, fire, explosion, or other
catastrophe in any part of the United States which requires federal emergency assistance to supplement
State and local efforts to save lives and protect property, public health and safety, or to avert or lessen
the threat of a disaster. Defined in Title V of Public Law 93-288, Section 102(1).
Emergency Operations Center (EOC): A facility that houses communications equipment that is used to
coordinate the response to a disaster or emergency.
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP): Sets forth actions to be taken by State or local
governments for response to emergencies or major disasters.
Emergency Response Plan: A document that contains information on the actions that may be taken by a
governmental jurisdiction to protect people and property before, during, and after a disaster.
Extent: The size of an area affected by a hazard or hazard event.
Fault: A fracture in the continuity of a rock formation caused by a shifting or dislodging of the earth's
crust, in which adjacent surfaces are differentially displaced parallel to the plane of fracture.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): The independent agency created in 1978 to provide a
single point of accountability for all Federal activities related to disaster mitigation and emergency
preparedness, response and recovery.
FIPS: Stands for Federal Information Processing Standards. Under the Information Technology
Management Reform Act (Public Law 104-106), the Secretary of Commerce approves standards and
guidelines that are developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for Federal
Jones County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
380
380
Appendices
computer systems. These standards and guidelines are issued by NIST as Federal Information Processing
Standards (FIPS) for use government-wide. NIST develops FIPS when there are compelling Federal
government requirements such as for security and interoperability and there are no acceptable industry
standards or solutions.
Fire Potential Index (FPI): Developed by United States Geological Survey (USGS) and United States
Forest Service (USFS) to assess and map fire hazard potential over broad areas. Based on such
geographic information, national policy makers and on-the-ground fire managers established priorities
for prevention activities in the defined area to reduce the risk of managed and wildfire ignition and
spread. Prediction of fire hazard shortens the time between fire ignition and initial attack by enabling
fire managers to pre-allocate and stage suppression forces to high fire risk areas.
Flash Flood: A flood event occurring with little or no warning where water levels rise at an extremely
fast rate.
Flood: A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas
from (1) the overflow of inland or tidal waters, (2) the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of
surface waters from any source, or (3) mudflows or the sudden collapse of shoreline land.
Flood Depth: Height of the flood water surface above the ground surface.
Flood Elevation: Elevation of the water surface above an established datum, e.g. National Geodetic
Vertical Datum of 1929, North American Vertical Datum of 1988, or Mean Sea Level.
Flood Hazard Area: The area shown to be inundated by a flood of a given magnitude on a map.
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): Map of a community, prepared by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, which shows both the special flood hazard areas and the risk premium
zones applicable to the community.
Flood Insurance Study (FIS): A study that provides an examination, evaluation, and
determination of flood hazards and, if appropriate, corresponding water surface elevations in a
community or communities.
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA): A planning and project implementation grant program
funded by the National Flood Insurance Program. Provides pre-disaster grants to State and local
governments for both planning and implementation of mitigation strategies. Grant funds are made
available from NFIP insurance premiums, and therefore are only available to communities participating
in the NFIP.
Flood of Record: The highest known flood level for the area, as recorded in historical
documents.
Floodplain: Any land area, including watercourse, susceptible to partial or complete inundation by water
from any source.
Floodproofing: Protective measures added to or incorporated in a building to prevent or minimize flood
damage. “Dry floodproofing” measures are designed to keep water from entering a building. “Wet
Jones County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
381
381
Appendices
floodproofing” measures minimize damage to a structure and its contents from water that is allowed
into a building.
Floodway: The stream channel and that portion of the adjacent floodplain which must remain open to
permit conveyance of the base flood. Floodwaters are generally the swiftest and deepest in the
floodway. The floodway should remain clear of buildings and impediments to the flow of water.
Freeboard: A margin of safety added to a protection measure to account for waves, debris,
miscalculations, lack of scientific data, floodplain fill, or upstream development.
Frequency: A measure of how often events of a particular magnitude are expected to occur. Frequency
describes how often a hazard of a specific magnitude, duration, and/or extent typically occurs, on
average. Statistically, a hazard with a 100-year recurrence interval is expected to occur once every 100
years on average, and would have a 1 percent chance – its probability – of happening in any given year.
