|
 This
file is available in Adobe Acrobat PDF.
DMA 2000
State & Local Plan Interim Criteria
County Risk and
Vulnerability Assessment and Mitigation Plan Requirements from
FEMA
|
| PART
3 - LOCAL MITIGATION PLANS |
|
Local Mitigation Plan requirements in §201.6 of the Interim
Final Rule (Rule) apply to both local jurisdictions and Indian
tribal governments (henceforth referred to as local jurisdictions).
The local mitigation planning requirements in this section encourage
agencies at all levels, local residents, businesses, and the
non-profit sector to participate in the mitigation planning
and implementation process. This broader public participation
enables the development of mitigation measures 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.
As with State plans,
the Rule criteria for the local plans require that communities
only address natural hazards. Comprehensive mitigation plans,
however, should consider man-made and technological hazards.
In many instances, natural disasters have secondary effects,
such as dams breaking due to floods, or hazardous material releases
due to tornadoes. Multi-hazard plans will better prepare communities
in the event of such disasters.
States are required
to coordinate with local governments in the formation of hazard
mitigation strategies, and the local strategies combined with
initiatives at the State level form the basis for the State
Mitigation Plan. With the information contained in local mitigation
plans, States are better able to identify technical assistance
needs and prioritize project funding. Furthermore, as communities
prepare plans, States continually improve the level of detail
and comprehensiveness in statewide risk-assessments.
Local jurisdictions must have approved plans by November 1,
2003 to be eligible for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding
for Presidentially declared disasters after this date.
The sections covered
in Part 3 - Local Mitigation Plans include:
- Prerequisites
- Planning Process
- Risk Assessment
- Mitigation Strategy
- Plan Maintenance
Procedures
ADOPTION BY
THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY
|
| Requirement
§201.6(c)(5): |
[The
local hazard mitigation plan shall include] documentation
that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing
body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan
(e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council)… |
|
| PLANNING
PROCESS |
|
§201.4(b) and
§201.4(c)(1) require that there be an open public involvement
process in the formation of a plan. This includes opportunities
for the public to comment on the plan at all stages of its formation,
and the involvement of any neighboring communities, interested
agencies, or private and non-profit organizations. This should
also include a review of any existing plans or studies and incorporation
of these if appropriate. Documentation of the planning process,
including how the plan was prepared, who was involved in the
process, and how the public was involved is essential.
This section includes the following subsection:
- Documentation
of the Planning Process
|
| RISK
ASSESSMENT |
|
§201.6(c)(2)
of the Rule outlines specific information that local jurisdictions
must consider when completing the risk assessment portion of
the plan. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient
information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize
appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified
hazards. This includes detailed descriptions of all the hazards
that could affect the jurisdiction along with an analysis of
the jurisdiction's vulnerability to those hazards. Specific
information about numbers and types of structures, potential
dollar losses, and an overall description of land use trends
in the jurisdiction must be included in this analysis. For multi-jurisdictional
plans, any risks that affect only certain sections of the planning
areas must be assessed separately in the context of the affected
area.
This section includes
the following six subsections as follows:
- Identifying Hazards
- Profiling Hazard
Events
- Assessing Vulnerability:
Identifying Assets
- Assessing Vulnerability:
Estimating Potential Losses
- Assessing Vulnerability:
Analyzing Development Trends
- Multi-jurisdictional
Risk Assessment
|
| Hazard |
How
identified |
Why
identified |
| Hurricanes |
- Review of
past disaster declarations
- Input from
County Department of Natural Resources
- Input from
residents
- Risk Assessments
|
- The County
is hit almost every year by a hurricane
- Hurricanes
have caused damage (personal and property), flooding,
and evacuation situations
|
| Flooding |
- Review of
FIRMs
- Input from
County Planning Office
- Risk Assessments
- Public input
- Review of
past disaster declarations
- Identification
of NFIP repetitive loss properties in the County
|
- Associated
with the effects of hurricanes, which hit the County
frequently
- Several
repetitive loss properties are located in the County
- The County
contains many rivers and streams, and is located along
the coast
|
| Coastal
Erosion |
- Input from
County Planning Office
- Input from
County Department of Natural Resources
- Input from
the State University (conducting shoreline research)
- Public input
|
- The County
is undergoing development pressure along the coast
- Coastline
stabilization measures have been implemented in the
past year
- Related
to hurricane frequency
|
| Terrorism |
- Input from
local utility company
- Public input
|
- Nuclear
power plant is located in the County
- Heightened
sense of security since September 2001
|
|
| ASSESSING
VULNERABILITY: IDENTIFYING ASSETS |
|
Requirement §201.6(c)(2) (ii)(A): |
[The
risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction's
vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i)
of this section. This description shall include an overall
summary of each hazard and its impact on the community.
