Hazard Mitigation Planning

Hazard Mitigation Planning
Mississippi River at Grafton

Workshop Objectives Clarify process for identifying hazards and estimating potential losses, which form the basis for appropriate hazard mitigation actions Review the basics of preparing multi-jurisdiction plans Integrate plan update requirements into the mitigation plan The objective of this workshop is to help Hazard Mitigation Plan authors recognize hazards and estimate potential losses. This will enable the appropriate identification of mitigation action strategies. Other important objectives include educating plan authors on incorporating risk assessment into multi-jurisdiction planning and plan update development.

Workshop Structure Overview: Hazard Mitigation Planning
Section 1: Risk Assessment Section 2: Multi-jurisdiction Plans Section 3: Plan Updates Each section of the Risk Assessment section will include citation to the corresponding CFR requirement It will be presented in four sections: the Overview Development of a risk assessment and vulnerability analysis (the bulk of the time will be spent on this) notes on multi-jurisdiction risk assessment notes on plan updates This workshop will identify the steps that the plan preparer should use when developing a risk assessment. It will discuss the nuances of developing a risk assessment for multi-jurisdictional plans and plan updates. References to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and what it requires are included.

What is Hazard Mitigation Planning? The effort to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters How? Through risk-based analysis providing a foundation for mitigation activities to reduce damages to lives, property, and economy Creates a framework for risk-based decision making to reduce damages Mitigation planning is the effort to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters. This is achieved through risk-based hazard analysis, which results in information that provides guidelines for mitigation activities to reduce risk. Mitigation plans form the foundation for a jurisdiction’s long-term strategy to reduce disaster losses and break the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. The planning process creates a framework for risk-based decision making to reduce damages to lives, property, and the economy from future disasters. State, Indian Tribal, and local governments are required to develop a hazard mitigation plan as a condition for receiving certain types of non-emergency disaster assistance, including funding for mitigation projects. Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5165, as amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) (P.L ), provides guidelines for States, Tribes, and local governments in the development of a risk-based approach to reducing the impact of hazards through mitigation planning.

Break the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and reoccurring damage Disaster Damage Reoccurring Damages Reconstruction Mitigation planning should result in actions that stop the cycle of reoccurring damage from hazards. Mitigation planning is a process through which jurisdictions assess risks and identify actions to reduce vulnerability to hazards. Efficient mitigation actions can reduce and even prevent reoccurring damages. If we mitigate before a disaster, then we reduce damages. If we mitigate when we build back after disaster, then we prevent repeats of disaster impacts. Hazards will always occur, but we can alter how we let them affect us.

Mitigation Actions

Why is Hazard Mitigation Important?
Reduces: Loss of life Damage to property, essential services, and critical facilities Economic disruption Short-term and long-term recovery and reconstruction costs Hazard Mitigation is continual action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards and their effects. Hazard Mitigation can reduce: Loss of life (get people out of harm’s way) Damage to property, essential services, and critical facilities (protect important assets from damage) Economic disruption (prevent impacts so businesses can keep running during and after hazard events) Short-term and long-term recovery and reconstruction costs Mitigation can also reduce Flood Insurance rates (through consistency with FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) program)

Why is Hazard Mitigation Planning Important?
Building more disaster resistant communities Raising awareness of risk and the need for risk reduction Creating a roadmap for coordinating hazard mitigation efforts Partnerships in the jurisdiction Increased communication and cross-education between jurisdiction agencies Eligibility for pre- and post-disaster grant funds One of the most important goals of hazard mitigation planning is to create a more disaster resistant jurisdiction, thus reducing overall risk to hazards and their effects. The reduction in risk helps to save lives and money. Hazard mitigation planning helps communities become aware of their risk to natural hazards. One must understand their risk in order to reduce that risk. The hazard mitigation plan provides a roadmap for coordinating mitigation planning efforts. The regulations that set forth requirements for local mitigation plans are published under 44 CFR §201.6 and outlined in FEMA guidance (the Blue Book). Hazard Mitigation plans create new partnerships and strengthens existing partnerships in jurisdictions. These partnerships help create increased communication and cross-education between multiple agencies. Under 44 CFR §201.6, local governments must have a FEMA-approved Mitigation Plan in order to apply for and/or receive project grants under the following Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL)

