Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2012

WASHINGTON COUNTY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
2012
CREATED FOR THE JURISDICTIONS OF:
WASHINGTON COUNTY, AINSWORTH, BRIGHTON
CRAWFORDSVILLE, KALONA, WASHINGTON AND
WEST CHESTER

Created by the
East Central Iowa Council of Governments
th
700 16 Street NE, Suite 301
Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
Phone: 319-365-9941
Fax: 319-365-9981

P LAN O RGANIZATION
The Washington County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan is organized into seven sections: Introduction,
Prerequisite, Planning Process, Risk Assessment, Mitigation Strategy, and Plan Maintenance. These sections are consistent
with the multi-hazard mitigation planning guidance issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the
Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, and the Iowa Hazard Mitigation Plan of 2007 and
2010. The plan sections and primary subsections are shown in the table of contents to follow:

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................ 1-1
Executive Summary ..............................................................................1-3
Community Profile ...............................................................................1-4
Location...........................................................................................1-4
Development Patterns ....................................................................1-9
Chapter 2 Pre-Requisites......................................................................... 1
NFIP Participation.................................................................................2-2
Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption .......................................................... 2
Chapter 3 Planning Process .................................................................. 3-1
Documentation of the Planning Process ..............................................3-2
Acknowledgements ..............................................................................3-2
Ainsworth ........................................................................................3-2
Brighton ..........................................................................................3-2
Crawfordsville .................................................................................3-2
Kalona .............................................................................................3-2
Washington .....................................................................................3-3
West Chester ...................................................................................3-3
Washington County .........................................................................3-3
Background ..........................................................................................3-3
Scope...............................................................................................3-3
Authority .........................................................................................3-3
Funding ...........................................................................................3-4
Purpose ...........................................................................................3-4
Process .................................................................................................3-5
Public Involvement ..........................................................................3-7

Notification of Neighboring Entities ................................................3-7
Review of Existing Plans and Studies ...............................................3-7
Chapter 4 Risk Assessment .................................................................. 4-1
Identifying Hazards ..............................................................................4-2
Assessing Vulnerability ......................................................................... 4-5
Overview .........................................................................................4-5
Identifying Structures ...................................................................... 4-8
Profiling Hazards ................................................................................4-11
Results ................................................................................................4-13
Chapter 5 Mitigation Strategy .............................................................. 5-1
Local Hazard Mitigation Goals ..............................................................5-2
Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions ................................. 5-4
Implementation of Mitigation Actions .................................................5-6
Prioritization of Mitigation Actions .................................................5-6
Mitigation Action Steps ................................................................... 5-8
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions ..............................................5-46
Action Items ..................................................................................5-46
Chapter 6 Plan Maintenance ................................................................ 6-1
Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating The Plan ................................... 6-2
Incorporation into Existing Planning Methods ..................................... 6-3
Continued Public Involvement .............................................................6-3
Chapter 7 Appendices .......................................................................... 7-1
Appendix 1: Resolutions of Adoption ...................................................7-2
Appendix 2: Historical Events Tables ....................................................7-9
Appendix 3: Glossary of Terms ...........................................................7-20

T ABLE OF F IGURES
Figure 1: Location ......................................................................................1-4
Figure 2: Washington County ....................................................................1-5
Figure 3: Land Use .....................................................................................1-6
Figure 4: Ainsworth Land Use....................................................................1-7
Figure 5: Brighton Land Use ......................................................................1-7
Figure 6: Crawfordsville Land Use .............................................................1-7
Figure 7: Kalona Land Use .........................................................................1-8
Figure 8: Washington Land Use.................................................................1-8
Figure 9: West Chester Land Use ..............................................................1-8
Figure 10: Washington County Population Change, 1960-2010 ..............1-10
Figure 11: Washington County Critical Facilities .....................................1-13
Figure 12: Conservation Board Sites .......................................................1-14
Figure 13: School Districts .......................................................................1-15

Figure 14: Ainsworth in 1930 and 2009 ..................................................1-16
Figure 15: Ainsworth Population Change, 1960-2010 .............................1-16
Figure 16: Ainsworth Critical Facilities ....................................................1-18
Figure 17: Brighton in 1930 and 2009 .....................................................1-19
Figure 18: Brighton Population Change, 1960-2010................................1-19
Figure 19: Brighton Critical Facilities .......................................................1-21
Figure 20: Crawfordsville in 1930 and 2009 ............................................1-22
Figure 21: Crawfordsville Population Change, 1960-2010 ......................1-22
Figure 22: Crawfordsville Critical Facilities ..............................................1-24
Figure 23: Kalona in 1930 and 2009 ........................................................1-25
Figure 24: Kalona Population Change, 1960-2010 .................................. 1-25
Figure 25: Kalona Critical Facilities ..........................................................1-27
Figure 26: Washington in 1930 and 2009 ................................................1-28

Figure 27: Washington Population Change 1960-2010 ...........................1-28
Figure 28: Washington Critical Facilities..................................................1-30
Figure 29: West Chester in 1930 and 2009 .............................................1-31
Figure 30: West Chester Critical Facilities ...............................................1-33
Figure 31: Ainsworth Flood Insurance Rate Map ......................................2-2
Figure 32: Number of Reported Droughts in Iowa ..................................4-22
Figure 33: Iowa Seismic Zones ................................................................4-25
Figure 34: Earthquake Intensity ..............................................................4-26
Figure 35: Expansive Soils Risk Areas ......................................................4-28
Figure 36: Potentially Expansive Soils .....................................................4-30
Figure 37: Potentially Expansive Soils, Ainsworth ...................................4-31
Figure 38: Potentially Expansive Soils, Brighton ......................................4-31
Figure 39: Potentially Expansive Soils, Crawfordsville .............................4-32
Figure 40: Potentially Expansive Soils, Kalona .........................................4-32
Figure 41: Potentially Expansive Soils, Washington ................................4-33
Figure 42: Potentially Expansive Soils, West Chester ..............................4-33
Figure 43: Heat Index Chart.....................................................................4-36
Figure 44: Historic Flood Frequency ........................................................4-41
Figure 45: Washington County Preliminary FIRM, 2010 ..........................4-42
Figure 46 Ainsworth Flood Frequency .....................................................4-43
Figure 47: Ainsworth Preliminary FIRM 2010 ..........................................4-43
Figure 48: Ainsworth FIRM 2012 ................................................................ 43
Figure 49: Brighton Flood Frequency ......................................................4-44
Figure 50: Brighton Preliminary FIRM 2010 ............................................4-44
Figure 51: Brighton FIRM 2012................................................................... 44
Figure 52: Crawfordsville Flood Frequency .............................................4-45
Figure 53: Crawfordsville Preliminary FIRM 2010 ...................................4-45
Figure 54: Crawfordsville FIRM 2012.......................................................4-45
Figure 55: Kalona Flood Frequency ............................................................ 46
Figure 56: Kalona Preliminary FIRM 2010 .................................................. 46
Figure 57: Kalona FIRM 2012...................................................................4-47
Figure 58: Washington Flood Frequency .................................................4-48
Figure 59: Washington Preliminary FIRM 2010 .......................................4-48
Figure 60: Washington FIRM 2012 ............................................................. 48
Figure 61: West Chester Flood Frequency...............................................4-49

Figure 62: West Chester Preliminary FIRM 2010 ..................................... 4-49
Figure 63: West Chester FIRM................................................................. 4-49
Figure 64: 12-Digit HUC Watersheds .......................................................4-50
Figure 65: Ainsworth HUC-12 Watersheds ..............................................4-51
Figure 66: Brighton HUC-12 Watersheds ................................................4-51
Figure 67: Crawfordsville HUC-12 Watershed .........................................4-52
Figure 68: Kalona HUC-12 Watersheds ...................................................4-52
Figure 69: Washington HUC-12 Watersheds ...........................................4-53
Figure 70: West Chester HUC-12 Watersheds .........................................4-53
Figure 71:Washington County Elevations................................................4-59
Figure 72: Washington County Landslide Risk Areas ...............................4-60
Figure 73: Ainsworth Elevations ..............................................................4-61
Figure 74: Ainsworth Landslide Risk Areas ..............................................4-61
Figure 75: Brighton Elevations ................................................................4-62
Figure 76: Brighton Landslide Risk Areas.................................................4-62
Figure 77: Crawfordsville Elevations .......................................................4-63
Figure 78: Crawfordsville Landslide Risk Areas........................................4-63
Figure 79: Kalona Elevations ................................................................... 4-64
Figure 80: Kalona Landslide Risk Areas ...................................................4-64
Figure 81: Washington Elevations ...........................................................4-65
Figure 82: Washington Landslide Risk Areas ...........................................4-65
Figure 83: West Chester Elevations .........................................................4-66
Figure 84: West Chester Landslide Risk Areas .........................................4-66
Figure 85: Wind Zones in the United States ............................................4-76
Figure 86: HazMat Teams........................................................................ 4-83
Figure 87: Nuclear Power Plants in Iowa .................................................4-93
Figure 88: Active Railroads in Washington County................................4-101
Figure 89: Traffic Accidents in Washington County, 2004 – 2008 .........4-103
Figure 90: Countywide Waterway Risk Areas ........................................4-105
Figure 91: Ainsworth Waterway Risk Areas ..........................................4-106
Figure 92: Brighton Waterway Risk Areas .............................................4-107
Figure 93: Crawfordsville Waterway Risk Areas .................................... 4-107
Figure 94: Kalona Waterway Risk Areas ................................................4-108
Figure 95: Washington Waterway Riak Areas .......................................4-108
Figure 96: West Chester Waterway Risk Areas ..................................... 4-109

