Risk Assessment Identifying Structures
ASSESSING VULNERABIL ITY
An overview of the planning area’s vulnerability is a summary of the hazard’s impact on the community and its vulnerable structures. To determine what populations or properties could be lost to a particular hazard event, the hazard locations discussed in the hazard profiles section are classified below. Some hazards do have defined risk areas, i.e. they will only occur in certain places, while other hazards could affect the entire town, or any smaller portion of the town.
Hazards with well-defined risk areas with risk of structural damage:
Flash Flood, River Flood, Expansive Soils, Landslide
The majority of these areas have been identified as best as currently possible within the hazard profiles. People living, working, or otherwise being present inside these risk areas, as well as structures inside these risk areas, are most vulnerable to the effects of these hazards. While these hazards may have an extremely detrimental impact on lives and property in their path, the typical occurrences of these hazards will not impact other people or property within the jurisdiction, except when a critical facility is impacted. An example of this would be flooding of the sewer plants, which could be caused by flash flooding, riverine flooding or a dam failure, which would in-turn impact larger areas of town outside of the defined hazard area.
Hazards with well defined risk areas and little to no risk of structural damage:
Waterway or Water Body Incident
A waterway or water body incident, as applicable to the types of water craft located in the planning area, would likely be a very isolated incident involving only the people experiencing duress and those responding to the incident. Structural damage is very unlikely to occur, although property damage, such as damage to a boat or a vehicle running off the road into the waterway could be the causal factor in this type of hazard.
Hazards with specific areas of elevated risk with risk of structural damage:
Wildfire, Landslide, Highway Transportation Incident, Transportation Hazardous Materials Incident, Fixed
Hazardous Materials Incident, Pipeline Incident,
Hazards with specific areas of elevated risk are those that are more likely to occur in a certain identified location.
However they are not guaranteed to be limited to that location. Wildfires normally only impact areas with enough vegetative fuel and slopes such to sustain the fire. Other factors may impact the spread of a wildfire, such as materials stored in specific areas that may ignite and spread a fire over a greater area than might have been predicted by vegetation and terrain alone. Landslides are again typically seen in areas of steep slopes, unstable soil types and vegetation lacking substantial root systems. All of these factors can be mapped to provide an overview of where landslides are most likely to occur. However, weather factors and human development can significantly change land stability, and cause landslides to occur in areas outside of where they would normally be expected. Transportation events as well as hazardous materials events can almost always be expected to occur in specific areas: transportation events will likely originate on or near roadways, railroads or other transportation infrastructure; many hazardous materials sights are well known to first responders and have federal and state reporting requirements. However, it is difficult to predict the magnitude of any specific event because these types
246

Risk Assessment Identifying Structures of events are accidental, and thus the circumstances surrounding these events will impact the extent of damage or injuries that occur.
Hazards without defined areas of elevated risk with risk of structural damage:
Thunderstorms and Lightning, Severe Winter Storm, Hailstorm, Tornado, Windstorm, Earthquake, Structural
Failure, Structural Fire, Enemy Attack or Terrorism, Air Transportation Incident.
These hazards have no defined area in which they are known to occur, and could occur in either limited sections of the jurisdiction or over the entire jurisdiction at once. These hazards are also able to directly cause substantial structural losses, and potentially loss of life.
Hazards without defined areas of elevated risk, without high risk of structural damage:
Energy failure, Communications Failure, Public Disorder, Extreme Heat, Drought, Animal-Plant-Crop Disease
Epidemic.
These types of hazards are those that could occur anywhere within the jurisdiction, or could occur throughout the entire jurisdiction and for which it is not possible to determine beforehand where the hazard is most likely to occur. Additionally, any of these hazards could occur without causing damage to the structures in the jurisdiction.
While this does not indicate that any of these events could not be combined with other hazards or circumstances to create property damage, rather they were determined to be least likely to directly cause structural damage.
However, these hazards will still create losses, which are likely to be economic, either due to a disruption in the provision of an essential service or to a loss of some type of product such as crop failure.
Table 94: Overall Summary of Vulnerability by Jurisdiction
Air Transportation Incident
Animal / Plant / Crop Disease
Communications Failure
Cyber Terrorism
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Enemy Attack
L M L M H L M L M M
H L L M L L L L M L
M M M M M M M M M M
L M L M M L M L M M
L M L L H L L L L L
H L L M L L L L L M
L L L L L L L L L L
L L L L L L L L L L
247

Risk Assessment Identifying Structures
Energy failure
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Fixed Hazardous Materials Incident
Fixed Radiological Materials Incident
Flood (Flash, Riverine)
Hailstorm
Highway Transportation Incident
Human Disease Epidemic
Landslide
Pipeline Incident
Public Disorder
Severe Winter Storm
Structural Failure
Structural Fire
Terrorism (Radiological, Chemical,
Conventional or Biological)
Thunderstorm and Lightning
Windstorm or Tornado
Transportation Hazardous Materials
Incident
Transportation Radiological Incident
Waterway or Waterbody Incident
Wild fire
Key:
L
M
H
H
M
H
M
H
L
L
M
H
H
L
M
M
H
H
L
H
L
H H
L
L
L
L
L
H
M M
M M
H H
M
L
L
M
H
L
M
M
H
H
L
H
L
H
L
M
M
H
M
L
L
L
H
M
M
M
H
M
L
M
M
H
L
M
M
H
M
L
L
L
= Low to no risk; little damage potential
= Medium risk; moderate damage potential or infrequent occurrence
= High risk; significant risk or major damage potential or frequent hazard occurrence
H
L
M
M
H
M
L
M
M
H
M
M
L M L H M L H L M H
L L L L L L L L L L
M H L L H H H L H H
M M M M M M M M M M
L H M M H M M M M M
L H M M H M M M M M
M M L L M L L L L L
L M L M M L M L M M
L L L L L L L L L L
H H H H H H H H H H
L M M M M M M M M M
M M M M M M M M M M
L L L L L L L L L L
M
H
M
L
L
M
248

Risk Assessment Identifying Structures
Repetitive loss properties are those for which two or more looses of at least $1,000 each have been paid under the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within any 10-year period since 1978. Local governments may obtain information on repetitive loss properties within their jurisdiction by contacting their State NFIP Coordinator. Use of the flood insurance claim and disaster assistance information is subject to The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, which prohibits public release of the names of policy holders or recipients of financial assistance and the amount of the claim payment or assistance. However, maps showing areas where claims have been made can be made public, and are encouraged to be placed in mitigation plans.
For the purposes of preparing this plan, the consultant requested information from the Iowa Department of
Homeland Security and Emergency Management about repetitive loss structures in Jones County. Officials at the department report that there is only one repetitive loss property in Jones County. Due to privacy issues they could not provide the address, but they did state that it is a residential property within the corporate city limits of the
City of Monticello.
Hazard mitigation plans should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas. Thus, the next step in the planning process was to determine who and what is at risk in the event that any of the selected hazards do occur.
To determine this, the consultant provided an overview of the potential property losses by assessment classification to provide a sense of what property could be lost in addition to the populations detailed in the community profile.
This data represents the 2014 assessed values and 2012 population estimate based on where people live rather than where they work (or attend school). This source for this data is the Jones County Assessor’s data attached to the GIS parcel layer for Jones County. The 2012 population estimate comes from the US Census. Values for taxexempt structures are not available. Additional, more specific building type classifications are also not available.
When interpreting the data above to provide loss estimates for the jurisdiction in a worst-case scenario event, it is also useful to keep in mind that the assessed value of the property is presented, which may not directly correlate to the fair market or replacement value of that property. A common method used in Iowa to adjust from assessed value to fair market value is to increase the assessed value by 110%, however every property is unique and this may not be accurate in all cases.
As previously discussed in the vulnerability overview section, only certain hazards have well defined risk areas, and only some of those hazards pose a risk of structural losses. Thus, the hazards of riverine flooding, flash flooding, expansive soils and landslide are the only hazards examined in this document where it is possible to identify the structures that are at risk should one of these hazards occur. For the purpose of reviewing riverine and flash flooding, the two hazards were combined and properties were reviewed for overlap with the boundaries of the identified special flood hazard area. As with the previously presented property valuations, these figures reflect the
249

Risk Assessment Identifying Structures
2014 County assessments and the 2012 Census estimates. Information for this section was provided by the Jones
County Assessor’s Office and Jones County GIS using information from the Iowa DNR and SSURGO maps.
All Properties
Table95: Potential Structural Losses, Unincorporated Jones County
Use Type Properties Average Value Land Value Building Value Dwelling Value Total Value Population
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
11,841
192
390
10
3159
$73,055 $676,914,350 $48,972,930 $139,154,480 $865,041,760
$172,969
N/A
$209,071
$9,644,990
N/A
$549,500
$97,090 $60,976,030
$20,836,700
N/A
$1,541,210
$0
$0
N/A
$0
$245,731,940
$30,481,690
N/A
$2,090,710
$306,707,970
Total 15,592 $77,240 $748,084,870 $70,450,840 $394,886,420 $1,204,322,130
Table 96: Potential Structural Losses, Anamosa
5993
0
0
0
2860
8853
Use Type Properties Average Value Land Value Building Value Dwelling Value
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
17
240
149
4
1606
$24,985
N/A
$485,082
$424,750
$163,256 $7,292,340
N/A
$182,350
$94,227 $24,522,210
Total 2016 $87,365 $32,421,650
Table 97: Potential Structural Losses, Center Junction
$0
$31,888,790
N/A
$1,757,980
$33,646,770
$0
$0
N/A
$0
$126,806,620
Total Value
$424,750
$39,181,130
N/A
$1,940,330
$0 $126,806,620 $151,328,830
$192,875,040
Population
0
0
0
0
5625
5625
Use Type Properties Average Value Land Value Building Value Dwelling Value
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
Total
13
9
14
0
81
117
$33,250
$36,547
N/A
$0
$35,598
$616,690
$37,380
N/A
$0
$496,120
$32,856 $1,150,190
$15,070
$291,540
N/A
$0
$0
$306,610
$0
$0
N/A
$0
$2,387,330
$2,387,330
Total Value Population
$631,760
$328,920
N/A
$0
$2,883,450
$3,844,130
0
110
0
0
0
110
250