Hazard Mitigation Plan Development Process
Step 1: Organizing Resources Step 2: Assessing Risks Step 3: Developing the Plan Step 4: Reviewing the Plan Step 5: Implementing the Plan The five basic steps of the hazard mitigation plan development process are: Step 1 – Organizing Resources Step 2 – Assessing Risks Step 3 – Develop the Plan Step 4 – Review the Plan Step 5 – Plan Implementation

Step 1: Organizing Resources
Build the Planning Team Organize the Planning Team Hold Project Planning Meeting Consider Hiring a Consultant Engage the Public Benefits of Public Participation Document Public Involvement Step 1 – Organizing Resources: Jurisdictions should focus on the resources needed for a successful mitigation planning process. Essential steps include identifying and organizing interested members of the jurisdiction as well as obtaining the technical expertise required during the planning process. Jurisdictions must develop methods for engaging the public and document all participation. Jurisdictions must ask themselves: Who are my stakeholders? What departments/agencies should participate? What about non-government entities, such as businesses, academia, etc. What is my planning area? How can we involve the public? Who will develop the plan? Who will facilitate the process? What timeframe should we work within?

Step 2: Assessing Risks Identify all hazards that could occur and impact any portion of the planning area. First resource is the State Hazard Mitigation Plan Remember that just because a hazard has not occurred in the planning area in the recent past does not mean that it will not occur in the future (Dam or levee failure) Step 2 – Assessing Risks: Identify the characteristics and potential consequences of all hazards that could impact the planning area. The first step is to define your planning area. Determine if the planning area single or multi-jurisdictional. The following questions should be asked: What hazards affect my planning area? How do they impact us? What do we have to lose if we do nothing to mitigate? The best resource is the state plan. Some planning areas are still vulnerable to hazards even if they have not previously occurred, such as dam failure. In FEMA Region V, be sure not to neglect the hazards of flooding, tornadoes, dam failure, and levee failure.

Step 3: Developing the Plan
Use risk assessment results to create a blueprint for reducing potential losses. Describe mitigation goals Identify all possible actions and projects that would prevent or reduce damage and/or protect citizens Analyze possible actions and projects Determine what is feasible Prioritize actions Document process and criteria for prioritization Identify who initiates, administers, and implements mitigation actions Step 3 – Develop the Plan: With an understanding of the risks posed by hazards, jurisdictions need to create a blueprint for avoiding or minimizing losses. Once you know how hazards impact the area, you need to think of actions you can take to decrease that impact. Describe mitigation goals: ‘what do you want this plan to accomplish?’ Identify a range of actions to achieve these goals. Determine which actions are feasible, then prioritize these actions. Document the process used for prioritization. Include who will be responsible for executing the actions such as initiation, administration, and implementation. If creating a multijurisdictional plan, identify which jurisdictions will be responsible for which actions.

Step 4: Reviewing the Plan
Plans should be monitored and evaluated according to the process outlined in the plan The hazard mitigation plan should be reviewed after major events and response to changes within the community. Plans must be updated every 5 years or the jurisdiction becomes ineligible for a number of FEMA grants (i.e., HMGP, PDM, FMA, and SRL) Include steps for incorporating the plan into capital improvement plans, land use plans, development codes, etc. Invite the public and other agencies invited to participate in the plan maintenance process Step 4 – Review the Plan: To assure the productivity of the mitigation actions, plans should be monitored and evaluated according to the documented mitigation process. The jurisdiction should maintain the plan as a living document. This can be achieved with regularly scheduled reviews and evaluations. FEMA requires that all plans be updated every five years. Remember to follow the process outlined in your plan, if it says review annually, then it should be reviewed annually. This will contribute to less work during the five year FEMA required update. Part of implementing the plan is incorporating the plan’s principles into other planning documents in the planning area, like the Capital Improvement Plan or Comprehensive Plan. Some useful questions for the plan developers are: what documents should incorporate the mitigation plan? who is the point of contact? what departments or agencies are affected by hazards? Involve the public and other agencies to participate in the maintenance process. Public and agency participation creates more opportunities for the mitigation plan to be included in other planning documents.