The reliability of this information varies depending on the kind of hazard being considered.
Fujita Scale of Tornado Intensity: Rates tornadoes with numeric values from F0 to F5 based on tornado
wind speed and damage sustained. An F0 indicates minimal damage such as broken tree limbs or signs,
while an F5 indicates severe damage sustained.
Functional Downtime: The average time (in days) during which a function (business or service) is unable
to provide its services due to a hazard event.
Geographic Area Impacted: The physical area in which the effects of the hazard are
experienced.
Geographic Information System (GIS): A computer software application that relates physical features on
the earth to a database to be used for mapping and analysis.
Ground Motion: The vibration or shaking of the ground during an earthquake. When a fault ruptures,
seismic waves radiate, causing the ground to vibrate. The severity of the vibration increases with the
amount of energy released and decreases with distance from the causative fault or epicenter, but soft
soils can further amplify ground motions.
Hazard: A source of potential danger or adverse condition. An event or physical condition that has the
potential to cause fatalities, injuries, property and infrastructure damage, agriculture loss, damage to
the environment, interruption of business, or other types of harm or loss. Hazards, as defined in this
study, will include naturally occurring events such as floods, dam failures, levee failures, tornadoes, high
winds, hailstorms, lightning, winter storms, extreme heat, drought, expansive soils, urban fires, wildfires
that strike populated areas, and earthquakes. A natural event is a hazard when it has the potential to
harm people or property. For purposes of this study, hazardous materials events are also included.
Hazard Event: A specific occurrence of a particular type of hazard.
Hazard Identification: The process of defining and describing a hazard, including its physical
characteristics, magnitude and severity, probability and frequency, causative factors, and locations or
areas affected.
Jones County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
382
382
Appendices
Hazard Mitigation: Sustained actions taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and
property from natural and technological hazards and their effects. Note that this emphasis on long-term
risk distinguishes mitigation from actions geared primarily to emergency preparedness and short-term
recovery.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): Authorized under Section 404 of the Stafford Act; a FEMA
disaster assistance grant program that funds mitigation projects in conformance with post-disaster
mitigation plans required under Section 409 of the Stafford Act. The program is available only after a
Presidential disaster declaration.
Hazard Mitigation Plan: The plan resulting from a systematic evaluation of the nature and extent of
vulnerability to the effects of natural hazards present in society that includes he actions needed to
minimize future vulnerability to hazards. Section 409 of the Stafford Act requires the identification and
evaluation of mitigation opportunities, and that all repairs be made to applicable codes and standards,
as condition for receiving Federal disaster assistance. Enacted to encourage identification and mitigation
of hazards at all levels of government.
Hazard Profile: A description of the physical characteristics of hazards and a determination of various
descriptors including magnitude, duration, frequency, probability, and extent. In most cases, a
community can most easily use these descriptors when they are recorded and displayed as maps.
HAZUS (Hazards U.S.): A GIS-based nationally standardized earthquake loss estimation tool developed
by FEMA.
Hydrology: The science of dealing with the waters of the earth. A flood discharge is developed by a
hydrologic study.
Infrastructure: The public services of a community that have a direct impact on the quality of life.
Infrastructure includes communication technology such as phone lines or Internet access, vital services
such as public water supplies and sewer treatment facilities, and includes an area's transportation
system such as airports, heliports; highways, bridges, tunnels, roadbeds, overpasses, railways, bridges,
rail yards, depots, and waterways, canals, locks, and regional dams.
Insurance Service Office, Inc. (ISO): An insurance organization that administers several programs that
rate a community’s hazard mitigation activities.
Intensity: A measure of the effects of a hazard event at a particular place.
Landslide: Downward movement of a slope and materials under the force of gravity.
Lifelines: Transportation and utility systems that are essential to the function of a region and to the well
being of its inhabitants. Transportation systems include highways, air, rail, and waterways, ports, and
harbors. Utility systems include electric power, gas and liquid fuels, telecommunications, water, and
wastewater.