T ABLE OF T ABLES
Table 1: Washington County Population Projection ................................1-10
Table 2: Ainsworth Population Projection ...............................................1-17
Table 3: Brighton Population Projection .................................................1-20
Table 4: Crawfordsville Population Projection ........................................1-23
Table 5: Kalona Population Projection ....................................................1-26
Table 6: Washington Population Projection ............................................1-29
Table 7: West Chester Population Change, 1960-2010 ...........................1-31
Table 8: West Chester Population Projection ..........................................1-32
Table 9: Planning Meetings .......................................................................3-6
Table 10: Record of Participation ..............................................................3-6
Table 11: Record of Document Review .....................................................3-8
Table 12: Hazards Addressed ....................................................................4-2
Table 13: NID Listed Dams in the Planning Area .......................................4-4
Table 14: Overall Summary of Vulnerability by Jurisdiction ......................4-7
Table 15: Unincorporated Potential Losses ...............................................4-9
Table 16: Washington Potential Losses .....................................................4-9
Table 17: West Chester Potential Losses .................................................4-10

Table 18: Brighton Potential Losses ........................................................4-10
Table 19: Crawfordsville Potential Losses ...............................................4-10
Table 20: Kalona Potential Losses ...........................................................4-10
Table 21: Historical Occurrence Results ..................................................4-14
Table 22: Probability Results ................................................................... 4-15
Table 23: Vulnerability Results ................................................................4-16
Table 24: Maximum Threat Results .........................................................4-17
Table 25: Severity of Impact Results .......................................................4-18
Table 26: Speed of Onset Results ............................................................4-19
Table 27: HARA Totals and Priority Groups .............................................4-20
Table 28: Drinking Water Sources ...........................................................4-24
Table 29: Brighton Potential Losses, Expansive Soils...............................4-28
Table 30: Crawfordsville Potential Losses, Expansive Soils......................4-29
Table 31: Kalona Potential Losses, Expansive Soils.................................. 4-29
Table 32: Unincorporated Potential Losses, Expansive Soils ...................4-29
Table 33: Washington Potential Losses, Expansive Soils .........................4-29
Table 34: West Chester Potential Losses, Expansive Soils .......................4-30

Table 35: Economic Impact of Loss of Electricity .....................................4-37
Table 36: Ainsworth Potential Losses, Flood (Flash and Riverine) ...........4-39
Table 37: Brighton Potential Losses, Flood (Flash and Riverine) .............4-39
Table 38: Kalona Potential Losses, Flood (Flash and Riverine) ................4-40
Table 39: Washington Potential Losses, Flood (Flash and Riverine) ........4-40
Table 40: Unincorporated Potential Losses, Flood (Flash and Riverine) ..4-40
Table 41: Economic Impact of Loss of Wastewater Service.....................4-54
Table 42: Chart of Hail Size Comparisons ................................................4-55
Table 43: Torro Scale ...............................................................................4-56
Table 44: Ainsworth Potential Losses, Unstable Soils..............................4-58
Table 45: Brighton Potential Losses, Unstable Soils ................................4-58
Table 46: Unincorporated Potential Losses, Unstable Soils .....................4-59
Table 47: Washington Potential Losses, Unstable Soils ...........................4-59
Table 48: Washington Winter-Related Crashes ......................................4-69
Table 49: Statewide Crash Costs .............................................................4-69
Table 50: Economic Impact of Crash Injuries...........................................4-69
Table 51: Estimated Crash Property Costs ..............................................4-70
Table 52: Economic Impact of Loss of Electricity .....................................4-70
Table 53: The Enhanced Fujita Scale .......................................................4-73
Table 54: Beaufort Scale..........................................................................4-75
Table 55: Historical Pipeline Incidents Across Iowa, 1990 – 2008 ...........4-85
Table 56: Washington County Traffic Accidents ....................................4-102
Table 57: Summary of Mitigation Actions. ................................................5-5
Table 58: STAPLEE Criteria ........................................................................5-7

Table 59: Mitigation Action Steps .............................................................5-8
Table 60: Ainsworth Implementation Strategy .......................................5-47
Table 61: Brighton Implementation Strategy ..........................................5-48
Table 62: Crawfordsville Implementation Strategy ................................. 5-49
Table 63: Kalona Implementation Strategy .............................................5-50
Table 64: Washington Implementation Strategy..................................... 5-52
Table 65: Washington County Implementation Strategy ........................5-53
Table 66: West Chester Implementation Strategy .................................. 5-55
Table 67: Historical Occurrences of Drought.............................................7-9
Table 68: Historical Occurrences of Extreme Heat .................................... 7-9
Table 69: Historical Occurrences of Flash Flood ........................................7-9
Table 70: Historical Occurrences of River Flood ......................................7-10
Table 71: Historical Occurrences of Hailstorm ........................................7-10
Table 72: Historical Occurrences of Severe Winter Storm......................7-11
Table 73: Historical Occurrences of Tornado ............................................. 12
Table 74: Historical Occurrences of Thunderstorm ................................. 7-12
Table 75: Historical Occurrences of Windstorms .................................... 7-13
Table 76: Historical Occurrence of Hazardous Materials Incident...........7-14
Table 77: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks in Washington County .. 7-16
Table 78: Historical Occurrence of Transportation HazMat Incidents ..... 7-17
Table 79: Historical Occurrence of Rail Transportation Incidents ...........7-17
Table 80: Historical Occurrences of Air Transportation Incident .............7-17
Table 81: Incidences of wildfire in Washington County ..........................7-18
Table 82: Incidences of Structural Fires in Washington County ..............7-19

Washington Co Hazard Mitigation Plan

2012

Introduction

E XECUTIVE S UMMARY
The Washington County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan was prepared for several jurisdictions and the
unincorporated areas of Washington County, Iowa in response to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). DMA
2000 requires states and local governments to prepare hazard mitigation plans in order to remain eligible to receive federal
funds made available in the wake of a Presidential Disaster declaration and to receive funds for pre-disaster mitigation,
severe repetitive loss, and other such funding sources. It is important to remember that mitigation funds are distinct from
response and recovery funds available from state and federal sources intended for immediate disaster relief. To produce a
DMA 2000 compliant plan, municipalities must document their hazard mitigation planning process and identify hazards,
potential losses, and mitigation needs, goals and strategies.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) effectively defines Hazard Mitigation as follows: “Mitigation is defined
as any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from a hazard event.
Mitigation, also known as prevention (when done before a disaster), encourages long-term reduction of hazard
vulnerability. The goal of mitigation is to decrease the need for response as opposed to simply increasing the response
capability (www.fema.gov).” With that definition in mind, a mitigation plan is a document that accomplishes several things.
First, through the planning process, the hazards that pose a risk to the community are identified; second, hazards are
assessed based on their historic patterns of occurrence, the number of people that could be impacted, the area of the
community that could be affected, the potential costs that the County, individuals and organizations may incur, the
likelihood of future occurrence, and the amount of warning time before that hazard event occurs.
Once the assessment is completed, a list of current and historic mitigation efforts is compiled and discussed. Through this
discussion, areas that can be improved upon are identified and developed into “action steps.” Early in the planning process,
meeting attendees will identify broad goals that briefly state what the plan should attempt to accomplish. Every action step
should, if implemented, work toward one of more of the goals of the plan. An action step may suggest continuing a current
mitigation effort or propose an entirely new project.
When implemented appropriately, mitigation projects can save lives, reduce property damage, and are both cost effective
and environmentally sound. This, in turn, can reduce the enormous cost of disasters to property owners and all levels of
government. In addition, mitigation can protect critical community facilities, reduce exposure to liability, and minimize
community disruption.

1-3


2012

Introduction

C OMMUNITY P ROFILE
An important first step in the planning process was to develop a community profile for Washington County and the
jurisdictions participating in this hazard mitigation plan. This required the Planning Committee to research climate and
weather, geography, land use, and other conditions that impact the jurisdictions or can be influenced by hazards present in
the planning area. This information is utilized throughout the plan to identify hazard risk areas and other vulnerabilities.

L OCATION
Figure 1: Location

Washington County is located in southeast Iowa (41.334722, -91.719722) and covers 556.75 square miles (356,320 acres) in
the richest of America's agricultural region. It is bordered by Johnson County to the northeast, Iowa County to the
northwest, Keokuk County to the west, Jefferson County to the southwest, Henry County to the southeast, and Louisa
County to the east. The nine incorporated cities in the county are Ainsworth, Brighton, Coppock, Crawfordsville, Kalona,
Riverside, Washington, Wellman, and West Chester. Of these nine cities, 7 communities are participating in the multijurisdictional planning process: Ainsworth, Brighton, Crawfordsville, Kalona, Washington, West Chester, and the
unincorporated portions of Washington County.