The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of:
- The
types and numbers of existing and future buildings,
infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the
identified hazard areas…
|
| Explanation: |
This information
list should be based on an inventory of existing and proposed
structures within the community and/or an estimate of those
located within identified hazard boundaries. The information
should include critical facilities, such as shelters and
hospitals, and infrastructure, such as roadways, water,
utilities, and communication systems. The community should
determine how far into the future they wish to go in considering
proposed structures, including planned and approved development.
It may be based on information in their comprehensive plan
or land use plan. The community should determine how best
to indicate structures that are vulnerable to more than
one hazard. |
| Special
Considerations: |
While the Rule
does not require a discussion about the number of people
or special populations at risk, such as the elderly, disabled,
or lower income, the risk assessment should include them
to enable the development of appropriate actions to assist
such populations during or after a disaster. However, a
lack of inclusion or a less than thorough coverage will
not penalize the applicant. |
|
| ASSESSING
VULNERABILITY: ESTIMATING POTENTIAL LOSSES |
|
Requirement §201.6(c)(2) (ii)(B): |
[The
plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate
of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures
identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and
a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate…
|
| Explanation: |
Describing vulnerability
in terms of dollar losses provides the community and the
State with a common framework in which to measure the effects
of hazards on assets. The plan should include an estimate
of losses for the identified vulnerable assets. An estimate
should be provided for each hazard, and should include,
when resources permit, structure, contents, and function
losses to present a full picture of the total loss for each
asset. |
| Special
Considerations: |
While the Rule
does not require it, the plan should include a composite
loss map to show high potential loss areas |
|
| ASSESSING
VULNERABILITY: ESTIMATING POTENTIAL LOSSES |
|
Requirement §201.6(c)(2) (ii)(B): |
[The
plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate
of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures
identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and
a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate…
|
| Explanation: |
Describing vulnerability
in terms of dollar losses provides the community and the
State with a common framework in which to measure the effects
of hazards on assets. The plan should include an estimate
of losses for the identified vulnerable assets. An estimate
should be provided for each hazard, and should include,
when resources permit, structure, contents, and function
losses to present a full picture of the total loss for each
asset. |
| Special
Considerations: |
While the Rule
does not require it, the plan should include a composite
loss map to show high potential loss areas |
|
| MITIGATION
STRATEGY |
|
§201.6(c)(3)
of the Rule outlines measures that localities must take in developing
their mitigation strategies. Specifically, the
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan must "include a mitigation
strategy that provides the jurisdiction's blueprint for reducing
the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based
on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and
its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools."
This entails the
development of goals from which specific mitigation actions
and projects will be derived. All mitigation actions must be
prioritized according to a cost-benefit analysis, with a focus
on how effective the actions are expected to be with respect
to their cost. For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction
must show the specific actions they will undertake.
This section includes
the following four subsections as follows:
- Local Hazard Mitigation
Goals
- Identification
and Analysis of Mitigation Measures
- Implementation
of Mitigation Measures
|
| LOCAL
HAZARD MITIGATION GOALS |
|
Requirement §201.6(c)(3) (i): |
[The
hazard mitigation strategy shall include: a] description
of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities
to the identified hazards.
|
| Explanation: |
The community's
hazard reduction goals, as reflected in the plan, along
with their corresponding objectives, guide the development
and implementation of mitigation measures. This section
should describe what these goals are and how they were
developed. The goals could be developed early in the planning
process and refined based on the risk assessment findings,
or developed entirely after the risk assessment is completed.
They should also be compatible with the goals of the community
as expressed in other community plan documents.
Although the
Rule language does not require a description of objectives,
communities are highly encouraged to include a description
of the objectives developed to achieve the goals so that
reviewers understand the connection between goals, objectives,
and activities.
The goals and
objectives should:
- Be based
on the findings of the local and State risk assessments;
and
- Represent
a long-term vision for hazard reduction or enhancement
of mitigation capabilities.
|
|
| IDENTIFICATION
AND ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION MEASURES |
|
Requirement §201.6(c)(3) (ii): |
[The
mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies
and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation
actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects
of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing
buildings and infrastructure.
|
| Explanation: |
The local jurisdiction
should list potential loss reduction activities it has
identified in its planning process and describe its approach
to evaluating these activities to select those that achieve
the community's goals and objectives. Particular attention
should be given to those mitigation activities that address
existing and new buildings and infrastructure.
Not all of
the mitigation measures identified may ultimately be included
in the community's plan due to prohibitive costs, scale,
low benefit/cost analysis ratios, or other concerns. The
process by which the community decides on particular mitigation
measures must be described. The information will also
be valuable as part of the alternative analysis for the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review required
if projects are federally funded.
|
|
| IMPLEMENTATION
OF MITIGATION MEASURES |
|
Requirement: §201.6(c)(3) (iii): |
[The
mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan
describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii)
will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by
the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a
special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized
according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects
and their associated costs.
|
| Explanation: |
After outlining
the mitigation measures to be included in the strategy,
the local government should describe the method used to
prioritize the order in which they intend to implement
them.
Prioritization shall include an emphasis on cost-benefit
analysis with a focus on how effective the actions are
expected to be with respect to their cost.