Step 5: Implementing the Plan
Implementation of specific mitigation actions Conduct periodic evaluations Adopt the Plan Plan must be relevant Step 5 – Plan Implementation: The plan is brought to life in a variety of ways, ranging from implementing specific mitigation projects to changes in day-to-day organizational operations. To ensure the success of an ongoing program, it is critical that the plan remains relevant. Thus, it is important to conduct periodic evaluations and make revisions as needed. Resolutions: For regional plans, the counties have the option to develop a county wide resolution, however each jurisdiction MUST sign the resolution in order to officially adopt the plan. Approval Pending Adoption: If the plan is not adopted within one calendar year of FEMA’s “Approval Pending Adoption” the jurisdiction must update the entire plan and resubmit it for FEMA review.

Section 1: Risk Assessment
Risk assessment provides the foundation for the rest of the mitigation planning process. The purpose of the risk assessment is for jurisdictions to gather existing risk information that enables them to identify and assign value to risk in order to prioritize mitigation actions and appropriate resources to reduce losses from all natural hazards. Now that we have reviewed the hazard mitigation planning process, for this workshop, we are going to focus on Step 2 of the plan development process: Assessing Risks. The risk assessment process provides the foundation for the rest of the mitigation planning process. The purpose of the risk assessment is for jurisdictions to gather existing risk information that enables them to identify and assign value to risk in order to prioritize mitigation actions and appropriate resources to reduce losses from all natural hazards. Risk assessment is the process of measuring the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from natural hazards. It includes assessing the vulnerability of people, buildings, and infrastructure to natural hazards.

Risk Assessment Terminology
Hazard: source of potential danger or adverse condition Hazard Identification: process of determining those hazards that threaten a given area Impact: damage or consequences resulting from a hazard Exposure: the number/value of all structures and other land, assets, etc that could potentially be impacted by a given hazard, typically based on geographic location Before proceeding, we should clarify the mitigation planning terminology used in this workshop. Note that the following sections discuss, rather than provide precise definitions of, terms. Hazard A hazard is an act or phenomenon that has the potential to produce harm or other undesirable consequences to persons, structures, or infrastructure. Hazards exist with or without the presence of people and land development. Some hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornadoes have been occurring for a very long time, and the natural environment has adapted to their impacts. Some hazards are human-caused or technical in nature. When severe hazards coincide with vulnerable development, disasters can occur. Hazard Identification Hazard identification is the process of identifying hazards that threaten the jurisdiction. Weather events are not hazards, but may cause them. For example, a thunderstorm may cause straight-line wind, hail, lightning, or a flood; flooding may also be caused by a hurricane or winter snowmelt. Plan authors should not confuse weather events with the associated hazards. Impact The impact of a hazard refers to the damages or consequences that result from the hazard event. The impact of a flood, for example, might include destroyed or damaged homes, damaged trees, and utility systems that do not function. Exposure The exposure of something (structures, people, etc) to a hazard refers to the sensitivity or how susceptible something or someone is to a hazard event. , Typically based on geographic location, exposure is the number/value of all structures and other land, assets, etc that could potentially be affected in some way by a given hazard. Some hazards may affect large areas, such as winter storms or hail, while other hazards may impact specific areas such as flooding in floodplains and earthquakes along fault lines. An entire community may be exposed to heavy snow, but only a portion of a community may be exposed to flooding.

Risk Assessment Terminology
Extent: severity, intensity or magnitude of a hazard itself Probability: measure of how often an event is likely to occur Risk: potential for an unwanted outcome resulting from an event or occurrence, as determined by its likelihood and the associated consequences Vulnerability: the number/value of structures/built environment and other assets, etc. that are identified as most likely to sustain damage or loss of use from a given hazard. Extent The extent of a hazard refers to the severity or magnitude of the hazard. In the hazard profile section of the plan, hazard descriptions should include the potential magnitude of the hazards in the jurisdiction. For example, high winds might reach 100 mph or 250 mph in the jurisdiction; a tornado might be classified by intensity on the Enhanced Fujita scale as an F0 or F3 tornado. To describe the extent of a hazard, include the potential range of magnitude or severity of the hazard and discuss how bad the event might be. Probability Probability is a measure of how often an event is likely to occur in a given time period. It is based on the historic record of events for each hazard. Probability could be described in the plan as being high, medium, or low if these terms are defined. The plan must include an explanation of how the relative rankings of probability were determined for each hazard. Risk Assessment Risk assessment is the probability of property damage, economic loss, injury, or death that may result from a hazard event. Vulnerability Vulnerability is the number/value of structures/built environment and other assets, etc. that are identified as most likely to sustain damage or loss of use from a given hazard. Vulnerability depends on location, construction, contents, and the economic value of the function(s) of a structure or other facility. Assets that may be vulnerable include residential, commercial, industrial, and public structures, as well as infrastructure. Susceptibility to harm may, for example, be related to the location of a structure in a floodplain and the design of that structure (elevated or not elevated). So, a structure may be exposed to a hazard but may not necessarily be vulnerable to the hazard.