1-4


2012

Introduction

Figure 2: Washington County

Ainsworth: Ainsworth is located in the eastern portion of Washington County (41.209175, -91.554283) just west of Highway
218. The city has a total land area of 0.4 square miles.
Brighton: Brighton is located in the southwestern portion of Washington County (41.173361, -91.820784) near the
intersection of Iowa Highway 1 and Iowa Highway 78. It occupies a total of 0.7 sq mi. Lake Darling State Park is situated 3
miles to the west of Brighton.
Crawfordsville: Crawfordsville is located in the southeastern portion of Washington County (41.215393, -91.537844) east of
US Route 218. The city is situated on approximately 0.4 sq mi to the south of Ainsworth.
Kalona: Kalona is located in the northern portion of Washington County (41.486944, -91.705278) at the intersection of Iowa
Highways 1 and 22. The city is situated on approximately 2 sq mi directly north of Washington.
Washington: Washington is located in the central portion of Washington County (41.299941, -91689175) near the
intersection of Iowa Highways 1 and 92. The city has a total of 12.6 sq mi, all of which is land.
West Chester: West Chester is located in the west central portion of Washington County (41.338512, -91.816725) near the
intersection of Iowa Highway 92 and County Highway W38. The city occupies approximately 0.2 sq mi to the northwest of
Washington.
1-5


2012

Introduction

L AND U SE
Farms occupy just over 68% of Washington County’s land area, which is less than the state average of 86%. Of that 68%, 7%
is grazed grassland and another 11% is planted grassland, while the balance is made up of row crops. The most prevalent
row crop is corn, which covers approximately one third of Washington County, while the next most prevalent row crop is
soy bean, which covers approximately one fifth of Washington County. Forest makes up approximately 11% of Washington
County’s land area, higher than the state average of 6% forest. Urban areas (pavement and buildings) account for
approximately 2% of the land area, which is twice as high as the state average of approximately 1%.
Figure 3: Land Use

Washington County’s larger than state-average forested areas are located on the map above in shades of green, and are
primarily found in the county’s river valleys. The central and southeastern portions of the county are largely agricultural in
use, while most urban uses are centered around the cities, which stand out as pink spots on the map above.

1-6


2012

Introduction

Figure 4: Ainsworth Land Use

As detailed in the map to the left, a mixture of land uses
are evident in Ainsworth. The dominant land use is
residential, interspersed with ungrazed grassland. A few
pockets of commercial / industrial land uses are present,
with a larger area in the southeastern portion of town. A
large patch of alfalfa / hay occupies the southwest
corner, and a swath of deciduous forest lies to the west
of a corn field in the northeast corner. Small patches of
planted grassland are located in the southern portion of
Ainsworth as well.

Figure 5: Brighton Land Use

The dominant land use in Brighton is residential,
interspersed with ungrazed grassland and small pockets
of grazed grassland. Row crops are present in the
northwest and southwest portions of town, with
soybeans to the north and corn to the south. Deciduous
forest is present in the northeastern corner.

Figure 6: Crawfordsville Land Use

Crawfordsville is primarily made up of agricultural land
uses – grazed grassland, and alfalfa / hay, are dominant
in the southern half of town. A cluster of residential
areas interspersed with commercial / industrial is present
in the north central and south central portion of town
south central section of town. Row crops within
Crawfordsville include both corn and soybeans, and
planted grassland is also present. A small patch of
deciduous and pine forest lies in the northwest corner of
town.

1-7


2012

Introduction

Figure 7: Kalona Land Use

The residential and commercial / industrial areas of
Kalona are mainly centered within the city limits. These
areas are bordered by, and intermixed with, ungrazed
grassland areas. Areas of corn and soybeans border the
outskirts of town, with a few pockets of alfalfa / hay
fields. The English River runs east-west just to the south
of Kalona.

Figure 8: Washington Land Use

The commercial / industrial areas of Washington are
mainly concentrated within the central portion of town,
and also branch out toward the northeast; some
scattered areas of this land use are present throughout
other areas of town as well. Mixed land uses border the
residential portions of town, including grazed and
ungrazed grassland, corn and soybeans, and small
patches of alfalfa / hay and deciduous forest.

Figure 9: West Chester Land Use

The town of West Chester is made up primarily of
agricultural areas. Large areas of corn and soybeans are
present in the northwest and east portions of town.
Grasslands make up a significant portion of town as well,
especially in the western areas. Small residential and
commercial / industrial areas are scattered in the
remaining areas of town.

1-8


2012

Introduction

D EVELOPMENT P ATTERNS
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land
uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use
decisions.
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 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, if any
Expected growth, if any

Also noted in this section are critical facilities. 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 content value, the loss of the following structures shown in the figures below would have a
proportionally greater impact for the participating jurisdictions. For purposes of this Hazard Mitigation Plan, Planning
Committee members in each participating jurisdiction identified the critical facility for each community. These facilities
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, gasoline, or
pharmaceutical supplies.

C OUNTY - WIDE
According to the Washington County 2008 Comprehensive Plan, approximately 4 percent of population growth has been in
1
the unincorporated areas of Washington County, which has led to increased housing developments. In addition,
Washington, Kalona, Riverside and Wellman have all experienced development over the past decade.
As discussed in the Community Profile section of this Hazard Mitigation Plan, the dominant land use in Washington County
is agriculture (68% of the County’s land area). Urban and residential areas account for just 2% of the County’s total land
area.
The following housing analysis comes from Washington County’s Comprehensive Plan:

1

Washington County 2008 Comprehensive Plan

1-9


2012

Introduction

Using the mixed rate growth projection, in development terms, the projected population increase is equivalent to
approximately 3,587 new residents or 1,435 new housing units countywide by the year 2030. This represents an average
annual construction rate of approximately 63 new units per year.
In 1990, there were 7,866 housing units in Washington County. By 2000, the Census showed 8,543 housing units, an
increase of 8.6 percent. This is consistent with the population growth during that time. According to the 2000 Census, there
were 487 vacant housing units (5.7 percent). Five percent vacancy is considered healthy for a community. This allows
market flexibility for area homeowners as well as the ability for a community to handle sudden population increases.
As mentioned previously, there were 656 new septic permits issued between July 2000 and August of 2006. That would
place the current approximate number of housing units in the county at 9,199. In addition, in 1990, the people per housing
unit was 2.55. That number decreased for the year 2000 to 2.5. This number is projected to drop across the region. By the
year 2030, Washington County is expected to have approximately 2.3 people per housing unit. Based on this figure and the
mixed rate growth projection, Washington County should plan on needing a total of approximately 10,634 housing units by
2030. Most of the new housing units will be located within the existing cities or annexed into the existing communities
during that time.
Population: Despite declines during the 1960s and 1980s, Washington County has generally been growing in population
over the past five decades. The largest percent increase in population occurred between 1990 and 2000, an increase of
6.2%. The rate of population growth slowed to an increase of 3.3% between 2000 and 2008.
Figure 10: Washington County Population Change, 1960-2010

22,000
21,704

21,000
20,000
19,000

20,670

20,141
19,406

18,000

19,612

18,967

17,000
1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Table 1: Washington County Population Projection

Year
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2008

2010
2020

Number Change
(Linear Method)

Population

Average (1960 to 2008)

19,406
18,967
20,141
19,612
20,670
21,343

Projection:
Projection:
1-10

n/a
-439
1,174
-529
1,058
673
1937 / 4.8 = 403.5
Linear
21,747
22,150

Growth/Decline Rate
(Geometric Method)
n/a
-2.26%
6.19%
-2.63%
5.39%
3.26%
9.95 / 4.8 = 2.1%
Geometric
21,791
22,249


2012

Introduction

U NINCORPORATED
History: Washington County: The following history of Washington County was provided by Mike Zahs, a local historian:
Three villages of agricultural nomadic Indians welcomed people of European descent in the middle 1830s to Washington
County. First settlements were along rivers and streams because of the presence of trees, transportation, and water power.
Much of the county was open prairie. Buffalo, elk and native Americans moved out as settlers moved in. The county was
part of the Wisconsin Territory with the county seat at Astoria, south of present day Ainsworth. Initially called Slaughter
County, the county was renamed Washington County and the county seat moved to Washington in 1839.
Most pre-Civil War settlers to the county were from eastern states and interested in obtaining farm land. Early roads
followed buffalo and Indian trails. After the county was surveyed, most roads followed section lines.
In the fall of 1858 the Mississippi and Missouri Railroad was completed to Washington. More railroad construction did not
occur until 1869. Washington grew rapidly for eleven years as a result of the new rail access. As railroads were built in other
parts of the county, fourteen towns were begun as stations on the railroads.
After automobiles became common and roads improved, people traveled farther and many small towns diminished as
trading centers. Paved roads became more common in the 1930s.
Washington County has always been a leader in corn, soybean, and hog production. Even though industry and
manufacturing have declined in the last decade, the population of the county has remained fairly constant since the Civil
War. More people are now employed outside of the county than in the past.
A large Old Order Amish settlement is in the north central part of the county. It began in 1846 and is the largest Old Order
Amish settlement west of Ohio. The largest group to come directly to the county from Europe was the Bohemians in the
1870s – 1880s. Many Hispanic families have settled in Washington County in the last 20 years.
Development Trends: Growth in the unincorporated portions of Washington County has consisted primarily of scattered
residential housing throughout the county with a larger concentration in the northeast corner of the county near the
Riverside area. From 2003 – 2007 there were approximately 60 new homes built each year in the unincorporated parts of
the county.
Just as in the whole of Washington County, the majority of land use in the unincorporated areas is agriculture (69%), with a
small percent of residential land use (2%).
There is a large wind farm being proposed to go across the center part of the county, east to west between Hwy 92 and G36
to the south and the English River to the north.
Residential growth is expected to continue in and near the cities and around the areas already seeing development
throughout the county. Through the implementation of zoning, an area for industrial growth was identified near the SW
corner of the intersection of Hwy 218 and G36; which is near an electric transmission station and some gas lines.
The following information from growth trends is from the Washington County 2008 Comprehensive Plan:
Based on historical trends, approximately four percent of the population increases have been in the unincorporated areas
of the county. The last six years have seen even larger percentage growth increases in the unincorporated areas. It is
estimated that approximately 7,876 residents live in rural Washington County. However, as mentioned before, due to rising