The action
plan should also identify those policies, programs, or
resources that can be used to implement the strategy.
This section should include the implementation timeline;
the funding sources, when possible; and the agency or
personnel responsible for carrying out the actions.
|
|
| PLAN
MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES |
|
§201.6(c)(4)
requires a formal plan maintenance process to take place to
ensure that the Mitigation Plan remains an active and pertinent
document. The plan maintenance process includes a schedule for
monitoring and evaluating the plan at least every five years,
and continued public participation throughout the plan maintenance
process. This section should also include an explanation of
how local governments intend to incorporate their mitigation
strategies into any existing planning mechanisms they have,
such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, or zoning
and building codes.
This section includes
the following three subsections as follows:
- Monitoring, Evaluating,
and Updating the Plan
- Implementation
Through Existing Programs
- Continued Public
Involvement
Note: The text and tables for this document were copied from
http://www.fema.gov/fima/planning_toc4.shtm
for use by County agencies by the Social Science Research Institute
at the University of Hawaii and the Statewide Hazard Mitigation
Forum.
|
| |
 |
|
RISK AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT DRAWN FROM
FEMA GUIDANCE
|
|
| |
| RISK
ASSESSMENT |
|
§201.4(c)(2)
of the Rule requires that States undertake a risk assessment
that provides the factual basis for developing a mitigation
strategy. This provision encourages States to produce a meaningful
analysis of the hazards and vulnerabilities that affect them,
enabling States to prioritize jurisdictions or geographic areas
to receive funding and technical assistance for conducting more
detailed local risk and vulnerability assessments.
This section includes
the following six subsections as follows:
- Identifying Hazards
- Profiling Hazard
Events
- Assessing Vulnerability
by Jurisdiction
- Assessing Vulnerability
of State Facilities
- Estimating Potential
Losses by Jurisdiction
- Estimating Potential
Losses of State Facilities
This section should
include a description of how the State collected the information
to identify these hazards, noting any data sources as well as
limitations. This process should also include incorporating
the results of local level mitigation planning efforts to identify
hazards as that information becomes available.
The plan should provide
a discussion of past hazard events, including damages that occurred
(e.g., costs of recovery, property damage, lives lost, etc.
to the extent practicable), level of severity (i.e., flood depth
or extent, wind speeds, earthquake intensity), duration of event,
location, and date of occurrence.
The plans should
also describe the analysis undertaken to determine the probability
of occurrence of future hazard events and their magnitudes.
The plans should characterize each hazard, and include the following
information:
- The probability
or likelihood that the hazard event would affect the various
areas of the State;
- The magnitude
or intensity of the hazard events;
- The geographical
extent or areas in the State that would be affected; and
- The conditions,
such as topography, soil characteristics, meteorological conditions,
etc. in the areas at risk that make those areas more or less
vulnerable to hazards.
The hazard analysis
should also broadly identify on a map the areas of the State
affected by each hazard, noting those areas most severely affected
by each hazard. A composite map can be provided for hazards
that have a recognizable geographic extent (i.e., hazards that
are known to occur in particular areas of the State), such as
floods, coastal storms, wildfires, tsunamis, and landslides.
For those hazards
that are not geographically determined, plans should indicate
their probable intensity. For example, for areas where tornadoes
occur, plans should indicate expected wind speed.
|
| ASSESSING
VULNERABILITY BY JURISDICTION |
|
Requirement §201.4(c)(2) (ii): |
[The
risk assessment shall include] an overview and analysis
of the State's vulnerability to the hazards described
in this paragraph (c)(2), based on estimates provided
in local risk assessments. The State shall describe vulnerability
in terms of the jurisdictions most threatened by the identified
hazards, and most vulnerable to damage and loss associated
with hazard events…
|
| Explanation: |
The plan should
describe which jurisdictions are most threatened and vulnerable
to hazards and the process used to identify them. Identification
of these jurisdictions should be based on an analysis
of available local risk assessments conducted throughout
the State, and where not available, on State risk assessments.
Additionally, the description should include a discussion
of critical State-owned facilities at risk.
|
|
| ASSESSING
VULNERABILITY OF STATE FACILITIES |
|
Requirement §201.4(c)(2) (ii): |
[The
risk assessment shall include an] overview and analysis
of the State's vulnerability to the hazards described
in this paragraph (c)(2), based on estimates provided
in …the State risk assessment. …State owned
critical or operated facilities located in the identified
hazard areas shall also be addressed…
|
| Explanation: |
The plan should
describe State infrastructure and facilities, derived
from an inventory of state-owned or operated structures,
located in areas subject to hazards described previously.
The description should include the uses, approximate sizes,
types, and values of facilities and infrastructure, and
identification of those facilities should be classified
as critical.
|
|
| Example |
|
| Example
of estimated losses by jurisdaiction |
|
Note:
we could use data that Jen has compiled and Gary Chock's anaylsis.
We need to talk to him about that.
|
Example
from FEMA for Potential Flood Losses to State Facilities
|
| |
|