Risk Assessment Three basic components of risk assessment:
Identify Hazards Profile Hazard Events Estimate Losses We will spend the next few hours walking through the risk assessment process, one of the most important elements of a Hazard Mitigation Plan. The risk assessment process provides the foundation for the rest of the mitigation planning process. The three basic components of the risk assessment are: identify hazards (what are they) profile hazard events (when do they occur, how do they happen) estimate losses (what could be impacted and how) This process measures the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from natural hazards. This is done by assessing the vulnerability of people, structures, and infrastructure to natural hazards. While many data sources and tools are available at various levels of government, academia, and the private sector, several options are discussed in this session as a starting point in conducting a multi-hazard risk assessment.

Identifying Hazards - CFR
CFR §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type … of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. Does the plan include a description of all natural hazards that affect any of the participating jurisdictions? Suggestions Think about hazards that may have significant impacts but that occur infrequently Consult the State Mitigation Plan and/or with the State Hazard Mitigation Officer to identify hazards that may occur in the planning area. Step 2 of the hazard mitigation plan development process is conducting the Risk Assessment. Section 201.6(c)(2) of the mitigation planning regulations requires local jurisdictions to provide sufficient hazard and risk information. It must be enough from which to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions. 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. Local risk assessments need to be accurate, current, and relevant. The development of a Risk Assessment should start with a thorough review of the most recent update of the State Hazard Mitigation Plan. This document will be an invaluable source of information to the plan developer. It should be used as a primary guide for the type of data needed in the local plan. Local jurisdictions must consider all natural hazards listed in the state plan, but can add any additional natural, human-caused, or technical hazards that could threaten their planning area. Obviously, not all hazards that can occur within a State will necessarily affect every jurisdiction in the State. Also, consider contacting the State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) or staff for technical assistance, hazard data, and access to other State agency resources. State plans focus on the statewide implications of hazards and provide state-level risk assessment information. Local multi-jurisdiction plans focus on the hazards, vulnerabilities, and risks on a local scale. State plan development will include risk assessment information from the local jurisdictions to complement the State risk assessment.

Identifying Hazards Take Note!!
Some hazards like tornadoes, the flooding caused by dam or levee failure, and wildfires are not frequent but the effects can be devastating. If a hazard has not occurred in the planning area but is still possible, discussion of that hazard is warranted. For example, many jurisdictions in Region V have never had a tornado occur within the planning area. Nonetheless, most of the Midwestern states in Region V are at risk to tornado events. Elimination of hazards from further consideration must be supported in the plan narrative. If the hazard identification omits any hazards commonly recognized as threats to the jurisdiction, the plan must include a justification explaining why the hazard was eliminated. The justification for omitting a hazard should be reasonable and fact-based. Adequate explanation may include, for example, pre-existing and continuing mitigation actions for a hazard that causes only minor damages.