1-11


2012

Introduction

energy costs and smaller families, that number will likely drop going forward (3% by 2020 before leveling out at 2% by
2030).
Using a mixed rate growth projection for the unincorporated areas, it is projected that by 2030, there will be approximately
9,800 residents living in the unincorporated portion of the county. This means there will be approximately 831 new
residents in the unincorporated part of the county by that time. Based on the people per housing unit number, there will be
a need for approximately 332 new housing units in the unincorporated area of the county. At a density of 1 unit per acre,
the new units would require approximately 332 acres of land. At an average density of three acres per unit, it would require
nearly 1,000 acres. At five acres per unit, it would require over 1,660 acres. 10 acres per unit would require 3,320 acres.
Obviously, the larger the lots that are approved, the more acres of land it would require. In addition, that does not include
rights-of-way for streets and other utilities. As a general rule, 10 percent of developed land is consumed by rights-of-way.
So, for example, if the average new lot size in the county is ten acres, it would require approximately 3,320 acres of land
plus 332 acres for utilities and streets for a total of 3,652 acres of land converted to residential use.
Utilities:
Place

Gas

Waste/water

Sanitation

Electric

Phone

Cable TV

Internet

Brighton

City

City

Alliant

Iowa Telecom

Starwest

Kalona

Alliant

City

Waste
Management
Johnson
County
Refuse

Alliant

Kalona Coop
Telephone
Company

Crawfordsville

Private (LP
tanks)

Mark’s
Sanitation

Alliant

Windstream

Washington

Alliant
Energy

Wapello
Rural Water
& Sewer
City

MediaCom
& Kalona
Coop.
Telephone
None

Iowa
Telecom
MediaCom
& Kalona
Coop.
Telephone
Any

Alliant

Iowa Telecom

Mediacom

Mediacom,
Iowa
Telecom

West Chester

Alliant
Energy

SEMCO
landfill;
private
hauler
Mark’s
Sanitation

Alliant

Iowa Telecom

None

Any

Alliant,
Southeast IA
Coop
Electric, TIP
REC, Farmers
Electric
Coop,
Eastern IA
L&P

Farmers and
Merchants
Telephone Co,
Iowa
Telephone Co

ICN

Washington
County

City
Wapello
Rural Water
Association

1-12


2012

Introduction

Critical Facilities:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Federation Bank (Washington County Public Health
office located here): 102 E. Main
th
Washington County Ambulance: 1120 N. 8 Ave
Washington County Rescue: 205 E. Washington St.
nd
Washington County Sheriff’s Office: 221 W. 2 St.
Washington County Jail: 2185 Lexington Blvd.
Highland Community Middle & High School: 1715
Vine Ave, Riverside
Highland Elementary: 835 Park Street, Ainsworth
nd
Washington County 911 Com Bldg: 211 W. 2 St.
Communications Center
McCreedy Building

•
•
•
•
•

Washington County Courthouse
All Fire Stations
All Schools
All Libraries
Secondary Roads Sheds:
th
o Crawfordsville – 3090 305 St.
st
o Kalona – 314 – 316 1 Ave
o Riverside – 1347 Riverside Rd
o Rubio – 3019 Birch Ave
o West Chester – 2149 Hemlock Ave
th
o Washington – 821 E. 7 St.

Figure 11: Washington County Critical Facilities

The following map shows conservation and recreation areas in Washington County maintained by the Washington County
Conservation Board. Because Washington 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. The publicly owned facilities on the map are viable locations for a FEMA 361 compliant tornado safe room, and are
thus considered critical facilities in that regard.
1-13


2012

Figure 12: Conservation Board Sites

1-14

Introduction


2012

Introduction

S CHOOL D ISTRICTS
School districts within the planning area do not share the same planning boundaries as any other entity in the planning
process, so the districts that participated are those that are primarily located within Washington County and also within the
Grant Wood Area Education Agency – the state-designated Region 10 AEA serving the planning area. These school districts
are Mid-Prairie and Washington, as detailed on the map from the Grant Wood AEA below. Representatives from each
school district participated on the planning team for the jurisdiction that houses the majority of the school district’s
facilities. Planning team members determined that the risk assessment and subsequent mitigation strategy for each school
shall be the same as the risk assessment and mitigation strategy for the planning entity in which the school is located.
Mid-Prairie Community School District primarily serves the northwestern and west-central portions of Washington County
including the cities of Wellman and Kalona. Facilities include Mid-Prairie High in Wellman, Mid-Prairie Alternative Learning
Center in Wellman, Mid-Prairie Middle School in Kalona, Kalona Elementary, Washington Township Elementary, and
Wellman Elementary. Mid-Prairie participated in the Kalona planning process.
Washington Community School District (also referred to as WACO) primarily serves the central and southern portions of the
county, and is based out of the city of Washington.
Figure 13: School Districts

1-15


2012

Introduction

Ainsworth
History:
Ainsworth was platted in October, 1858, by D. H. Ainsworth. The city was the first station on the Oskaloosa branch of the
Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad east of the county seat at Washington. During its early history, the town was home
to a grain house, two stores, a steam grist mill, and several mechanics’ shops. The elementary school was constructed in
1879 at a cost of $5,000, and was part of an independent Ainsworth public school district. The United Brethren Church was
organized in 1860, and the Ainsworth United Presbyterian Church followed in 1864. The original town cemetery was
located in section 28 of Oregon twp., however it was abandoned and converted to a cornfield in favor of the current site on
2
the northwest side of town.
Ainsworth operates its own water and wastewater system which, according to the city’s Community Builder Plan (1996),
was built in 1983 and serves approximately 216 facilities. The effective storage capacity is equal to the average daily
demand of approximately 44,000 gallons. The storage capacity at the time was 30,000 to 35,000 gallons; however peak
3
daily consumption was 55,000 to 60,000 gallons, which posed a limitation to additional development.
Figure 14: Ainsworth in 1930 and 2009

Population:
Figure 15: Ainsworth Population Change, 1960-2010

600
400
200

371

455

547

506

524

1990

2000

567

0
1960

2
3

1970

1980

The History of Washington County, Iowa: Its Cities, Towns and C…., 1880. The Union Historical Company
Washington County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan, 1999. East Central Iowa Council of Governments

1-16

2010


2012

Introduction

Although the City of Ainsworth’s population has increased by 47.1% from 1960 – 2010, growth has declined slightly since
the peak population was reached in 1980. The period of largest growth occurred during 1960-1970, when population
increased by about 23%. The decade of the 1970s also saw a strong increase in population growth.
Table 2: Ainsworth Population Projection

Year

Number Change
(Linear Method)

Population

1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030

371
455
547
506
524
567

Growth/Decline Rate
(Geometric Method)
n/a
84
92
-41
18
43

196 / 5 = 39.2
Linear

Projection:
Projection:

606
645

n/a
22.64%
20.22%
-7.50%
3.56%
8.21%
47.1% / 5 = 9.4%
Geometric
620
679

Development Trends:
The City of Ainsworth experienced growth in the 1960s and 1970s, however the population has remained relatively stable
since the 1980s. The older sections of town are located along Railroad Street near State Highway 92, and growth has
generally occurred to the north and west of town; areas to the east of town border the North Fork Long Creek, and
development has trended away from this area. Additional growth has taken place just outside the corporate limits near the
intersection of Highway 92 and Highway 218, which is a high volume, four lane divided highway that connects with
Interstate 380 in Johnson County.
4

According to a focus group conducted during the Washington County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan , a variety
of growth limiting factors were noted, including: a limited number of vacant residential lots (although participants stated
that agricultural land was likely available for residential development); limited availability of contractors in the area; and
lack of community services including availability of retail outlets. Participants also noted that development of additional
commercial services could be challenging given that many of the city’s residents are employed in either Washington or Iowa
City, and would likely continue to frequent commercial venues in these communities even were additional services
provided in Ainsworth.

4

Washington County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan, 1999. East Central Iowa Council of Governments

1-17


2012

Introduction

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

Farmers’ Co-op Assn: 2952 Hwy 92
Fire Department: 134 N Railroad St
City Hall: 134 N Railroad St
Water Treatment Plant: 134 N Railroad St
Ainsworth Elementary School: 835 Park St

Figure 16: Ainsworth Critical Facilities

1-18

Post Office: 150 N Railroad St
Community Church: 322 Washington St
Ainsworth 4 Corners Fuel : 3112 Hwy 92
Dairy Mart: 2521 Vine Ave


2012

Introduction

B RIGHTON
History:
Although Brighton was not incorporated until 1870, it was platted in 1840 and the first addition was added in 1848, but the
first settlers began arriving as early as 1837. In the winter of 1837 – 1838 Silas Washburn, a native of Massachusetts, and
Morgan Hart lived in a shanty about a quarter of a mile from an old mill site. In April, Seneca Beach, a relative of Washburn,
along with his family and that of Washburn, made their way west to join him. That same season, the Washburns built a onestory building, 16’ x 18’ of logs covered with clapboards and a sod chimney. The building was built where the Municipal
Building and the City Park are now located. Brighton now had its beginnings. The first water and sewer system was
completed in August of 1920 at a cost of $24,950 for the waterworks and $61,442.33 for the sewers. In 1923 digging began
for a new city well. It took three months of drilling and was 1815’ deep. When tested it was not possible to lower the water
level below 90 feet from the surface. In 1946 a water softener was installed. The first park was established in the spring of
1917 with improvements made in 1930. First streets were oiled in 1921 with the first paving done in 1927. The chip and seal
process began in 1954. Telephones came to Brighton in approximately 1900. In 1915 electric lights made their debut in
Brighton. In 1965 Brighton’s natural gas system was installed.
Figure 17: Brighton in 1930 and 2009

Population:
Figure 18: Brighton Population Change, 1960-2010

1000
800
600

724

804
684

687

652

1990

632

2000

2010

400
200
0
1960

1970

1980

1-19


2012

Introduction

Despite a 27% population increase during the 1970s, the City of Brighton’s population experienced an overall decline of
5.07% during 1960-2010. A 17% drop in population occurred during the 1980s, though population held fairly steady during
the period of 1990-2008.
Table 3: Brighton Population Projection

Year

Number Change
(Linear Method)

Population

1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030

724
632
804
684
687
652

Projection:
Projection:

72 / 5 = -14.4
Linear

Growth/Decline Rate
(Geometric Method)
n/a
-92
172
-120
3
-35

638
623

n/a
-12.71%
27.22%
-14.93%
0.44%
-5.09%
-5.07% / 5 = -1.3%
Geometric
644
635

Development Trends:
The City of Brighton has experienced very low growth in its residential, commercial, and industrial sectors over the past 10
years. A survey was taken for a subdivision roughly 20 years ago, with 26 homes plotted. However, no further action was
taken. The town is about 37.6% farmland and 26% residential. No development is planned for the future; in fact Brighton’s
population has been slowly declining since the 1960s.
Brighton: The City operates its own water utility system. For water service, the cost is $17.25 for the first 1,000 gallons, and
$4.00 for each additional 1,000 gallons.
Brighton: The City of Brighton operates its own sewer system. The cost is $20.00 for the first 1,000 gallons, and $4.00 for
each additional 1,000 gallons. Updates to the sewer system are planned for the near future, though the Planning
Committee did not know exactly when. The City does not operate any municipal storm sewers.