Risk Assessment Identifying Structures
Table 98 Potential Structural Losses, Martelle
Use Type Properties Average Value Land Value
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
7
19
21
0
154
$41,573
$80,695
N/A
$291,010
$124,730
N/A
$0 $0
$65,449 $1,036,570
Total 201 $59,221 $1,452,310
Table 99: Potential Structural Losses, Monticello
Building Value Dwelling Value Total Value Population
$0
$1,408,480
N/A
$0
$0
$1,408,480
$0
$0
$9,042,510
$291,090
$0 $1,533,210
N/A N/A
$0
$9,042,510 $10,079,080
$11,903,380
0
254
0
0
0
254
Use Type Properties
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
112
248
115
21
1510
Average Value Land Value Building Value
$35,138 $3,777,050
$139,860
N/A
$462,835
$87,225
$5,771,550
N/A
$989,520
$23,127,790
Total 2006 $89,775 $33,665,919
Table 100: Potential Structural Losses, Morley
$116,210
$28,913,770
N/A
$8,730,010
$0
$37,759,990
Dwelling Value Total Value Population
$42,220 $3,935,480
$0 $34,685,320
N/A N/A
$0 $9,719,530
$108,581,270 $131,709,060
$108,623,490 $180,048,920
0
3794
3
0
0
3797
Use Type Properties Average Value
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
Total
8
7
10
0
66
91
$17,554
$14,129
N/A
0
$29,659
$24,013
Land Value Building Value
$58,290
$17,610
N/A
0
$278,200
$354,100
$82,140
$81,290
N/A
0
$0
$163,430
Dwelling Value
$0
$0
N/A
00
$1,678,630
$1,678,630
Total Value Population
$140,430
$98,900
N/A
0
$1,945,830
$2,185,160
0
0
0
0
114
114
251

Risk Assessment Identifying Structures
Table 101: Potential Structural Losses, Olin
Use Type Properties Average Value
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
22
41
57
2
343
$36,330
$31,670
N/A
$201,120
$56,066
Total 465 $46,733
Table 102: Potential Structural Losses, Onslow
Land Value Building Value Dwelling Value Total Value Population
$750,480
$214,740
N/A
$41,440
$2,696,930
$3,703,590
$48,770
$1,083,700
N/A
$360,800
$0
$1,493,270
$0 $799,250
$0 $1,298,480
N/A N/A
$0 $402,240
$16,533,870 $19,230,800
$16,533,870 $21,730,770
0
690
0
0
0
690
Use Type Properties Average Value Land Value Building Value
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
5
28
15
0
116
$24,260
$14,809
N/A
$0
$45,905
$107,210
$65,970
N/A
$0
$666,890
Total 164 $35,737
Table 13: Potential Structural Losses, Oxford Junction
$840,070
$14,090
$348,670
N/A
$0
$0
$362,760
Dwelling Value
$0
$0
N/A
$00
$4,658,050
$4,658,050
Total Value Population
$121,300
$414,640
N/A
$0
$5,324,940
$5,860,880
0
0
0
0
196
196
Use Type Properties Average Value
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
Total
24
35
37
1
269
366
$26,248
$17,021
N/A
$61,800
$31,121
$30,850
Land Value Building Value Dwelling Value Total Value Population
$505,820
$129,660
N/A
$21,500
$1,631,880
$2,288,860
$116,720
$466,060
N/A
$40,300
$0
$623,080
$7,410
$0
N/A
$0
$629,950
$595,720
N/A
$61,800
$8,371,610 $10,003,490
$8,379,020 $11,290,960
0
0
3
0
487
490
252

Risk Assessment Identifying Structures
Table 104: Potential Structural Losses, Wyoming
Use Type Properties Average Value Land Value Building Value Dwelling Value
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
Total
1
71
46
0
332
450
$16,780
$38,277
N/A
$16,780
$347,450
N/A
$ $0
$48,914 $2,660,240
$42,614 $3,024,470
Table 2: Potential Structural Losses; All Structures Combined
$0
$2,370,200
N/A
$0
$0
$2,370,200
$0
$0
N/A
$0 $0
$13,579,310 $16,239,550
$13,579,310
Total Value
$16,780
$2,717,650
N/A
$18,973,980
Population
0
510
0
0
0
510
Use Type Properties Average Value
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
Total
Flood
12,050
890
854
38
7,636
21,468
Land Value Building Value Dwelling Value
$72,368 $683,462,430 $49,365,930 $139,204,110 $872,032,470
$125,096 $23,646,420 $87,689,200 $ $111,355,620
N/A
$37,407
N/A N/A
$1,784,310 $12,430,300
$85,827 $118,092,860 $0
N/A
$
$537,371,140
N/A
$14,214,610
$655,464,000
$77,001 $826,986,020 $149,485,430 $676,575,250 $1,653,066,700
Table106: Potential 100 Year Flood Losses, Unincorporated Jones County
Total Value Population
5,999
0
0
0
9,015
15,014
Use Type
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
Total
Properties
3388
53
153
3
313
3,910
% in Hazard Area
29%
28%
39%
30%
10%
25%
Total Value
$219,424,860
$8,168,410
N/A
$535,010
$26,226,110
$254,354,390
Population %Population
1,771
0
0
0
354
2125
20%
0%
0%
0%
4%
24%
253

Risk Assessment
Table 3: Potential 500 Year Flood Losses, Unincorporated Jones County
Use Type Properties
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
Total
0
2
3
0
7
12
Table 408: Potential 100 year flood Losses, Anamosa
% in Hazard Area
0
.2%
0
1
.8
.08%
Total Value
0
$154,420
N/A
0
$807,490
$961,919
Use Type Properties % in Hazard Area
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
Total
5
12
30
1
71
119
29%
5%
20%
25%
4%
6%
No Data Available for Potential 500 Year Flood Losses in Anamosa
Table 1095: Potential 100 year Flood Losses, Center Junction
Total Value
$350,070
$1,861,080
N/A
$242,240
$7,872,110
$10,325,500
Use Type
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
Total
Properties
5
0
0
0
0
5
% in Hazard Area
38%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
Total Value
$402,920
$0
$0
$0
$0
$402,920
Identifying Structures
Population %Population
0
21
0
0
0
21
0
0%
0%
0%
.2%
.2%
Population %Population
0
0
0
0
225
225
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
4%
Population %Population
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
254

Risk Assessment Identifying Structures
Martelle
Martelle is a mapped community with No Special Flood Hazard Areas (NSFHA) Identified
Table 610: Potential 100 year Flood Losses, Monticello
Use Type Properties % in Hazard Area
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
42
34
30
3
47
Total 156
Table 711: Potential 500 year Flood Losses, Monticello
38%
14%
26%
14%
3%
8%
Use Type Properties
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
14
25
19
Industrial
Residential
2
105
Total 165
Table 112: Potential 100 year Flood Losses, Morley
% in Hazard Area
13%
10%
17%
10%
7%
8%
Total Value
$1,358,690
$6,757,000
N/A
$
$4,323,120
$12,438,810
Total Value
$407,540
$1,525,100
N/A
$2,347,060
$9,715,440
$13,995,140
Population %Population
0
89
0
0
0
89
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
3%
Population %Population
0
89
89
0
0
0
0%
3%
3%
0%
0%
0%
Use Type Properties % in Hazard Area
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
8
7
10
0
66
Total 91 100%
No Data Available for Potential 500 Year Flood Losses in Morley
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%
Total Value
$140,430
$98,900
N/A
0
$,1945,630
$2,185,160
Population %Population
0
0
0
0
114
114
2%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
255

Risk Assessment Identifying Structures
Table 113: Potential 100 year Flood Losses, Olin
Use Type Properties % in Hazard Area Total Value
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
16
10
27
1
128
73%
24%
47%
100%
37%
$721,070
$298,400
N/A
$402,240
$5,546,080
Total I82 39% $6,967,790
Onslow
Onslow is a mapped community with No Special Flood Hazard Areas (NSFHA) Identified
Table 114: Potential 100 Year Flood Losses, Oxford Junction
Population %Population
0
255
0
0
0
255
0%
0%
0%
0%
37%
37%
Use Type Properties % in Hazard Area Total Value
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
18
6
11
0
70
75%
17%
30%
0%
26%
$577,220
$148,380
N/A
0
$2,041,160
Total 105 29%
No Data Available for Potential 500 Year Flood Losses in Oxford Junction
$2,766,760
Table 115: Potential Flood Losses, Wyoming
Use Type Properties % in Hazard Area
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
0
18
10
0
18
Total 45 10%
No Data Available for Potential 500 Year Flood Losses in Wyoming
0%
25%
21%
0%
5%
Total Value
$0
$764,980
N/A
$0
$430,640
$1,195,620
Population %Population
0
127
4
0
0
131
1%
0%
0%
0%
26%
27%
Population
0
0
0
0
26
26
%Population
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
5%
256