Liquefaction: The phenomenon that occurs when ground shaking causes loose soils to lose strength and
act like viscous fluid. Liquefaction causes two types of ground failure: lateral spread and loss of bearing
strength.
Jones County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
383
383
Appendices
Lowest Floor: Under the NFIP, the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including
basement) of a structure.
Magnitude: A measure of the strength of a hazard event. The magnitude (also referred to as severity) of
a given hazard event is usually determined using technical measures specific to the hazard.
Mitigation: Sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property
from natural and technological hazards and their effects. Note that this emphasis on long-term risk
distinguishes mitigation from actions geared primarily to emergency preparedness and short-term
recovery (Burby, 1998).
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): A federal program created by Congress in 1968 that provides
the availability of flood insurance to communities in exchange for the adoption and enforcement of a
minimum floodplain management ordinance specified in 44 CFR §60.3. The ordinance regulates new and
substantially damaged or improved development in identified flood hazard areas.
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD): Datum established in 1929 and used in the NFIP as a
basis for measuring flood, ground, and structural elevations, previously referred to as Sea Level Datum
or Mean Sea Level. The Base Flood Elevations shown on most of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency are referenced to NGVD.
National Weather Service (NWS): Prepares and issues flood, severe weather, and coastal storm
warnings and can provide technical assistance to Federal and state entities in preparing weather and
flood warning plans.
Planimetric: Describes maps that indicate only man-made features like buildings.
Planning: The act or process of making or carrying out plans; the establishment of goals, policies and
procedures for a social or economic unit.
Planning for Post-Disaster Reconstruction: The process of planning (preferably prior to an actual
disaster) those steps the community will take to implement long-term reconstruction with one of the
primary goals being to reduce or minimize its vulnerability to future disasters. These measures can
include a wide variety of land-use planning tools, such as acquisition, design review, zoning, and
subdivision review procedures. It can also involve coordination with other types of plans and agencies
but is distinct from planning for emergency operations, such as restoration of utility services and basic
infrastructure.
Preparedness: Activities to ensure that people are ready for a disaster and respond to it
effectively. Preparedness requires figuring out what will be done if essential services break down,
developing a plan for contingencies, and practicing the plan.
Probability: A statistical measure of the likelihood that a hazard event will occur.
Project Impact: A program that encourages business, government agencies and the public to work
together to build disaster-resistant communities.
Jones County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
384
384
Appendices
Reconstruction: The long-term process of rebuilding the community’s destroyed or damaged buildings,
public facilities, or other structures.
Recovery: The process of restoring normal public or utility services following a disaster, perhaps starting
during but extending beyond the emergency period to that point when the vast majority of such
services, including electriCounty, water, communications, and public transportation have resumed
normal operations. Recovery activities necessary to rebuild after a disaster include rebuilding homes,
businesses and public facilities, clearing debris, repairing roads and bridges, and restoring water, sewer
and other essential services. Short-term recovery does not include the reconstruction of the built
environment, although reconstruction may commence during this period.
Recurrence Interval: The time between hazard events of similar size in a given location. It is based on
the probability that the given event will be equaled or exceeded in any given year.
Repetitive Loss Property: A property that is currently insured for which two or more
National Flood Insurance Program losses (occurring more than ten days apart) of at least $1000 each
have been paid within any 10-year period since 1978. While Repetitive Loss Properties constitute only
2% of insured properties, they account for 40% of flood damage claims against the NFIP.
Replacement Value: The cost of rebuilding a structure. This is usually expressed in terms of cost per
square foot, and reflects the present-day cost of labor and materials to construct a building of a
particular size, type and quality.
Retrofitting: Modifications to a building or other structure to reduce its susceptibility to
damage by a hazard.
Richter Scale: A numerical scale of earthquake magnitude devised by seismologist C.F. Richter in 1935.
Risk: The estimated impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and
structures in a community; the likelihood of a hazard event resulting in an adverse condition that causes
injury or damage. Risk is often expressed in relative terms such as a high, moderate or low likelihood of
sustaining damage above a particular threshold due to a specific type of hazard event. It also can be
expressed in terms of potential monetary losses associated with the intensity of the hazard.