1-20


2012

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

City Hall/Community Building/Emergency Shelter – 100 E. Washington St.
BJ’s Stop Off (gas station) – 206 E. Fountain St.
Brighton Amoco Food Shop – 209 S. Van Buren St.
Federation Bank – 122 E. Washington St.
Church of God / Family Center / Gym – Washington St.
Brighton Meat Locker – 205 E. Washington St.
Brighton Fire Department – E. Washington St.

Figure 19: Brighton Critical Facilities

1-21

Introduction


2012

Introduction

C RAWFORDSVILLE
History:
Among the first people to come to what is now Crawfordsville were the Neal brothers: Walker, Joseph, and Robert. The
date the town was laid out was July 4, 1839, and it was called Nealtown. It was located in part of Section 15. Some records
say it was not surveyed until 1841. There were eight blocks laid off and each block had eight lots, 66 feet by 132 feet. The
plot was four blocks long, north to south, and two blocks, east to west. The east-west streets were, beginning at the north
line: North, Vine, Columbus City, Smithfield, and South. Those running north-south, beginning at the east line, were:
Chestnut, Main, and Washington. Most of the businesses were on Main and still are.
Figure 20: Crawfordsville in 1930 and 2009

Population:
Figure 21: Crawfordsville Population Change, 1960-2010

350
300

317
288

250

1970

295

290

1980

265

264

200
150
100
50
0
1960

1990

1-22

2000

2010


2012

Introduction

The population of Crawfordsville has changed very little from 1960-2008. The population declined very slightly through the
1960s and 1970s, and dipped by about 17% in the 1980s. The population rebounded to nearly its 1960 level in 2000 before
declining again in the 2010 Census.
Table 4: Crawfordsville Population Projection

Year

Number Change
(Linear Method)

Population

1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030

317
288
290
265
295
264

Projection:
Projection:

-53 / 5 = -10.6
Linear

Growth/Decline Rate
(Geometric Method)
n/a
-29
2
-25
30
-31

233
202

n/a
-9.15%
0.69%
-8.62%
11.32%
-10.51%
-1.63% / 5 = -3.3%
Geometric
255
247

Development Trends:
Very limited growth has occurred in Crawfordsville over the past 10 years; the Planning Committee noted that only one
house was built during that time, to their knowledge. An expansion to a current house was completed in recent years. Land
use in Crawfordsville is approximately 36% agriculture and 28% urban, in addition to other open lands.
Thanks to a grant from the Riverside Casino, a new building for the fire department and city hall was constructed in 2009.
An addition to the school was completed in 2000.
No other developments are currently being planned, and the committee did not expect to see any growth over the next 10
years. This makes sense given that Crawfordsville population has slightly decreased since the 1960s.
Crawfordsville: The City utilizes Wapello Rural Water and Sewer.

1-23


2012

•
•
•
•

United Presbyterian Church: 105 North Chestnut
US Post Office / American Legion Building: 111 East Vine Street
WACO Community School District: 200 South Main Street
People’s Savings Bank: 100 S. Main Street

Figure 22: Crawfordsville Critical Facilities

1-24

Introduction


2012

Introduction

K ALONA
History:
5

The following history of Kalona is from the Kalona Comprehensive Plan :
…Three Amish families established homesteads and set the stage for the founding of the community of Kalona in an area
that is now home to the largest Amish Settlement west of the Mississippi River. Officially established and platted in 1879,
the City of Kalona, like many others of its time in Iowa, began out of necessity as a railroad depot and filling station for
steam locomotives…The young community grew, survived two major fires in 1899 and 1906, and had the nickname of
‘Bulltown’ for a short time, signifying both strength and endurance. These qualities, though fortunately not the nickname,
have continued to characterize a community that has grown and prospered to this day. Kalona reached a population high of
2,293 of in 2000, an 18.1% growth in population from 1990. Kalona, as part of the rapidly growing Cedar Rapids/Iowa City
Technology Corridor, will continue to see growth over coming years.
Figure 23: Kalona in 1930 and 2009

Population:

Figure 24: Kalona Population Change, 1960-2010

2500
2293

2000
1862

1500
1000

1235

1990

2000

2010

1942

1980

2363

1488

500
0
1960

5

1970

The Kalona Comprehensive Plan, October 2007. Developed by RDG Planning and Design, with the City of Kalona.

1-25


2012

Introduction

The City of Kalona’s population nearly doubled between 1960 and 2010, making it the fastest growing community in
Washington County. Unlike other communities in Washington County, Kalona did not experience a decrease in population
during the 1980s, though the rate of growth did decrease slightly.
Table 5: Kalona Population Projection

Year
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010

Number Change
(Linear Method)

Population
1235
1488
1862
1942
2293
2363


2020
2030

Projection:
Projection:

1128 / 5 = 225.6
Linear

Growth/Decline Rate
(Geometric Method)
n/a
253
374
80
351
70

2433
2503

n/a
20.49%
25.13%
4.30%
18.07%
3.05%
71.0% / 5 = 14.2%
Geometric
2694
3071

Development Trends:
6

According to Kalona’s Comprehensive Plan , agriculture / open space is the biggest land use in Kalona, at 49% of the total
land area. Low density residential is the next biggest land use, at about 20% of the total land area in the Kalona city limits.
Commercial land use occupies about 7% of the land area, and industrial occupies about 3%.
The majority of residential land use in Kalona is single-family. Growth is projected to rise over the next 15 years, with an
average of 20 new housing units constructed per year. The Kalona Comprehensive Plan estimates that higher-density
housing that maintains single-family characteristics will grow in popularity. The following description of land area required
to fulfill housing needs at the projected growth rate comes from the Kalona Comprehensive Plan:
On average, three single-family detached units will require one acre of land, six single family attached units will require an
acre, and the average gross density of multi-family development will be 12 units to an acre. As a standard, the plan
recommends that land provided for residential development over a twenty-year period be equal to twice the area that new
growth actually needs. This is necessary to preserve competitive land pricing and provide consumer choice.
It is anticipated that the city will absorb about 5.5 acres of residential land each year, for a total of 109 acres by 2025. Using
the rule of designating land at a rate of two times the “hard demand,” it is suggested that 218 acres be reserved for future
residential development. The development concept outlined later in this chapter identifies areas in which this potential
development should occur.
According to Kalona’s Comprehensive Plan, commercial development is projected to increase over the next 15 years,
keeping pace with projections of increased populations. The Plan estimates that 39-40 acres of additional commercial land
will be required to meet the demands of the growing community. Industrial land uses are expected to increase as well, and
the plan recommends that the community expect to provide 43 – 47 acres for this land use.

6

The Kalona Comprehensive Plan (October, 2007)

1-26


2012

Introduction

Kalona: The City operates its own water utility system. For water service, the cost is a flat charge of $11.20 per month, plus
$2.29 per 1,000 gallons.
Kalona: The City operates its own wastewater treatment system. The cost for sewer service is a flat rate of $11.00 per
month plus $2.50 per 1,000 gallons. A new lift station was recently put in, and water tower is less than five years old.
•
•
•
•
•
•

JW’s Foods: 122 E Avenue
th
Mid-Prairie Elementary School: 706 6 Street
Mid-Prairie Middle School: 713 F Avenue
Kalona City Hall / Community Center: 511 C Ave
th
Fire Department: 310 5 Street
th
First Responders: 104 6 Street United Christian
Baptist Church: 401 E Avenue

Figure 25: Kalona Critical Facilities

1-27

•

•
•
•

Gas Stations:
o Casey’s: 601 E Avenue
st
o BP Amoco: 302 1 Street S
st
o West Side Petro: 103 1 Street S
rd
Mercy Family Practice Clinic: 503 3 Street
rd
Pleasantview Home: 811 3 Street
rd
REM Iowa: 507 3 Street


2012

Introduction

W ASHINGTON
History:
The City of Washington was founded in 1839 and is the county seat of Washington County. It was named as a Main Street
Community in 2008. The town features a daily newspaper, a local radio station, 17 churches, and over 100 civic and social
clubs. Washington retails many of its historic features. A unique fountain was constructed in the town’s Central Park in
honor of Washington’s 1930 Centennial Celebration. The fountain is the only one of its type in the continental US, featuring
a light show and distinctive water patterns. The F Troop Military Museum was initially used as the administrative office of
Troop F, World War I’s 113th Iowa National Guard Cavalry. Now, patrons can peruse through unique military memorabilia
from the Civil War, WW I, WW II, the Korean Conflict, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iran and Iraq. There are many annual festivals
and celebrations, a weekly farmer’s market, and an extensive park system.
Figure 26: Washington in 1930 and 2009