Risk Assessment
Expansive Soils
Table 116: Potential Expansive Soils Losses, Unincorporated County
Use Type Properties
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
10,105
91
201
Industrial
Residential
4
1673
Total 6150
Table 117: Potential Expansive Soils Losses, Anamosa
% in Hazard Area
%
37%
4%
10%
27%
38%
Use Type Properties
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
10
59
39
3
223
Total 334
Table118: Potential Expansive Soils Losses, Center Junction
% in Hazard Area
59%
25%
26%
75%
14%
17%
Use Type
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
Total
Properties
13
4
7
0
36
60
% in Hazard Area
76%
44%
50%
0%
44%
51%
Total Value
$797,633,050
$15,590,390
N/A
$1,353,520
$182,966,630
$997,543,590
Population %Population
4924
0
0
0
1687
6611
83%
0%
0%
0%
59%
38%
Total Value
$363,020
$14,896,940
N/A
$1,931,780
$26,220,420
$43,412,160
Total Value
$631,760
$105,740
N/A
$0
$1,189,580
$1,927,080
Identifying Structures
Population %Population
0
0
0
0
788
788
0%
0%
0%
0%
14%
14%
Population %Population
0
51
0
0
0
51
0%
0%
0%
0%
44%
44%
257

Risk Assessment
Table 119: Potential Expansive Soils Losses, Martelle
Use Type Properties
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
Total
7
19
21
0
149
196
Table 120: Potential Expansive Soils Losses, Monticello
% in Hazard Area
100%
100%
100%
0%
97%
97%
Use Type Properties
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
63
19
20
2
148
Total 252
Table 121: Potential Expansive Soils Losses, Morley
% in Hazard Area
56%
8%
17%
10%
10%
13%
Use Type
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
Total
Properties
6
6
8
0
64
84
% in Hazard Area
75%
86%
80%
0%
97%
92%
Total Value
$291,010
$1,533,201
N/A
$0
$9,617,850
$11,442,061
Total Value
$2,949,870
$9,245,344
N/A
$3,207,340
$15,170,470
$30,573,024
Total Value
$62,950
$91,030
N/A
$0
$1,928,760
$2,082,740
Identifying Structures
Population %Population
0
246
0
0
0
246
0%
0%
0%
0%
97%
97%
Population %Population
0
0
0
0
151
151
0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
10%
Population %Population
8
0
0
0
111
111
1%
0%
0%
0%
97%
97%
258

Risk Assessment
Table 122: Potential Expansive Soils Losses, Olin
Use Type Properties
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
17
5
18
0
47
Total 87
Table 123: Potential Expansive Soils Losses, Onslow
% in Hazard Area
77%
12%
32%
0%
14%
19%
Use Type Properties % in Hazard Area
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
4
27
15
0
116
Total 162
Table 124: Potential Expansive Soils Losses, Oxford Junction
80%
96%
100%
0%
100%
99%
Use Type
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
Total
Properties
10
4
10
0
54
78
% in Hazard Area
42%
11%
27%
0%
20%
20%
Identifying Structures
Total Value
$736,890
$227,240
N/A
$0
$2,393,139
$3,357,260
Population %Population
0
97
0
0
0
97
0%
0%
0%
0%
14%
14%
Total Value
$118,470
$512,240
N/A
$0
$5.345,410
$5,976,120
Population %Population
0
0
0
0
196
196
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
Total Value
$501,130
$41,910
$0
$0
$
$1,945,590
Population %Population
0
0
3
0
54
57
100%
0%
0%
0%
11%
12%
259

Risk Assessment
Table 125: Potential Expansive Soils Losses, Wyoming
Use Type
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
Total
Properties
1
24
17
0
154
197
% in Hazard Area
100%
34%
37%
0%
46%
44%
Landslide
Table 126: Potential Landslide Losses, Unincorporated County
Total Value
$16,780
$1,359,510
N/A
$0
$8,854,410
$10,230,700
Use Type Properties
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
5453
36
179
0
1385
Total 7953
Table 127: Potential Landslide Losses, Anamosa
% in Hazard Area
46%
19%
46%
0%
44%
51 %
Use Type
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
Total
Properties
8
1
18
0
226
253
% in Hazard Area
47%
.4%
12%
0%
14%
13%
Total Value
$268,545,880
$5,313,710
N/A
$0
$125,556,540
$399,416,130
Total Value
$141,600
$5,601,610
N/A
$0
$24,114,110
$29,857,320
Identifying Structures
Population
0
235
0
0
0
235
%Population
0%
0%
0%
0%
46%
46%
Population %Population
2937
0
0
0
1141
4,078
49%
0%
0%
0%
40%
46%
Population %Population
0
788
0
0
0
788
0%
0%
0%
0%
14%
14%
260

Risk Assessment
Table 128: Potential Landslide Losses, Center Junction
Use Type Properties
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
Total
Martelle
No Potential Landslide Losses in Martelle
Table129: Potential Landslide Losses, Monticello
0
19
6
0
2
27
% in Hazard Area
46%
0%
14%
0%
23%
23%
Use Type Properties
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
Total
1
124
155
23
4
3
Morley
No Potential Landslide Losses in Morley
Olin
No Potential Landslide Losses in Olin
Onslow
No Potential Landslide Losses in Onslow
Oxford Junction
No Potential Landslide Losses in Oxford Junction
% in Hazard Area
21%
2%
3%
5%
8%
8%
Total Value
$851,210
$1,056,700
N/A
$533,670
$12,771,830
$15,213,440
Total Value
$218,850
$0
N/A
$0
$728,240
$947,090
Identifying Structures
Population %Population
0
25
1
0
0
25
0%
0%
0%
0%
23%
23%
Population %Population
0
303
303
0
0
0
0%
8%
8%
0%
0%
0%
261

Risk Assessment Identifying Structures
Table130: Potential Landslide Losses, Wyoming
Use Type
Agricultural
Commercial
Exempt
Industrial
Residential
Total
Properties
0
34
0
3
5
42
% in Hazard Area
%
4%
11%
0%
10%
9%
Total Value
$0
$244,140
$0
$0
$,1537,370
$1,781,510
Population
0
51
0
0
0
51
%Population
0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
10%
Critical Facilities are essential to the health and welfare of the whole population and are especially important following hazard events. Since vulnerability is based on service losses as well as building structure integrity and contents value, loss of the following structures would have an unusually large effect on the community. For purposes of this mitigation planning guidance, critical facilities may include emergency service facilities such as hospitals and other medical facilities, jails, police and fire stations, emergency operations centers, police and fire stations, public works facilities, evacuation shelters, schools, other centers that house special needs populations, and facilities that provide necessary services, such as provision of food, or pharmaceutical supplies.
Facilities critical to the unincorporated areas or Jones County as a whole, as identified at the time this plan was created include, but are not limited to, the following locations.
262

Risk Assessment
Figure 115: Jones County Critical Facilities
Identifying Structures
263

Risk Assessment Identifying Structures
Figure 116: Jones County Conservation and Recreation Areas, Source: Jones County Conservation
The map above shows conservation and recreation areas in Jones County that are maintained by the Jones County
Conservation department. Because Jones County is located in an area of the country where tornado risk is fairly high, people in these locations may be at an elevated risk in the event of a tornado or high wind event because of a lack of shelter. As the locations identified on the map above are all publically owned, they are all viable locations for a FEMA 361 compliant tornado safe room, and are thus considered critical facilities from that regard.
264

Risk Assessment Identifying Structures
Figure 117: Critical Outdoor Facilities
The facilities identified above are additional outdoor facilities that are commonly used for recreational purposes.
As noted, some are County owned, some are owned by the DNR, and a few are either private or owned by cities or school districts. Most of these locations could be viable sites for safe rooms.
Antioch School
Anamosa Main Street
Historic District
Anamosa Public
Library
Caulkins Dr. Martin H.
House and Office
Corbett's/Eby's Mill
Bridge
IA 64, 4 miles East of Anamosa
200-300 block W. Main St., 100 block
E. Main St., 100 block N. and S. Ford
St., 100 block N. Garnavillo St.
100 E. 1st Street
Washington and Main Streets.
Spans Maquoketa River Scotch Grove
Township
Green John A. Estate W of Anamosa off U.S. 151
Hale Bridge Wapsipinicon River, near the mouth of
Iowa Men's
Reformatory Cemetery
Dutch Creek
Co. Trunk Hwy. E28 W of Buffalo
Creek
N. High Street Iowa Men's
Reformatory Historic
District
Jones County
Courthouse
500 W. Main Street
Anamosa vicinity
Anamosa
Anamosa
Wyoming
Scotch Grove
Ely's Stone Bridge
Farm No. 1 Iowa Men's
Reformatory
Farwell S. S. House
NW of Monticello at Hardscrabble Rd.
Co. Trunk Hwy. E28 W of Buffalo
Creek
301 N. Chestnut Street
Fremont Mill Bridge Pedestrian path over small pond in
Central Park
Monticello
Anamosa
Monticello
Anamosa vicinity
Anamosa
Anamosa vicinity
Anamosa
Anamosa
Anamosa
01/16/2001
01/29/09
05/23/1983
03/05/1982
04/11/1985
03/07/1979
12/18/1992
04/27/1979
5/15/98
08/31/1978
6/04/08
12/18/1992
12/18/1992
08/28/2003
Lower Road Bridge Buffalo Rd. over branch of
Wapsipinicon River
Moore's Ford Bridge 25th Ave. over White Water Creek
Anamosa vicinity
Monticello
City vicinity
05/15/98
05/15/98
265

