DMA 2000
State & Local Plan Interim Criteria
County Risk and Vulnerability Assessment and Mitigation
Plan Requirements from FEMA
Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Drawn
from FEMA Guidance
|
This file is available in Adobe Acrobat PDF. Click
here to download.
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 |
Click here
to download table of: State Facilities in the 100-Year Floodplain
|
| Example of estimated losses by jurisdaiction |
| Click here
to download table of: Example of estimated losses by jurisdiction |
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
Click here to download
table of: Example from FEMA for Potental Flood Losses to State Facilities
|
| |
|