Population:
Figure 27: Washington Population Change 1960-2010

8000
7000
6000
5000

6037

6317

7074

7266

1990

6584

7047

2000

2010

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1960

1970

1980

1-28


2012

Introduction

The City of Washington is the most populous city of Washington County, probably due to the fact that it is the county seat.
Through the period of 1960-2008, the City of Washington experienced a steady 4-7% increase in population for each decade
of measurement. The only exception to this pattern is a 1% decrease in population during the 1990s. Overall, the
population increased 20% between 1960 and 2010.
Table 6: Washington Population Projection

Year
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010

Number Change
(Linear Method)

Population


2020
2030

6037
6317
6584
7074
7047
7266

Projection:
Projection:

n/a
280
267
490
-27
219
1229 / 5 = 245.8
Linear
7512
7758

Growth/Decline Rate
(Geometric Method)
n/a
4.64%
4.23%
7.44%
-0.38%
3.11%
19.0/ 5 = 3.8%
Geometric
7542
7829

Development Trends:
The City of Washington has experienced low to moderate growth in its residential, commercial, and industrial sectors over
the past 10 years. Approximately 39% of Washington’s land use is agriculture and 42% is urban. Most residential
development has consisted of single family and two-family homes built in the southwest (Timber Ridge Subdivision Phases I
th
th
and II), southeast (between S. 10 Ave and S. 15 Ave) and in the northeast (Highland Park Subdivision). In a typical year,
approximately 6 to 12 residential units are constructed in the city. The city has also experienced low to moderate
commercial growth. The largest development was the construction of a new Super Wal-Mart in 2008-2009. A new large Ace
Hardware-Farm Supply store was opened in 2009, and Orschlen’s, a farm-supply / hardware store, expanded at the former
Wal-Mart location. Hogs Slats, a retailer serving the farming community, opened a store on the east side of Washington in
2008.
Regarding industrial development, a 15 lot industrial park on the northeast side of the city was nearly built-out over the
th
past decade. Most notably, Iowa Renewable Energy built a biodiesel manufacturing plant on E. 7 St, east of the industrial
park, and Hogs Slats, Inc. constructed a concrete products manufacturing operation in the industrial park. Both companies
suspended or reduced manufacturing operations due to the poor national economic climate. Three years ago, Whitesell
purchased the former Washington Manufacturing Co. / Fansteel and moved the firm’s operations to the former vacant
calendar factory.
The city can accommodate substantial commercial growth on the east side, near the new Wal-Mart, and on the west side,
near Hy-Vee. The city can also accommodate commercial redevelopment and growth in the downtown area. Residential
growth will likely occur on the southwest, southeast, and west sides due to proximity to utilities and residential uses.
Industrial growth will likely occur on the northeast side near existing industries.
Washington: The City operates its own water utility system. For water service, the cost is a minimum of $30.02 per month,
and $1.47 for first 1400 cu ft. Washington: The City operates its own sewer system. The cost is $5.50 minimum, and $1.27
per 100 cu ft. As of the time of writing, the City plans to construct a new sewer plant in 2010. They plan to construct a new
1-29


2012

Introduction

14,000-gallon gravity sewer and a new 1 million-gallon water tower. Rates will soon increase dramatically to fund the debt
service for the new sewer plant and related improvements.
•
•
•
•
•
•

City Hall / Fire Department / Police Department –
215 E. Washington St.
Old library (presently Public Health Dep’t, soon to
become City Hall) – 120 E. Main St.
Wastewater Treatment Facility – 1065 Buchanan
St.
th
Water Treatment Plant – 522 N. 4 Ave.
th
th
Central Water Tower – E. 6 & N. 5 St.
th
South Water Tower – E. Adams & S. 13 Ave.

Figure 28: Washington Critical Facilities

1-30

•
•
•

Library – 115 W. Washington St.
th
Maintenance Garage & Offices – 515 E. 6 St.
Emergency Sirens:
o W. Main St.
o S. Ave. E
o E. Main St. & S. Iowa Ave.
o E. Adams Street
rd
o N. 3 Street


2012

Introduction

W EST C HESTER
History:
West Chester: The land where West Chester is now located originally consisted of wild prairie with log cabins dotted here
and there. The town was first named Chester and began as a railroad town, when the land was purchased from Ed Clemons
in 1872. After learning that a town called Chester already existed in Iowa, the City’s forefathers changed the name to West
Chester in the spring of 1873. The first building in the town of West Chester was the depot, and the second building was the
Elevator, followed by a general store that later became a hotel. The first dwelling was erected in 1873 and still stands where
it was built, on the north side of the Forinash Restaurant. There is now one church, several businesses, two restaurants,
and a Heritage Building (formerly the Consolidated School) in the town of West Chester.
Figure 29: West Chester in 1930 and 2009

Population:
Table 7: West Chester Population Change, 1960-2010

300
250

253

200

199

191

191

150

159

146

100
50
0
1960

1970

1980

1990

1-31

2000

2010


2012

Introduction

The City of West Chester has the smallest population of all the communities in Washington County, and experienced a
steady decline in population from 1960 – 2010. The population decreased 46% from 253 in 1960 to 146 in 2010. The most
precipitous decline occurred during the 1990s, with a 21% drop in population. The Planning Committee members felt that
the lack of new housing, and the declining condition of the current housing, both contributed to this trend.
Table 8: West Chester Population Projection

Year
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010

2020
2030

Number Change
(Linear Method)

Population


253
199
191
191
159
146

Projection:
Projection:

-107 / 5 = -21.4
Linear

Growth/Decline Rate
(Geometric Method)
n/a
-54
-8
0
-32
-13

125
103

n/a
-21.34%
-4.02%
0.00%
-16.75%
-8.18%
-42.1 / 5 = -8.4
Geometric
134
123

Development Trends:
No growth is occurring in West Chester at this time, which is made up of about 51% agriculture and 27% residential land
uses. Over the past 10 years, the city has seen the addition of two downtown businesses, but no future developments are
planned. The Methodist Church is planning an expansion to its current facility, but that is the only planned construction that
the Planning Committee was aware of. The population in West Chester has significantly declined over the past 50 years,
which explains the lack of development in the community.
West Chester: The City of West Chester operates its own water utility service. The cost is $11.00 for a minimum 4000
gallons.
West Chester: The City of West Chester operates its own sewer utility service. The cost is $17.00 for a minimum 3000
gallons. There is also a $6.00 maintenance fee. No updates are planned, but the City does regular pumping of individual
septic tanks.

1-32


2012

•
•
•
•
•
•

Stewart’s Petroleum / Pump & Stuff (gas station & convenience store) – 201 Highway 92
United States Postal Office – 305 Franklin St.
Heritage Building – 510 Main St.
United Methodist Church – 403 Franklin St.
West Chester City Hall – 508 Main St.
City of West Chester Water and Sewer

Figure 30: West Chester Critical Facilities

1-33

Introduction

2
Chapter 2 PRE-REQUISITES
2-1


2012

Pre-Requisites

NFIP P ARTICIPATION
To be eligible to participate in 404 mitigation grants, communities that have been issued FEMA flood maps must participate
in the National Flood Insurance program. Of the communities included in this plan, only the City of Ainsworth has a current
FIRM (as of late 2010), which is shown below. The initial FHBM was identified 9/19/1975, and was converted by letter to
the current FIRM on 9/1/1987. The remaining communities were mapped during the planning process, and FIRMs will be
th
effective on January 16 , 2013.
Figure 31: Ainsworth Flood Insurance Rate Map

Community ID numbers:
Ainsworth:
Brighton:
Crawfordsville:

190525
190557
190722

Kalona:
Washington (City of):
West Chester:

190601
190677
N/A

Unincorporated
Washington Co:

190913

M ULTI -J URISDICTIONAL P LAN A DOPTION
Multihazard Requirement §201.6(c)(5): For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must
document that it has been formally adopted.
The jurisdictions that participated in the plan are: Ainsworth, Brighton, Crawfordsville, Kalona, Washington, West Chester
and unincorporated Washington County. The resolutions of adoption will be placed in Appendix 1 as the communities
adopt the plan.

2-2

3
Chapter 3 PLANNING PROCESS
3-1


2012

Planning Process

D OCUMENTATION OF THE P LANNING P ROCESS
Multihazard Requirement §201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective
plan.
Multihazard Requirement §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural
disasters, the planning process shall include:
(1)
An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval;
(2)
An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation
activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia
and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and
(3)
Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.
Multihazard Requirement §201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including
how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.

A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A number of people were involved in the creation of this plan. City staff, council members and citizens from Ainsworth,
Brighton, Crawfordsville, Kalona, Washington, and West Chester participated in the Planning Committees. Additional
Washington County staff from the offices of the Engineer, Public Health, Conservation, Emergency Management Agency,
Planning and Zoning, and the Board of Supervisors also were members of the Planning Committees.
The participating jurisdictions used either the Direct Representation Model or Authorized Representation Model depending
on the capabilities of the local jurisdiction. The City of Ainsworth selected the Authorized Representation Model to allow
the East Central Iowa Council of Governments (plan author) to represent their community. In this model, the consultant
drafted the plan, and presented the plan to the City Council for review and comment. The City Council then reviewed the
draft plan and made corrections and comments as necessary to meet the needs of their community. All other jurisdictions
selected the Direct Representation Model, and formed Planning Committees to guide the creation of the plan. Below is a
list of Planning Committee participants that assisted in the research, hazard analysis and risk assessment, and identification
of mitigation actions and recommendations for each jurisdiction.