Risk Assessment Identifying Structures
Odd Fellows Hall
Rick's Brewery
203 W. 1st Street
12412 Buffalo Rd.
Shaw Col. William T. and Elizabeth C. House
St. Joseph's Roman
Catholic Church
St. Luke's Methodist
Church
State Quarry
Stone City Historic
District
509 S. Oak Street
12472 Jones County Road X28
211 N. Sycamore
Iowa Men's Reformatory Unnamed rd. along E side of Buffalo Creek NW of
Anamosa
12828-12573 Stone City Rd., 12392-
12340 Dearborn Rd.
Figure 118: Iowa Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources
Monticello
Anamosa vicinity
Anamosa
Stone City
Monticello
Anamosa
Anamosa vicinity
06/27/1985
3/12/99
11/27/1992
08/24/2005
1/17/2002
12/18/1992
According to the map above, taken from the State of Iowa 2013 Mitigation Plan, Jones County has between 5 and
15 sites that are identified as Critical Infrastructure/Key Resource Facilities. The exact names and locations of these
266

Risk Assessment Identifying Structures facilities are not generally released for security purposes. HSEMD has identified 17 Critical Infrastructure Sectors in
Iowa, so the sites in Jones County would fall into one of the following categories: Agriculture, Commercial
Facilities, Dams, Event Venues & Icons, Education, Community Organizations, Water, Public Health, Emergency
Services, Government, Defense Industrial Base, Information and Telecommunications, Energy, Transportation,
Banking and Finance, Chemical Industry, Postal and Shipping
267

Risk Assessment Identifying Structures
Critical facilities in Anamosa identified at the time this plan was created include, but are not limited to, the following locations.
Figure 119: Anamosa Critical Facilities
Critical facilities in Center Junction identified at the time this plan was created include, but are not limited to, the following locations.
268

Risk Assessment
Figure 120: Center Junction Critical Facilities
Identifying Structures
Critical facilities in Martelle identified at the time this plan was created include, but are not limited to, the following locations.
269

Risk Assessment
Figure 121: Martelle Critical Facilities
Identifying Structures
270

Risk Assessment Identifying Structures
Critical facilities in Monticello identified at the time this plan was created include, but are not limited to, the following locations.
Figure122: Monticello Critical Facilities
Critical facilities in Morley identified at the time this plan was created include, but are not limited to, the following locations.
Figure 123: Critical Facilities, Morley
Critical facilities in Olin identified at the time this plan was created include, but are not limited to, the following locations.
Figure 124: Critical Facilities, Olin
Critical facilities in Onslow identified at the time this plan was created include, but are not limited to, the following locations.
Figure 125: Onslow Critical Facilities
Critical facilities in Oxford Junction identified at the time this plan was created include, but are not limited to, the following locations.
Figure 126: Oxford Junction Critical Facilities
271

Risk Assessment Identifying Structures
Critical facilities in Wyoming Junction identified at the time this plan was created include, but are not limited to, the following locations.
Figure 127: Wyoming Critical Facilities
272

Risk Assessment
Figure 228: Critical Transportation Systems
Identifying Structures
273

Risk Assessment
Figure 39: Critical Utility Systems
Identifying Structures
274

Risk Assessment Estimating Potential Losses
Describing vulnerability in terms of dollar losses provides the communities and the State with a common framework in which to measure the effects of hazards on vulnerable structures. Plans are encouraged to include an estimate of losses for the identified vulnerable structures. This is intended to be a monetary estimate for each hazard including the value of the structure, contents and loss of function to present a full picture of the total loss for each asset.
As a guide, the planning “Blue Book” recommends that structure loss is defined as a percentage of the
Replacement Value x Percentage of Damage. Content loss is defined as a percentage of the Replacement Value x
Percentage of Damage. Functional Losses are indirect effects that usually involve interruptions in asset operations.
Because the majority of mitigation projects fundable under the Stafford Act require a detailed Benefit Cost
Analysis (BCA), FEMA does have standard values available for calculating replacement value of contents and functional losses based on the type and use of the structure in question.
Where data are limited, the guidance allows planning teams to select the most likely event for each hazard and estimate the potential losses for that event. Because detailed historical records of loss values associated with many hazards were unavailable, loss estimations have only been performed for the natural hazards identified in this plan.
In addition to data collected during the planning process, this plan also references the loss estimations completed for the 2013 Iowa Hazard Mitigation Plan. The State’s plan contains loss estimations completed by HSEMD for the
5 most common natural hazards: flooding, tornados, windstorms, hailstorms and winter storms. These loss estimates were categorized by type of damage where data was available. The primary source of data relating to weather patterns was the NCDC, and data associated with flooding primarily came from the the previous plan and information provided by the Iowa DNR..
Also of note is the high number of state owned buildings in Jones County. According to the 2013 Iowa Hazard
Mitigation Plan, of 896 state buildings identified totaling $2,414,703,272 in replacement value, 82 (9.2%) of these buildings were located in Jones County. Only Boone, Lee and Mills Counties have more state owned buildings than
Jones County. The replacement cost of these 82 buildings was listed as $325,716,092, or 13.5% of the total replacement value of state owned buildings. The unusually high number of state owned buildings in Jones County is likely due, in large part, to the presence of the State Penitentiary in Anamosa.
According to the 2013 Iowa Hazard Mitigation plan, annual losses from flooding in Jones County are estimated at
$9,124,000 or $442 per person (2012 Census estimate). Due to changes in data collection methodology, no comparative data could be found.
For values of property located in identified flood hazard areas broken down by jurisdiction, please see the tables in the section Assessing Vulnerability: Building Stock: Flood, pages 253-256. Additionally, multiple jurisdictions reported loss of wastewater service during flood events due to floodwaters inundating sewer plants. Based on the current FEMA BCA loss of service values of $45/person/day for the population of each community, the following economic losses could apply on a per-day basis for disruption of wastewater services:
275

Risk Assessment Estimating Potential Losses
Table 132: Economic Impact of Loss of Wastewater Services
Anamosa $253,125
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
$4,950
$11,430
$170,865
*Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
$5,130
$31,050
$8,820
$22,050
Wyoming
*Unincorporated
$22,950
$398,385
In the city of Morley and the rural and un-incorporated areas of Jones County the residents rely on private septic systems for wastewater treatment. Flooding is not likely to create the disruption of services in these areas as it will in the communities that use municipal wastewater systems. Additionally, flooding will likely not influence every rural resident of the county.
An additional statistic that can be looked at to estimate potential flood losses is flood insurance that is in force.
The following table summarizes flood insurance policies in force in Jones County.
Table 133: Jones County Flood Insurance in Force
JONES COUNTY FLOOD INSURANCE IN FORCE
10/31/2014
As provided by FEMA
Anamosa
Jones County
Monticello
Morley
Olin
OXFORD JUNCTION
WYOMING
Policies in Force Insurance in Force Written Premium in
Force
38 $6,885,000 $23,527
47
19
7
$6,753,200
$10,356,500
$279,000
$44,531
$42,445
$3,585
26
18
6
$2,411,000
$1,137,300
$373,600
$14,486
$5,145
$2,814
276

Risk Assessment Estimating Potential Losses
According to NOAA, there have been 4 excessive heat incidents which impacted Jones County from July 1995 through July 2012. The most damaging extreme heat event on record for the area occurred in July of 1995, causing
$3.8 million in property damage state wide. Three deaths were also attributed to the heat, though none occurred in Jones County. Livestock damages were estimated at $31 million statewide for 1995, comprising the deaths of an estimated 4,000 cattle, 370 hogs, 1,250,000 chickens and 250,000 turkeys. Little crop damage was reported.
Although statewide damages are difficult to scale appropriately to the planning area, dividing the totals reported equally by county would yield property damages of approximately $40,000 and agricultural losses of $50,000 to
$60,000 for an extreme heat event. This information was taken from the 2013 State of Iowa Hazard Mitigation
Plan, the most up-to-date information that could be found.
Planning committees also noted that extreme heat often results in high use of electricity, which can occasionally cause outages or brownouts. Based on the current FEMA BCA loss of service values of $131/person/day for the population of each community, the following economic losses could apply on a per-day basis for disruption of electrical services:.
Table 134: Economic Impact of Loss of Electrical Services
Anamosa $736,875
Center Junction
Martelle
$14,410
$33,274
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
$497,407
$14,934
$90,390
$25,676
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
$64,190
$66,810
Unincorporated $1,159,743
A disruption of electrical services may not affect an entire community or all of the rural area and may be isolated to areas with aged or inadequate electrical infrastructure that is more vulnerable to the influence of extreme heat.
Certain populations, the young and old in particular, are more vulnerable to the effects of extreme heat. Those populations in Jones County are as follows:
277