Risk Assessment: A process or method for evaluating risk associated with a specific hazard and defined
in terms of probability and frequency of occurrence, magnitude and severity, exposure and
consequences. Also defined as: “The process of measuring the potential loss of life, personal property,
housing, public facilities, equipment, and infrastructure; lost jobs, business earnings, and lost revenues,
as well as indirect losses caused by interruption of business and production; and the public cost of
planning, preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. (Burby, 1998).
Riverine: Of or produced by a river.
Scale: A proportion used in determining a dimensional relationship; the ratio of the distance between
two points on a map and the actual distance between the two points on the earth's surface.
Scarp: A steep slope.
Jones County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
385
385
Appendices
Scour: Removal of soil or fill material by the flow of flood waters. The term is frequently used to describe
storm-induced, localized conical erosion around pilings and other foundation supports where the
obstruction of flow increases turbulence.
Seismicity: Describes the likelihood of an area being subject to earthquakes.
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA): An area within a floodplain having a 1 percent or greater chance of
flood occurrence in any given year (100-year floodplain); represented on Flood Insurance Rate Maps by
darkly shaded areas with zone designations that include the letter A or V.
Stafford Act: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, PL 100-107 was
signed into law November 23, 1988 and amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, PL 93-288. The
Stafford Act is the statutory authority for most Federal disaster response activities, especially as they
pertain to FEMA and its programs.
State Hazard Mitigation Team: Composed of key State agency representatives, the team evaluates
hazards, identifies strategies, coordinates resources, and implements measures that will reduce the
vulnerability of people and property to damage from hazards. The Oklahoma State Hazard Mitigation
Team is convened by the Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management (ODEM), and includes the
State departments of Agriculture, Climatological Survey, Commerce, Environmental Quality, Health,
Human Services, Insurance, Transportation, Wildlife Conservation, Conservation Commission,
Corporation Commission, Historical Society, Insurance Commission, Water Resources Board, Association
of County Commissioners (AACCO), Oklahoma Municipal League (OML), Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO): The representative of state government who is the primary
point of contact with FEMA, other state and Federal agencies, and local units of government in the
planning and implementation of pre- and post-disaster mitigation activities.
Stormwater Management: Efforts to reduce the impact of stormwater or snowmelt runoff on flooding
and water quality.
Stormwater Detention: The storing of stormwater runoff for release at a restricted rate after the storm
subsides, or the flood crest passes.
Substantial Damage: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure in a Special Flood Hazard Area
whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed 50
percent of the market value of the structure before the damage.
Surface Faulting: The differential movement of two sides of a fracture – in other words, the location
where the ground breaks apart. The length, width, and displacement of the ground characterize surface
faults.
Tectonic Plate: Torsionally rigid, thin segments of the earth's lithosphere that may be assumed to move
horizontally and adjoin other plates. It is the friction between plate boundaries that cause seismic
activity.
Jones County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
386
386
Appendices
Topographic: Characterizes maps that show natural features and indicate the physical shape of the land
using contour lines. These maps may also include man-made features.
Tornado: A violently rotating column of air extending from a thunderstorm to the ground.
UST: An underground storage tank. LUST denotes a leaking underground storage tank.
Vulnerability: Describes how exposed or susceptible to damage an asset is. Vulnerability depends on an
asset's construction, contents, and the economic value of its functions. Like indirect damages, the
vulnerability of one element of the community is often related to the vulnerability of another. For
example, many businesses depend on uninterrupted electrical power – if an electric substation is
flooded, it will affect not only the substation itself, but a number of businesses as well. Often, indirect
effects can be much more widespread and damaging than direct ones.
Vulnerability Assessment: The extent of injury and damage that may result from a hazard event of a
given intensity in a given area. The vulnerability assessment should address impacts of hazard events on
the existing and future built environment.
Wildfire: An uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, exposing and possibly
consuming structures.
Zone: A geographical area shown on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that reflects the severity or
type of flooding in the area.
Jones County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
387
387
Appendices
Jones County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
388
388