A INSWORTH

C RAWFORDSVILLE

Teresa Hazelett, City Council
Troy McCarthy, City Council
Virginia Schuerman, City Council
Cheryl Smith, City Clerk
Keith Sollazzo, City Council
Dawn Stewart, Mayor
Gary Stewart, City Council

Brenda Davey, QRS and Resident
Jeremy Campbell, Assistant Fire Chief
Gene Miller, City Council
Amy Gardner, Resident
Vicki Reynolds, WACO Elementary Principal
Mike Massey, WACO Elementary Custodian

K ALONA

B RIGHTON

Larry E. Christenson, Planning & Zoning Chair
Karen Christner, City Clerk
Ryan Schlabaugh, City Administrator
Mike Bowlin, Public Works Director
Steve Yotty, Fire Chief
Jerry Zahradneh, Fire Department
Mark Schneider, Mid-Prairie School District
Lori TeBockhorst, Planning & Zoning, Hills Bank
Gregory Van Egdon, LHHP, LLP

Linda Burger, City Clerk
Robert Farley, Mayor
Bill Farmer, Fire Chief
Mel Rich, City Council – City of Brighton
Ron Rich, Assistant Fire Chief
Joe Sanner, Superintendent of Utilities

3-2


2012

Planning Process

W ASHINGTON

W ASHINGTON C OUNTY

J.J. Bell, Maintenance
Greg Goodman, Chief of Police
Merle Hagie, City Council
Sandra Johnson, Mayor
Dave Plyman, City Administrator
Tom Wide, Fire Chief

Larry Smith, Washington Co EMC
Edie Nebel, Public Health & Home Care Administrator
Jeff Thomann, County Health Programs Administrator
Steve Lafaurie, Planning and Zoning Administrator
Steve Davis, County Supervisor
Jacob Thorius, Engineer

W EST C HESTER
Judy Augustine, City Council
Craig Capps, Safety Coordinator – Vision Ag.
Sue Janecek, City Clerk
Tim Minard, Terminal Manager – Koch Industrial
st
Sue Stutzman, 1 Responder

B ACKGROUND
On October 30, 2000, the President signed into law the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, also known as DMA 2000, which
amended the Stafford Act. DMA 2000 streamlines the delivery and utilization of disaster recovery assistance and places
increased emphasis on local mitigation planning. It requires local governments to develop and submit mitigation plans as a
condition of receiving Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) project grants.
Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) Section 201.6 describes requirements of DMA 2000 for single
jurisdictional plans, but includes options for multi-jurisdictional plans. This is called the Interim Final Rule and was first
published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002. Because deadlines were subsequently modified, relevant sections
of the Rule were again published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2002, and again on October 28, 2003, when one
section was reworded.

S COPE
This plan applies to Ainsworth, Brighton, Crawfordsville, Kalona, Washington, West Chester, and the unincorporated areas
of Washington County, or, in other words, all portions of Washington County excepting the incorporated areas of Coppock,
Riverside, and Wellman. This plan shall be effective until 5 years from the date of plan adoption (this time period begins
when the first jurisdiction adopts the plan), or when replaced by an updated DMA 2000 compliant plan for the participating
jurisdictions, whichever is sooner.

A UTHORITY
Section 322 of the Robert T Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) 42 U.S.C. 5165, as amended
by the DMA 2000, provides for States, Tribes and local governments to undertake a risk-based approach to reducing risks to
natural hazards through mitigation planning. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C 4001 et seq,
reinforced the need and requirement for mitigation plans, linking flood mitigation to assistance programs to State, tribal

3-3


2012

Planning Process

and Local Mitigation Plans. Under this authority, the Cities of Ainsworth, Brighton, Crawfordsville, Kalona, Washington and
West Chester along with Washington County are represented in this document.
The Washington County Multi-Jurisdictional Plan will be adopted by each participating jurisdiction (see Prerequisites) and
will be approved by FEMA.

F UNDING
This multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan was funded under an HMGP planning grant made available after the
presidential disaster declaration FEMA-1763-DR, Iowa, for the flooding and tornadoes of 2008. Washington County applied
for a planning grant on behalf of the involved jurisdictions, and became the recipient of the planning grant in October of
2009. Washington County received a federal grant of $28,584 and a state grant of $3,811 to complete the plan. The
jurisdictions participating in the plan met the local match requirements of at least 15% of total funds expended.
Washington County contracted with ECICOG to write the plan and facilitate the planning meetings as described by the Iowa
HMGP Planning Application ‘Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Scope of Work.’

P URPOSE
The purpose of the Washington County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan is to decrease risk of property damage,
injury, and / or loss of life due to natural or anthropogenic hazards by undertaking comprehensive mitigation strategies
prior to a hazard event. The Washington County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan also allows the County and
participating Cities to access sources of funding for mitigation projects made available under the DMA 2000. This multijurisdictional hazard mitigation plan is specifically for Washington County, and the jurisdictions of the county that have
chosen to take part in the planning process: the Cities of Brighton, Crawfordsville, Kalona, and Washington.
Hazard mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from
hazards. Mitigation activities may be implemented prior to, during, or after an incident. However, it has been demonstrated
that hazard mitigation is most effective when based on an inclusive, comprehensive, long-term plan that is developed
before a disaster occurs.
A Local Mitigation Plan as defined in 44 CFR §201.6 is required for local jurisdictions that elect to participate in FEMA hazard
mitigation assistance programs as a subapplicant or subgrantee. The Stafford Act authorizes up to 7 percent of available
HMGP funds for State, Tribal, or local mitigation planning purposes. Also, funds from the PDM program may be used to
develop mitigation plans, and the FMA program provides annual grant funds for flood mitigation planning. This plan was
funded by an HMGP grant awarded to Washington County as the subgrantee.
The Local Mitigation Plan requirements encourage agencies at all levels, local residents, businesses, and the nonprofit
sector to participate in the mitigation planning and implementation process. This broad public participation enables the
development of mitigation actions that are supported by these various stakeholders and reflect the needs of the
community. Private sector participation, in particular, may lead to identifying local funding that would not otherwise have
been considered for mitigation activities.
A hazard mitigation plan is a document that is intended to accomplish several things. First, through the planning process,
the hazards that pose a risk to the community are identified. Second, hazards are assessed based on their historic pattern of
occurrence, the number of people that could be impacted, the area of the community that could be affected, the potential

3-4


2012

Planning Process

costs that the County and Cities, individuals, and organizations may incur, the likelihood of future occurrence, and the
amount of warning before that hazard event occurs.
Once the assessment is completed, a list of current and historic mitigation efforts is compiled and discussed. Through this
discussion, areas that can be improved upon are identified and developed into “action steps.” Early in the planning process,
meeting attendees will identify broad goals that briefly state what the plan should attempt to accomplish. Every action step
should, if implemented, work toward one of more of the goals of the plan. An action step may suggest continuing a current
mitigation effort or propose an entirely new project.
When implemented appropriately, mitigation projects can save lives, reduce property damage, and are both cost effective
and environmentally sound. This mitigation, in turn, can reduce the enormous cost of disasters to property owners and all
levels of government. In addition, mitigation can protect critical community facilities, reduce exposure to liability, and
minimize community disruption.

PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION PLANS
No previous hazard mitigation plans exist for the jurisdictions participating in this plan. However, a previous hazard
mitigation plan was completed for Wellman, IA in 2009, though Wellman is not included in this document. No other plans
exist for jurisdictions within Washington County.

P ROCESS
The Washington County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Plan was completed through participation of the following jurisdictions:
Washington County, the Cities of Ainsworth, Brighton, Crawfordsville, Kalona, Washington, and West Chester. Each
jurisdiction had a Planning Committee made up of representatives from government entities, local business, and interested
citizens. The Planning Committees of each participating jurisdiction were made up of residents of each jurisdiction.
The planning process followed in the creation of the Washington County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation plan
generally followed the outlined scope of services provided by Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division on
the HMGP grant application that funded this project. As such, the participating jurisdictions selected a Planning Committee
that met monthly to discuss the items provided on the sample meeting agendas from the scope of work, and the consultant
provided data (which was supplemented by the community) and compiled the plan. Additional Planning Committees were
then formed within each community to discuss the specific details of the plan as it related to situations within each
jurisdiction.
After the Planning Committee had completed the steps outlined by the State, the consultant compiled a draft of the plan.
This draft was submitted to the State to determine whether it was approvable and returned to the Planning Committee for
review. After review by the Planning Committee, the plan entered into a public comment period. Comments were received
by City staff and the consultant. Once the comments were addressed, a final draft was presented to the Cities and County
for review. CD’s of the draft were mailed to the participating jurisdictions, and the draft was published on ECICOG’s website
so that the public, school districts, and neighboring governments and agencies could download a copy of the plan for
review.
This plan was created by primarily following FEMA’s Authorized Representation Model for Multi-Jurisdictional Planning,
however some aspects of direct representation were also involved. This approach is sometimes referred to as the
Combination Model. The planning process was coordinated by Mary Beth Stevenson, with GIS services, grant oversight and

3-5


2012

Planning Process

final plan provided by Hilary Copeland, AICP. Stevenson coordinated with Jacob Thorius, of the Washington County
Engineer’s Office, to coordinate Planning Committees at each of the participating jurisdictions.
In each participating jurisdiction, 2-4 planning meetings were held. The planning process started with a meeting, during
which the Planning Committees identified hazards for inclusion in the plan and provided the preliminary scoring for the
hazard analysis. The second meeting analyzed mitigation steps and reviewed mitigation steps for multi-jurisdictional
coordination. During the third meeting, the mitigation steps were scored according to their social, technical, political, legal,
environmental, economic, and administrative concerns. The final meeting was an opportunity for the Planning Committees
to determine their top priorities for mitigation to recommend to the municipal authorities. In some communities, the
second and third meetings, and sometimes the fourth, were blended into one meeting to help streamline the process. All of
these meetings were open to the public (notices posted on local buildings and invitations from City staff). Following this
process, at least two additional public meetings were held in conjunction with a City Council or Board of Supervisors
meeting to further refine the risk assessment and mitigation actions, and also to identify critical facilities. The following
table outlines the dates of meetings held in each jurisdiction.