Risk Assessment Estimating Potential Losses
Table135: Vulnerable populations of Jones County
Area
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Unincorporated
Jones County Total
Iowa
48
118
118
924
39
167
<18
1103
17
39
2,591
4417
7716011
2010
%
24
34
24
207
15
15
24
24
23
29
21
24
>64
36
110
105
829
18
120
968
27
44
2,321
3715
466169
%
17
24
17
22
16
17
18
22
20
26
18
15
No record of the value of structural losses could be located. Losses to structures such as buildings are highly unlikely in an extreme heat event. However, transportation infrastructure can be damaged by extreme heat conditions, especially when combined with very wet conditions. Roadways can buckle and pop during the heat, and the result of this would be costs associated with fixing the road, as well as potential travel delays and possible damage to vehicles if motorists drive over damaged roadways or if vehicles are hit by debris in the road.
According to NCDC records, Jones County experienced 47 recorded hail events over the 16 year period between
1997 and 2013. Total reported property damages attributed to these storms comes to $350,100 and reported crop damages of $53,000. The most damaging event occurred in Wyoming in July of 2003, causing $250,000 in property damage and $10,000 in crop damage when 1.75” hail was reported. As hailstorms are typically limited in size, this is likely to be close to the highest amount of property damage that may be expected on a normal basis. To translate this impact to other communities in the planning area, the $250,000 in damage was divided across the
$15,949,510 in total assessed structural value (dwellings and buildings) in Wyoming, for a damage percentage of
1.6%. Thus, if a similar storm occurred in any of the other communities, the expected damage totals could be as follows: Anamosa, $2,568,349; Center Junction, $43,103; Martelle, $167,216; Monticello, $2,342,135; Morley,
278

Risk Assessment Estimating Potential Losses
$29,473, Olin, $288,434; Onslow, $80,333; Oxford Junction, $144,037. Because the unincorporated areas of the county are much less densely populated, applying the damage rate found in Wyoming to the total value of structures in the unincorporated areas would not provide an accurate picture of possible damages. Instead, a more likely scenario is that damages in the unincorporated areas would occur in a localized area not the entire county and would approximate those found in one of the smaller cities such as Martelle or Oxford Junction.
According to the 2013 Iowa Hazard Mitigation Plan, the annual expected hailstorm related losses in Jones County are $24,000. This equates to $1.16 per person per year in hail related damages.
The largest hail stone reported was 3 inches on 9/20/2001 at Monticello. By location, hail storms were reported to
NOAA as follows: Unincorporated (16), Anamosa (14), Center Junction (1), Martelle (7), Monticello (11), Morley (1),
Olin (8), Oxford Junction (10), Onslow (1), and Wyoming (9).
Wildfires in Iowa are tracked through the NFIRS reporting system maintained by the State of Iowa Fire Marshall’s
Office. Due to terrain and vegetation features, wildfires in Iowa generally are not as severe as those experienced in western states, though when dry or windy conditions prevail, wildfires that burn several hundred acres can occur.
The major threat of a wildfire is spread to structures as evidenced by a 7/23/2006 wildfire involving crops in
Anamosa that caused structural damages of $40,000.
In Jones County wildfires reported to the State of Iowa Fire Marshall’s Office by Jones County fire departments include 13 in 2013 that caused $20,000 in losses and burned 37 acres; 36 in 2012 that caused $513in losses and burned 78 acres; 7 in 2011 that caused $8,000 in losses and burned 7 acres; 6 in 2010 that burned 2 acres and 11 in 2009 that burned 2 acres. All totaled, this is 73 wildfires that caused $33,000 in fire loss and burned 126 acres.
Based on this data, the average wildfire that does not involve a structure in Jones County will cause $452 in damages and will burn 1.7 acres.
For the State of Iowa, according to information in the 2013 State Mitigation Plan, the average number of acres burned per wildfire is 18.2. The plan does not provide any information on $ losses.
According to the 2007 Iowa Hazard Mitigation Plan, annual losses associated with severe winter storms in Jones
County amount to $88,164, or $4 per person, which is also the median per-person value figured by county in the state. The most recent Iowa Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) does not contain any information about the annual losses associated with winter storms for Jones County.
NCDC records indicate there were 45 winter storm events and 7 ice storm events recorded by NOAA between
1/16/1996 and 12/21/2013 that included Jones County: All events were documented as county-wide. There were no deaths, injuries; property or crop damages attributed to the winter storms. The 7 ice storm events recorded by
NOAA occurred between 12/15/2000 and 12/21/2013 in Jones County. Only one ice storm on 2/24/2007 had any recorded damages. Damage from that storm was $208,000 countywide. This equates to $10.07 in losses per county resident.
One of the hazardous aspects of a severe winter storm is the disruption in travel. The planning committees determined that power outages and traffic accidents were the two most common problematic events resulting
279

Risk Assessment Estimating Potential Losses from a severe winter storm event. According to the DOT, the following winter weather related traffic accidents occurred in Jones County from 2009 to 2013:
Table136: 2009-2013 Icy, Snowy, or Slushy Surface Condition-Related Crash History
These figures show an average of $5,957 in property losses per incident, an injury in an average of one out of every three incidents and one death in every 148 incidents.
Electrical outages are also a common result of severe winter storms. According to the current FEMA standard value for economic loss associated with loss of electric power of $126 per person per day, each day of electrical failure would result in the following economic losses in the participating communities:
Planning committees also noted that severe winter storms often results in loss of electricity, which can occasionally cause outages or brownouts. Based on the current FEMA BCA loss of service values of
$131/person/day for the population of each community, the following economic losses could apply on a per-day basis for disruption of electrical services:.
Table 137: Economic Impact of Loss of Electrical Services
Anamosa $736,875
Center Junction
Martelle
$14,410
$33,274
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
$497,407
$14,934
$90,390
$25,676
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Unincorporated
$64,190
$66,810
$1,159,743
280

Risk Assessment Estimating Potential Losses
A disruption of electrical services may not affect an entire community or all of the rural area and may be isolated to areas with aged or inadequate electrical infrastructure that is more vulnerable to the influence of severe winter storms.
Certain populations, the young and old in particular, are more vulnerable to the effects of cold weather that accompanies severe winter storms. Those populations in Jones County are as follows:
Table 138: Vulnerable populations of Jones County
Area
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Unincorporated
Jones County Total
Iowa
167
48
118
118
2,591
4417
7716011
<18
1103
17
39
924
39
2010
23
29
21
24
24
24
24
15
24
34
%
207
15
120
36
110
105
2,321
3715
466169
44
829
18
>64
968
27
20
26
18
17
18
22
15
17
22
16
%
17
24
The monetary values of losses that could be associated with a severe drought are difficult to estimate. According to the State of Iowa Hazard Mitigation Plan, the National Climactic Data Center (NCDC) lists 23 periods of drought in Iowa from 1995-2011. During that period there was $2.010 billion in crop damages resulting from drought periods and over $645 million in property damage. In 2012 alone crop damages from drought were $4.992 billion.
Only limited data on a smaller scale could be retrieved. The NCDC lists 15 droughts as having impacted Jones
County between 2003 and 2013. A drought in the summer of 2003 is shown as causing $14.880 million in crop
281

Risk Assessment Estimating Potential Losses damages in the county and a drought in the summer of 2005 is shown as causing $11.100 million in crop damages in the county.
According to the Iowa DNR, all of the public water sources in Jones County are groundwater (rather than surface water from a river, or similar). Generally, groundwater sources experience less fluctuation in levels associated with climate than would a surface water source. If a drought were to occur that affected a drinking water source, it would likely initially be on a well-by-well basis, then escalating into exhaustion of sections of aquifers. The following water systems are located in Jones County, and loss of service cost indicates the economic impact of a loss of drinking on a per-day basis at a rate of $103 per person per day as per FEMA guidelines. The listing of water systems was provided by the Iowa DNR.
Table 139: Public Water Systems of Jones County
Water System Name Loss of Service Cost Type of System
ANAMOSA MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
ANAMOSA STATE PENITENTIARY
BACON ADDITION
EDINBURGH MANOR
MARTELLE WATER WORKS
MONTI-VIEW MOBILE HOME PARK
MONTICELLO WATER SUPPLY
OXFORD JUNCTION WATER SUPPLY
WYOMING WATER SYSTEM
ANAMOSA TRAVELMART
APOSTOLIC CHURCH
CAMP COURAGEOUS OF IOWA
CAMP WYOMING
CENTRAL PARK - JONES CONSERVATION
COONHUNTERS
FAWN CREEK COUNTRY CLUB
HALE TAP
PICTURED ROCKS METHODIST CAMP
SAINTS PETER & PAUL LUTHERAN
CHURCH
SCOOTERS
STONE CITY GENERAL STORE PUB
TEMPLE HILL CATHOLIC CHURCH
THE HEIGHTS
WAGON WHEEL
WALNUT ACRES CAMPGROUND
WALNUT ACRES CAMPGROUND II
WAPSIPINICON COUNTRY CLUB
WAPSIPINICON ST PARK - DUTCH CREEK
LODGE
Population
Served
4,283
1725
81
35
255
60
3796
496
515
1,117
200
100
191
103
52
50
54
56
45
55
108
53
59
106
50
50
85
50
$441,149 Community
$177,675 Community
$8,240 Community
$3,255 Community
$26,265 Community
$6,180 Community
$401,288 Community
$51,088 Community
$53,045 Community
$115,051 Non-Community
$20,600 Non-Community
$9,300 Non-Community
$17,763 Non-Community
$10,609 Non-Community
$5,256 Non-Community
$4,650 Non-Community
$5,562 Non-Community
$5,768 Non-Community
$4,185 Non-Community
$5,115 Non-Community
$10,044 Non-Community
$6,077 Non-Community
$5,487 Non-Community
$9,858 Non-Community
$5,150 Non-Community
$5,150 Non-Community
$8,755 Non-Community
$4,650 Non-Community
282

Risk Assessment Estimating Potential Losses
WAPSIPINICON STATE PARK
WAYNE ZION LUTHERAN CHURCH
Carlson College of Massage
Morley Municipal Water
Center Junction Water Department
Olin Water Supply
Onslow Water Supply
St. John’s Lutheran Church
Teddy’s Bar and Grill
The Grove
Wildwood Acres Association
Fairview Terrace Mobile Home Park
Re-conserve of Iowa
150
52
N/A
115
111
698
197
157
N/A
N/A
N/A
70
50
$15,450 Non-Community
$5,356 Non-Community
Non-Community
$11,845 Community
$11,433 Community
$71,894 Community
$20,291
$16,171 Non-Community
Non-Community
Non-Community
Non-Community
$7,210 Community
$6,180 Non-Community
In addition to the above populations, numerous homes and properties in the rural and unincorporated areas have private wells. However the exact number of people utilizing the private wells could not be determined. Based on census data and data provided by Jones County GIS and the Jones County Auditor as identified previously in this section, the number of private wells that could be in operation at residential properties in Jones County is 3,159. A loss of drinking water to the unincorporated residents would result in an economic impact of $325,377 per day according to FEMA’s standard values. Data collected shows that with all properties considered, including agricultural, commercial, industrial and exempt properties, the number of wells could be as high as 15,592 which equates to an economic impact of $1,605,976 per day for loss of water supply according to FEMA’s standard values.
Due to the historical infrequency of earthquakes in this area, no historical losses and minimal research indicating the probability of an earthquake could be located, and thus no loss estimate has been prepared for this hazard.
During an update of this document, another effort should be made to produce a loss estimate for this hazard.
No database of historical landslide losses for Jones County could be located, so the following values reflect the total property and population that could be lost due to landslide, rather than one particular landslide event.
Table 140: Landslide Potential Property and Population Effected
Location
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Number of
Properties
253
27
0
155
0
Total
Value
$29,857,320
$947,090
0
$15,213,440
0
Average
Value
$118,013
$35,077
0
$98,151
0
Total
Population
788
25
0
303
0
283

Risk Assessment Estimating Potential Losses
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Unincorporated
0
0
0
42
7,953
0
0
0
$1,781,510
$399,416
0
0
0
$42,417
$97,944
0
0
0
42
4,078
No database of historical expansive soils related losses for Jones County could be located. As such, the following values reflect the total property and population that could be affected by expansive soils, rather than one particular event triggered by expansive soils activity.
Table 141: Expansive Soils Potential Property and Population Effected
Location
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Unincorporated
Number of
Properties
334
60
196
252
84
87
162
78
197
6,150
Total
Value
$43,412,160
$1,927,080
$11,442,061
$30,573,024
$2,082,740
$3,357,260
$5,976,120
$1,945,590
$10,230,700
$997,543,590
Average
Value
$32,118
$58,378
$24,794
$38,598
$36,890
$24,943
$51,932
$129,977
$121,322
$162,202
Total
Population
788
51
246
151
111
97
196
57
235
6,610
All of the dams located within Jones County (locations discussed in more detail in the hazard profile for dam failure) are low hazard dams, which, according to FEMA 333, are dams where failure or mis-operation would result in no probable loss of human life and low economic and/or environmental Losses. Losses are primarily limited to the owner’s property. This represents the smallest risk category of the following identified categories:
Table 18: Dam Risk Categories
Hazard Potential Classification
Low
Loss of Human Life
None expected
Significant
High
None expected
Economic, Environmental, Lifeline Losses
Low and generally limited to owner
Yes
Probable. One or more expected Yes (but not necessary for this classification)
284

Risk Assessment Estimating Potential Losses
Based on this data, the failure of a dam located in Jones County would only likely yield losses in the value of the dam itself. Based on information provided by the Iowa DNR the replacement cost of the dams located in Jones
County were unavailable at the time this plan was written, but could be added in an update of this document.
Additionally, no inundation maps for any of the dams located in Jones County could be located so no analysis of potential losses could be determined.
The dam of most concern to Jones County was located outside of the planning area. Conventionally referred to as the Lake Delhi Dam, the Hartwick Lake Dam, as it is officially known, was located upstream of Monticello near the city of Manchester in Delaware County. The Hartwick Lake Dam was listed as a significant hazard dam, meaning that property damage could occur as the result of a dam failure, but loss of life is unlikely. The dam was 750 feet long and 55 feet high, with a maximum storage of 9,920 cubic acres and a normal storage of 3790 cubic acres, with a normal surface area of 440 square acres. The dam was completed in 1922, and provided hydroelectric power until 1974. The dam did in fact fail on July 24, 2010. Flood waters from the failure caused damages ranging from minor to severe to 45 residential structures in the rural unincorporated areas of Jones County along the
Maquoketa River and in the City of Monticello. There was also $413,000 in damages to infrastructure from the failure. Reconstruction of the dam began on April 24, 2014. Refilling of the reservoir is slated to begin in the spring of 2016. Potential property damages from a failure of the new dam will need to be addressed in future revisions to this plan.
Thunderstorm and lightning events are quite common throughout the summer months in the planning area, yet do not normally cause reportable damage. When damage does occur, it may be caused by high winds, heavy rainfall or lightning striking an object. The damaging effects of heavy rainfall typically results in flash flooding, a hazard that is addressed separately.
Thunderstorms can vary substantially in scale, which means that losses associated with thunderstorms are also variable. The largest loss reported from a thunderstorm that affected Jones County caused $1.5 million in
Monticello on 7/27/of 1995. The property damage associated with this storm was 1.1% of the total property value of the city at that time. Applying the same level of loss when applied to the properties in Jones County jurisdictions using current property values would yield the following potential losses:
Table 143: Thunderstorm loss Estimates
Anamosa $2,121,625
Center Junction
Martelle
$42,285
$130,937
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
$1,980,538
$24,037
$239,038
$64,470
285

Risk Assessment Estimating Potential Losses
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated
Anamosa
Center Junction
Martelle
Monticello
Morley
Olin
Onslow
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
Oxford Junction
Wyoming
$124,200
$208,714
This method of calculating losses in a city does not translate well to the unincorporated areas where densities are much lower. In the unincorporated areas, crop losses would become a greater concern. The largest crop loss associated with a thunderstorm in Jones County to date occurred in September of 2000. Damage was widespread and variable, but in some areas losses were reported as high as 10% of the corn crop, which translated to approximately $300,000 in damages.
Damage associated with lightning occurs much less frequently than damage from high winds. Only one damaging lightning event is recorded by the NCDC as having occurred in Jones County. This event took place in Anamosa in
July of 1995, and caused $15,000 in property damage. A review of lightning events recorded in neighboring counties revealed that damages in the $10,000 to $20,000 range are common when lightning does not cause a fire, and only damages the electrical system of the affected building. However, when a fire does occur, damages are much higher, and records show that the complete loss of one building has occurred multiple times, and in some cases neighboring structures were also damaged. Based on average property values in the participating communities, and the FEMA standard contents value of a home as 50% of the total building replacement value, the following losses could be expected if lightning were to cause a structural fire:
Table 149: Lightning Loss Estimates
Property
$97,060
$94,227
$35,598
$65,449
$87,225
$29,659
$56,066
$45,905
$31,121
$48,914
Contents
$48,530
$47,144
$17,799
$32,725
$43,613
$14,930
$28,033
$22,953
$15,561
$24,467
Total
$145,590
$141,341
$53,397
$98,174
$130,838
$44,489
$84,099
$68,858
$46,682
$73,371
286