Brighton

Crawfordsville

Kalona

Washington

West Chester

Hazard Identification & Risk
Assessment
Vulnerability Assessment
Mitigation Activities / STAPLEE
Mitigation Action
Implementation Strategy

Ainsworth

Meetings

Unincorporated

Table 9: Planning Meetings

3/8/2010

2/1/2011

3/29/2010

8/5/2010

9/14/2010

5/18/2010

4/28/2010

7/12/2010
8/9/2010

2/1/2011
2/1/2011

7/1/2010
8/4/2010

8/19/2010

9/30/2010
10/19/2010

7/6/2010
7/19/2010

6/10/2010
7/8/2010

9/27/2010

2/1/2011

10/7/2010

9/16/2010

11/3/2010

8/30/2010

8/26/2010

The following table outlines the nature of each jurisdiction’s participation.

Ainsworth
3-6

Kalona

Washington

West Chester

Washington Co

Attended meetings or work sessions (minimum of two will be considered
satisfactory).
Reviewed reports and plans relevant to hazard mitigation.
Reviewed list of hazards that affect the jurisdiction.
Reviewed description of what is at risk (including local critical facilities and
infrastructure at risk from specific hazards).
Reviewed a description or map of local land use patterns (current and
proposed/expected) or created one with ECICOG’s consultant.
Reviewed goals for the community.
Reviewed mitigation actions with an analysis/explanation of why those actions
were selected.

Crawfordsville

Nature of Participation

Brighton

Table 10: Record of Participation

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Nature of Participation

Crawfordsville

Kalona

Washington

West Chester

Washington Co

Planning Process

Brighton

2012

Ainsworth


Reviewed prioritized actions emphasizing relative cost-effectiveness.
Reviewed and commented on draft plan.
Hosted opportunities for public involvement.

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

P UBLIC I NVOLVEMENT
In each community, 2-4 meetings were held. These meetings were all open to the public. At least one additional meeting
was held in each jurisdiction, in conjunction with either City Council meetings or Board of Supervisors meetings (in the case
of Washington County). The purpose of these additional meetings was to present the draft plan to the public and announce
the beginning and ending of public comment periods. The public was notified of the meetings through bulletins posted in
public offices and other places, such as libraries, where residents would see them.

N OTIFICATION OF N EIGHBORING E NTITIES
A letter was sent to the Emergency Managers of all surrounding counties inviting them to take part in planning meetings
and review a draft of the Washington County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. In addition, representatives from
local public schools participated in Planning Committees in Crawfordsville and Kalona. The local schools were also invited to
participate in the plan review process in anticipation of adopting the plan.

R EVIEW OF E XISTING P LANS AND S TUDIES
During the planning process, the existing programs, policies and technical documents for the participating jurisdictions were
reviewed. In addition to the documents listed below, the jurisdictions also reviewed the Mitigation Strategies booklet
produced by FEMA Region 5 to provide an overview of the types of mitigation actions appropriate to include in this plan.
The Mitigation Strategies booklet provides a wealth of mitigation ideas and was provided to the Planning Committee to
provide them with a background on the various types of mitigation projects, strategies and actions that are possible. Due to
the length of this document, the Mitigation Strategies booklet was not included as an appendix; however interested parties
should contact FEMA or the consultant to receive a copy of this booklet. The following table displays the results of this
review:

3-7


2012

Planning Process

Unincorp.
Washington Co

Ainswortth

Brighton

Crawfordsville

Kalona

Washington

West Chester

Table 11: Record of Document Review

Comprehensive Plan

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Growth Management Plan
Capital Improvements
Plan/Program
Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance
Floodplain Management Plan
Flood Insurance Studies or similar
Hazard Vulnerability Analysis
Emergency Management Plan
Zoning Ordinance
Building Code
Drainage Ordinance
Critical Facilities Maps

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Used for assessing development trends
and future vulnerabilities
N/A

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Mitigation Strategies

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

N/A

No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes

No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes

No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes

No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes

No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes

Existing Land Use Maps

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Elevation Certificates
State Plan
HazUS MH

No
Yes
No

No
Yes
No

No
Yes
No

No
Yes
No

No
Yes
No

No
Yes
No

No
Yes
No

N/A
N/A
Risk Area Mapping
Mitigation Strategies
Assessment of development trends
Infrastructure Failure
Jurisdictions meet state code
Created during planning process
Used for assessing development trends
and future vulnerabilities
N/A – Majority of county unmapped
Incorporated risk assessment data
N/A

Existing Program / Policy /
Technical Documents

3-8

Method of incorporation into the plan

4
Chapter 4 RISK ASSESSMENT
4-1


2012

Risk Assessment

RISK ASSESSMENT: §201.6(c)(2): The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities
proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information
to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards.
Risk assessment, in the context of Hazard Mitigation Planning, is the process of identifying and profiling hazards that have
affected (or may affect) a participating jurisdiction. This process therefore provides the factual basis for the mitigation
actions proposed in the next section of this Hazard Mitigation Plan, insofar as it assesses the exposure of lives, property,
and infrastructure to the identified hazards. The risk assessment section of this document was completed using the 2007
State of Iowa Hazard Mitigation Plan (and updated with information from the 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan when it became
available) as a guiding reference and was supplemented with resources provided by the Iowa Department of Homeland
Security and Emergency Management.

I DENTIFYING H AZARDS
Multihazard Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type … of all natural
hazards that can affect the jurisdiction.
The Planning Committees of each participating jurisdiction reviewed a base list of hazards provided by the 2007 State
Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the list was later updated to reflect the 2010 plan. However, the determination was made to
retain the hazards of Energy Failure and Structural Fire, both of which were present in the 2007 plan and removed from the
2010 plan. The natural hazards in the State Plan are mandated by FEMA Region VII, while the other hazards were
determined by Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division to be applicable to Iowa as a whole. The
Planning Committees determined which of the hazards in the State Plan were applicable to their communities, and were
also given the option of adding additional hazards to the plan. Each of these hazards is listed alphabetically by hazard type
in the table below. An “X” indicates that the hazard could affect the jurisdiction, while “--” indicates that the event is not a
hazard to the jurisdiction.

West Chester

Washington

Kalona

Crawfordsville

Hazard

Brighton

Wash.Cty.

Ainsworth

Table 12: Hazards Addressed

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Drought

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Earthquake

Natural Hazards

Dam Failure

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Expansive Soils

X

X

--

X

X

X

--

Extreme Heat

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Flood - Flash

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Flood - River

X

X

X

X

X

X

--

Hailstorm

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Landslide

X

X

X

X

X

X

--

Levee Failure

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Severe Winter Storm

X

X

4-2

X

X

X

X

X

Brighton

Crawfordsville

Kalona

Washington

West Chester

Risk Assessment

Ainsworth

2012

Wash.Cty.


Sink Holes

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Thunderstorm and Lightning

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Tornado

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Wildfire

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Windstorm

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Animal/Plant/Crop Disease

X

X

--

--

X

X

--

Energy Failure**

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Hazardous Materials

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Infrastructure Failure

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Human Disease

X

X

--

X

X

X

X

Radiological

X

X

--

--

X

X

--

Structural Fire**

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Terrorism

X

X

--

X

X

X

X

Transportation Incident

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Waterway / Waterbody Incident**

X

X

X

X

X

--

--

Human Caused/Combination
Hazards

Hazard

** Indicates hazard retained from 2007 State Mitigation Plan list
After reviewing the above list of hazards, the oversight committee edited the above list of hazards to best suit all of
Washington County. This included the removal of some hazards and a modification of other hazards, explained as follows:
Sink holes: This hazard was removed as there was no documented history of sink holes in the area. As with most geologic
hazards, specific soil types and/or a history of mining are associated with the occurrence of this hazard, and Washington
County does not have soil types prone to sink holes or a history of mining, so this hazard was removed from consideration.
Levee Failure: According to the Iowa Hazard Mitigation Plan, there are no Federal Levee System levees in Washington
County. A review of USACE levees listed none in Washington County, nor any immediately outside the planning area. The
Planning Committees confirmed that while there are some structural flood mitigation projects in Washington County, they
were not known to be levees. However, determination of exactly what private structures may exist, particularly in
agricultural areas, was extremely difficult, and while it appeared that no people or property within the planning area could
be affected by the failure of any levee or private flood mitigation structure (located inside or outside the planning area),
should information on private flood protection systems change (or should an actual levee be constructed), the inclusion of
this hazard should be reevaluated during the update of this document.
Dam Failure: According to the Iowa DNR’s Dam Safety office in the Water Resources Section, there are no high hazard dams
in Washington County. The following table lists all of the dams in Washington County. Based on analysis provided by
Washington County EMA Coordinator Larry Smith, the significant hazard dam at Lake Darling was determined by the
Planning Committee to not pose a risk to life, private property or critical facilities, and was thus removed from
consideration. Dam failure inundation area maps were not available at this time, but should they become available, they
will be reviewed during the next update of this plan.

4-3

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2012

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2012

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (8)

Similaire à Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2012

Similaire à Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2012 (20)

Plus de zaffar abbasi

Plus de zaffar abbasi (20)

Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2012