Risk Assessment Analyzing Development Trends
As detailed in FEMA’s guidance, hazard mitigation plans should provide a general overview of land uses and types of development occurring within each community participating in the plan. This can include existing land uses and development densities in the identified hazard areas, as well as any anticipated future/proposed land uses, including anticipated new development, and redevelopment, and anticipated annexation areas. This information is recommended for mitigation plans because an analysis of development trends provides a basis for making decisions on the type of mitigation approaches to consider, and the locations where these approaches can be implemented. This information can also be used to influence decisions regarding future development in hazard areas.
FEMA suggests consideration of the following areas when analyzing development trends, and where possible, relevant data was presented in the same order for each of the participating jurisdictions listed below.
 Development trends, described both by amount and location of development
 Differentiation of distinct land uses with unique densities
 Location of future development
 Expected growth
Resources used in developing this analysis included the 2012 Jones County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Jones
County 2012-2015 Strategic Plan, information from City-data.com, interviews with city and county officials and information provided by the Jones County office of Economic Development.
Jones County has seen modest population growth since the 1950’s. Most recently, according to the U.S. Census,
Jones County realized a 2% population growth from 2010 to 2010, bringing the total population to 20,638. Most of this growth occurred in the rural unincorporated area of the county where the population increased 4.61% while the incorporated areas grew by only .2%. The Jones County Comprehensive plan projects that the county will continue to grow at a rate of 2% every decade. This places the population at 21,051 in 2020 and 21,472 in 2030.
The majority of this growth is projected to occur in the rural unincorporated areas. The plan also projects that the county will need an additional 138 housing units to accommodate the increased population by 2030. This will increase the total housing units in the county to 9,049.
As documented in the Jones County Comprehensive Plan, a significant trend occurring in the Jones County population is that it is aging at a rate that is higher than the average for Iowa. The county’s median age had increased from 38.5 in 2000 to 42.7 in 2010. This trend is projected to continue. This will require more resources to assist elderly people in extreme heat and extreme cold weather situations.
Unincorporated
Growth in the unincorporated areas occurs mostly on the outskirts of the cities and in unincorporated villages.
Jones County has a number of unincorporated villages that have been platted:
1) Amber, as per the recorded plats named: Blue Cut; First Addition to Blue Cut
2) Canton, as per the recorded plat named: Canton
287

Risk Assessment Analyzing Development Trends
3) Fairview, as per the recorded plat named: Fairview; Addition to Fairview (also known as Baker and
Sandusky’s Addition); Wilcox’s Addition to the Town of Fairview
4) Hale, as per the recorded plats named: Hale Village; Preston’s Addition to Hale.
5) Langworthy, as per the recorded plats named: Langworthy; Preservation Acres
6) Oxford Mills, as per the recorded plats named: Oxford; Francis Lathrop’s Addition to Oxford Mills; Milo
Lathrop’s Addition to Oxford; S.F. McDonald’s 1 st Addition to the Town of Oxford
7) Scotch Grove, as per the recorded plat named: Scotch Grove.
In addition to the above listed seven unincorporated communities, Stone City is another unincorporated village in
Jones County, located not far from Anamosa. Where residential lots exist in the platted villages, growth could occur. Growth could also occur near cities as cities are allowed by state code to conduct extraterritorial planning within two-miles of their corporate limits.
Additionally, there are some small pockets of cabin development along the banks of the Wapsipinicon and
Maquoketa Rivers. Riverfront development can be desirable for its scenic and recreational value and, in some cases (particularly prior to the adoption/enforcement of NFIP regulations), development could occur more easily in these areas because land along rivers typically has a low Corn Suitability Rating (CSR) and is not protected from development as prime farm land would be. However, there are obvious flooding risks that are associated with building in these areas, and a number of the SRL properties in Jones County are located in unincorporated riverfront cabin areas.
As previously discussed, according to the Jones County Comprehensive Plan, the rural unincorporated areas of the county are projected to sustain the majority of the projected growth in the county up through 2030. Inevitably the majority of the projected 138 residential structures that will need to be built to accommodate the increased population will be constructed in rural areas. Jones County has a Flood Plain Ordinance regulating construction in the flood plain areas of the county. Some of these rural residential structures may, however, ne constructed in areas with expansive soils (38% of the rural area) or areas where landslides may occur (51% of the rural area).
288

Risk Assessment
Anamosa
Figure 40: Anamosa in the 1950s
Analyzing Development Trends
Figure 531: Anamosa in 2011
289

Risk Assessment Analyzing Development Trends
Anamosa has experienced the most residential growth of any area in Jones County:
Single-family new house construction (www.city-data.com):
1996: 6 buildings, average cost: $77,500
1997: 6 buildings, average cost: $91,800
1998: 9 buildings, average cost: $72,800
1999: 15 buildings, average cost: $68,200
2000: 9 buildings, average cost: $142,300
2001: 5 buildings, average cost: $133,000
2002: 9 buildings, average cost: $150,600
2003: 9 buildings, average cost: $111,100
2004: 27 buildings, average cost: $108,300
Figure 632: Anamosa Growth Areas
2005: 22 buildings, average cost: $136,600
2006: 28 buildings, average cost: $152,600
2007: 11 buildings, average cost: $111,700
2008: 9 buildings, average cost: $181,100
2009: 9 buildings, average cost: $216,700
2010: 9 buildings, average cost: $189,400
2011: 4 buildings, average cost: $129,300
2012: 6 buildings, average cost: $153,300
Anamosa completed an annexation study in 2009 with the assistance of ECICOG. The map shown above is the result of that study. Immediate growth was split into Phase 1.1 and Phase 1.2; with the City annexing Phase 1.1 prior to initiating annexation of Phase 1.2. Phase 2 represents a longer term growth area that should be large enough to provide land for the City’s growth over the next 20 years or more. These annexation areas bring some already developed areas inside the corporate limits (in keeping with the City services these areas already receive) and will provide additional land for the expected growth. Additionally, a goal of this process was to fill in gaps in the City’s boundary lines. Growth was only identified in areas to the east and north because the southwestern
290

Risk Assessment Analyzing Development Trends edge of town is a sensitive natural resource area, where development would not be feasible. As of 2014 the
Anamosa City Council had not followed through with implementing any portions of this study.
Anamosa’s population increased by 125 people from census years 2000 to 2010. As documented above, there has a number of new homes built over the last 15 years. The construction peaked in 2004-2005. City officials state that nearly all of this construction has been on east side of the city, an area that is not prone to natural hazards such as flooding.
Center Junction
Figure 7: Center Junction in 2011
There has not been any new residential or commercial construction in Center Junction for 20 years and the city’s population has decreased by 91 people, or 45% of the city’s 1960 population, in the last 50 years. Center Junction does not lie in a flood plain and has no potential for flood losses. The potential for structural damage does exist due to 51% of the city in having areas with expansive soils and 24% of the city being areas with landslide potential.
There are no plans for annexation of land to the City of Center Junction and city officials do not anticipate any significant increase in housing or business development.
291

Risk Assessment
Martelle
Figure 8: Martelle in the 1950s
Analyzing Development Trends
Figure 935: Martelle in 2011
Martelle in 2011
Single-family new house construction (www.city-data.com):
292

Risk Assessment Analyzing Development Trends
1996: 1 building, cost: $81,200
1997: 1 building, cost: $80,000
1998: 0 buildings
1999: 0 buildings
2000: 0 buildings
2001: 0 buildings
2002: 0 buildings
2003: 0 buildings
2004: 0 buildings
2005: 1 building, cost: $60,000
2006: 1 building, cost: $70,000
2007: 0 buildings
2008: 0 buildings
2009: 0 buildings
2010: 0 buildings
2011: 0 buildings
2012: 0 buildings
As detailed in the aerial imagery, Martell has experienced some residential growth to the south of town, and what appears to be some industrial or agricultural infill in the northern and central portions of town. There has not been any new construction in the city since 2006 and the city’s population has decreased steadily since 1970 from 341 to 255. The city does not cover a large land area, and density appears fairly uniform throughout the community, regardless of land use. Based on the population trends discussed in the community profile and the trends in new home construction detailed above, it is unlikely that Martelle will need to annex any additional land in the future, as the community is not experiencing much growth, either in population or in construction.
Martelle is also not considered to be a flood prone community and has no identified flood hazard area; thus any future development should not experience flood risk unless the properties are poorly developed or maintained, and thus flooding due to improper stormwater management techniques could become an issue. Based on the analysis performed in the hazard profile section of this document, it does appear that Martelle has unusually high clay content in the soils, as compared to the rest of Jones County. While the planning committee did not believe expansive soils had caused documented damage in the past, it is possible that expansive soils damage could occur in the future. Contributing factors could again be improper stormwater management or certain construction techniques.
293

Risk Assessment
Monticello
Figure 1036: Monticello in the 1950s
Analyzing Development Trends
Figure137: Monticello in 2011
294

Risk Assessment Analyzing Development Trends
Single-family new house construction (www.city-data.com):
1996: 11 buildings, average cost: $105,000
1997: 18 buildings, average cost: $139,600
1998: 8 buildings, average cost: $86,800
1999: 9 buildings, average cost: $135,900
2000: 16 buildings, average cost: $54,400
2001: 5 buildings, average cost: $120,000
2002: 5 buildings, average cost: $120,000
2003: 10 buildings, average cost: $105,400
2004: 11 buildings, average cost: $115,600
2005: 16 buildings, average cost: $111,000
2006: 12 buildings, average cost: $157,300
2007: 9 buildings, average cost: $174,200
2008: 4 buildings, average cost: $178,300
2009: 7 buildings, average cost: $125,800
2010: 8 buildings, average cost: $147,600
2011: 9 buildings, average cost: $168,800
2012: 4 buildings, average cost: $172,100
Monticello has experienced a variety of growth over the past decades, including an increase in population by nearly 200 people from census years 2000 to 2010. As detailed in the new residential construction figures shown above, Monticello has experienced quite a bit of new single family home construction, and the cost of these homes has increased substantially over the past two decades. Prior to 2010 Monticello annexed land around Highway 151 to accommodate commercial, agricultural and manufacturing growth in these areas. The city also has a densely built mixed use commercial and residential core, which is the built area shown on the 1950s aerial photograph.
This area includes most of the City offices, a Main Street style area with multi-story buildings and first floor commercial use. Adjacent to this area are older residential neighborhoods and newer, lower density businesses such as fast food establishments and gas stations.
Areas where the majority of new construction has occurred includes the North Ridge Estates in the northwest corner of the city, the Willow Ridge Addition on the southwest edge of the city and commercial development in the commercial and industrial area on the south side of the city.
There does not appear to be any growth in areas that are prone to natural hazards. Most of the floodplain near the town is in areas that are either already constructed or not likely to experience additional growth because of the location of the floodplain behind many commercial or industrial use buildings.
295

Risk Assessment
Morley
Figure 11: Morley in 2011
Analyzing Development Trends
The City of Morley’s population has dropped from 124 in 1960 to 105 in 2010. As documented in a previous section, the entire city is in a flood plain and subjected to flooding. Nearly all of the city (92%) is built on expansive soils, though there is no potential for landslide. There is no place in the city limits or adjacent land to construct homes on that would not be subject to flooding. There are no plans for annexation of land to the City of Morley and city officials do not anticipate any significant increase in housing or business development.
296

Risk Assessment
Olin
Figure 139: Olin in the 1950s
Analyzing Development Trends
Figure140: Olin in 2011
Olin in 2011
297

Risk Assessment Analyzing Development Trends
Single-family new house construction (www.city-data.com):
1996: 2 buildings, average cost: $43,500
1997: 3 buildings, average cost: $53,300
1998: 0 buildings
1999: 1 building, cost: $95,000
2000: 1 building, cost: $60,000
2001: 0 buildings
2002: 0 buildings
2003: 1 building, cost: $100,000
2004: 3 buildings, average cost: $50,000
2005: 1 building, cost: $100,000
2006: 3 buildings, average cost: $100,000
2007: 0 buildings
2008: 1 building, cost: $100,000
2009: 0 buildings
2010: 0 buildings
2011: 0 buildings
2012: 0 buildings
The population of Olin in 2010 was exactly the same as it was in 1960 at 703 people. As detailed in the 2009 aerial photography, an area to the southeast of the old portion of town used to be a field next to the elementary school and has since become a new residential neighborhood. Land uses in this area are at a slightly lower density than in the older portions of town, and include single family homes and a school surrounded by athletic fields. The older section of town includes a mixed use main street area that runs north to south, where there are City offices, a tavern, gas station and a few businesses. Residential development is located on both sides of the main road through town. As detailed in the information above, since 2006 there has only been one new home built in Olin.
The City’s lagoon was relocated, shown on the 2009 map in the far eastern portion of town, frequently experiences flood damage and is in the process of being relocated.
The city experiences flooding both from the north and east (along the Wapsipinicon River) and from drainage ways throughout town that back up when the river level rises, so much of the land in and around the city is prone to flooding of some type, making development difficult. In 2009 the city’s sewage lagoon, which flooded often, was relocated to place that does not flood. Since 2010 with federal and state buyout funds, 12 residencies that were located in the flood plane were relocated. However, 12 other residencies located in the flood plain chose to remain. The city has also enacted ordinances that ban any new construction in flood plain areas.
298

Risk Assessment
Onslow
Figure 141: Onslow in 2011
Analyzing Development Trends
1997: 0 buildings
1998: 2 buildings, average cost: $112,500
1999: 0 buildings
2000: 0 buildings
2001: 0 buildings
2002: 1 building, cost: $100,000
2003: 0 buildings
2004: 0 buildings
2005: 0 buildings
2006: 0 buildings
2007: 1 building, cost: $115,000
2008: 0 buildings
2009: 0 buildings
2010: 0 buildings
2011: 0 buildings
2012: 0 buildings
There have only been 4 new residential constructions in Onslow since 1996, with the most recent occurring in
2007. The city’s population has decreased steadily since 1960 when it stood at 261 to 197 in 2010. Onslow does not lie in a flood plain and has no potential for flood losses. Likewise, the city has no potential of having a landslide within the city limits. The potential for structural damage does from expansive soils as 99% of the land within city limits is shown as having soils of this type.
There are no plans for annexation of land to the City of Onslow and city officials do not anticipate any significant increase in housing or business development.
299

Risk Assessment
Oxford Junction
Figure142: Oxford Junction in the 1950s
Analyzing Development Trends
Figure 143: Oxford Junction in 2011
300

Risk Assessment Analyzing Development Trends
Single-family new house construction (www.city-data.com):
1996: 0 buildings
1997: 1 building, cost: $75,000
1998: 0 buildings
1999: 0 buildings
2000: 0 buildings
2001: 0 buildings
2002: 0 buildings
2003: 0 buildings
2004: 0 buildings
2005: 0 buildings
2006: 0 buildings
2007: 0 buildings
2008: 0 buildings
2009: 0 buildings
2010: 0 buildings
2011: 0 buildings
2012: 0 buildings
Oxford Junction has not experienced any growth since 1970 when the city’s population peaked at 725. In 2010 the city’s population stood at 490, a 32% decline. The last new residential construction that occurred in the city was a home built in 1997. Because of the location near the Wapsipinicon River, the southern portions of the town, including the sewage lagoons, can flood. Newer development would be best suited to occur toward the northern portions of town, and these areas generally do not appear to be at elevated areas of risk for any other hazards.
However, based on growth trends, it is unlikely that Oxford Junction would need to annex land in the foreseeable future.
301

Risk Assessment
Wyoming
Figure144: Wyoming in the 1950s
Analyzing Development Trends
Figure145: Wyoming in 2011
302

Risk Assessment Analyzing Development Trends
Single-family new house construction (www.city-data.com):
1996: 2 buildings, average cost: $90,500
1997: 1 building, cost: $90,000
1998: 1 building, cost: $175,000
1999: 0 buildings
2000: 3 buildings, average cost: $78,300
2001: 2 buildings, average cost: $119,000
2002: 1 building, cost: $148,000
2003: 1 building, cost: $52,000
2004: 1 building, cost: $150,000
2005: 0 buildings
2006: 1 building, cost: $95,000
2007: 1 building, cost: $125,000
2008: 0 buildings
2009: 0 buildings
2010: 0 buildings
2011: 1 building, cost: $60,000
2012: 1 building, cost: $200,000
Since 1960, the population of Wyoming has been in a relatively steady state of decline. The city’s 2010 population of 515 is 65% of what it was in 1960 (797). There have been 15 residential constructions in Wyoming since 1996 the frequency of new construction is decreasing. City officials report there is no consistent area where new construction is occurring, it is scattered throughout the city.
In the northeast corner of the 2009 aerial photograph, the school’s ball fields and the fairgrounds can be seen. To the south of this area, development is also denser. The planning committee noted that these areas do experience some problems with flooding, particularly flash flooding associated with field runoff and poor storm water management. Wyoming also has a well-developed main street area along the highway that runs through town, with mainly residential uses to the north and a mix of uses to the south.
There has not been any annexation in recent years to the City of Wyoming and due to the declining population, city officials see no need for expanding the city.
303

Risk Assessment Analyzing Development Trends
Declaration
DR-4187
DR-4135
DR-4126
DR-4119
DR-1930
DR-1763
DR-1737
DR-1688
DR-1518
DR-1420
DR-1282
DR-1277
DR-996
DR-879
DR-868
DR-443
Date Declared
August 5, 2014
July 31, 2013
July 2, 2013
May 31, 2013
July 29, 2010
Straight-line Winds, and
Flooding
June 21, 2013 to June 28, 2013 Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and
Flooding
May 19, 2013 to June 15, 2013 Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and
Flooding
April 17, 2013 to April 30, 2013 Severe Storms, Straight-line
Winds, and Flooding
June 1, 2010 to August 31, 2010 Severe Storms, Flooding, and
Tornadoes
May 27, 2008
May 25, 2004
January 4, 2008
March 14, 2007
May 25, 2008 to August 13,
2008
December 10, 2007 to
December 11, 2007
Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and
Flooding
Severe Winter Storm
February 23, 2007 to March 2,
2007
Severe Winter Storms
May 19, 2004 to June 24, 2004 Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and
Flooding
June 19, 2002
July 22, 1999
May 21, 1999
July 9, 1993
June 3, 2002 to June 25, 2002 Severe Storms and Flooding
July 2, 1999 to August 10, 1999 Severe Storms and Flooding
May 16, 1999 to May 29, 1999 Severe Storms, Flooding and
Tornadoes
April 13, 1993 to October 1,
1993
Flooding, Severe Storm
September 6, 1990 July 25, 1990 to August 31, 1990 Flooding, Severe Storm
May 26, 1990 May 18, 1990 to July 6, 1990 Flooding, Severe Storm
June 24, 1974 June 24, 1974 Severe Storms, Flooding
August 14, 1969
Incident Period
June 26, 2014 to July 7, 2014
August 14, 1969
Type
Severe Storms, Tornadoes,
Heavy Rains, Flooding DR-269
Source:
304