Determine Hazards That May Occur Locally
Possible Resources:* **State Hazard Mitigation Plan** U.S. Geological Survey Natural Hazards Center National Weather Service Flood Insurance Studies, FIRMs Watershed Studies Association of State Dam Safety Officials National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration National Severe Storms Laboratory Newspapers, Books, & Internet National, State, & Local Maps Experts (State Emergency Management, Weather Service, etc.) Multiple sources are available for obtaining hazard information. **First consult the state hazard mitigation plan for the list of hazards that state planners have determined impact the state** Review existing plans and reports (flood insurance studies, storm water management reports, previously approved hazard mitigation plans, design plans for dams, emergency operations plans, comprehensive development plans, zoning and land subdivision ordinances, etc.) Research newspapers, Web-based databases such as the National Climatic Data Center and National Inventory of Dams, and other historical records. Talk to weather service representatives and other experts in the jurisdiction, State, or region. Consult state agencies such as the Department of Natural Resources. Conduct Internet searches to gather information about hazards For some hazards, multiple sources of information are available, such as flooding: NFIP Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and digital maps (DFIRMs), which delineate the 100-year floodplain, coastal high hazard areas, and 500-year floodplain Repetitive Loss flood data The best available data, such as the most recent flood studies, should always be used in hazard mitigation plan development

Hazards to Consider Dam or Levee Failure Severe Storms Tornadoes
Mine Subsidence Lake Michigan Storm Surge Severe Storms Tornadoes Flooding Severe Winter Storms Drought Extreme Heat Earthquakes The first step in determining which hazards to consider is consulting the state plan. This slide shows a list of natural hazards identified in the State of Illinois Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Identifying Hazards - Tips
Indicate in plan narrative that state plan was consulted Don’t eliminate hazards simply because you don’t have information about them Think about those hazards that have significant impacts even if they occur infrequently. Think about hazards relative to community vulnerabilities. The plan narrative should indicate that the State hazard mitigation plan was consulted in identifying the hazards. If the area has not been affected by a hazard, but if that hazard is possible, then it should be in the plan. Many communities have dams or levees (photo from Fremont, Ohio) that have no history of failure but they have significant impacts if a failure or breach occurs. Hazards that are similar or that occur in conjunction with another hazard should not always be combined. They should be profiled separately if their attributes and the actions to address them differ. For example, although flooding may occur during thunderstorms, the characteristics of the two hazards vary greatly. Similarly, drought and heat often occur at the same time, but are different in impact and should be addressed by different mitigation solutions.

Identifying Hazards - Tips
Where possible map hazards. Illustrate locations subject to flooding, landslide or subsidence and areas subject to wildfire risks. Cite sources, address data limitations Think about low probability risks Sources should be cited. If hazard data is insufficient to provide a good profile of the hazard, an explanation of the data deficiency should be provided. The plan should include a strategy to gather additional data for the plan’s next update. Data limitations should be explained and strategy for obtaining the information before the next plan update provided. Note that dam and levee failure are considered natural hazards. Dam and levee failure include both breach and overtopping. Elimination of this hazard from consideration by any jurisdiction must have sound factual bases supported by data. Any dam classified as “high hazard” by the state or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or dams that have the potential to cause damage to property or loss of life must be considered a hazard for nearby jurisdictions downstream from the dam.

Identifying Hazards – Human-Caused Hazards
Human-Caused Hazards (sometimes referred to as man- made hazards) are terrorism and technological hazards Hard to predict and change over time Natural hazards may lead to human-caused hazards Consideration of human-caused hazards is not required by DMA 2000 While FEMA recommends including all hazards, only natural hazards are required Jurisdiction can decide whether to address human- caused hazards in the plan If human-caused hazards are included in the plan, they must be fully profiled Some jurisdictions may choose to include human-caused hazards in their plans. Human-caused hazards (sometimes referred to as man-made hazards) typically fall into two categories: terrorism and technological hazards. Some fundamental differences exist between natural and human-caused hazards. The types, frequencies, and locations of natural hazards are generally identifiable and, in some cases, predictable. This is not always the case for human-caused hazards. Human-caused hazards are: Difficult to predict; past experience does not generally indicate scope or probability of future events Numerous and varied so that it is difficult to assess potential threats Can be the result of natural hazards (e.g., nuclear plant failure due to earthquake damage) While FEMA recommends including all hazards, the Rule only requires including natural hazards. Consequently, this workshop addresses only natural hazards. Each jurisdiction can decide whether to address human-caused hazards in the mitigation plan. Note, however, that if human-caused hazards are included in a risk assessment, they must be identified in the list of potential hazards and a full risk assessment must be performed.

Identifying Hazards – Exercise
Group Discussion: How many dams in your community? Where would you find this information? Name one Illinois city or county that has completed more than 100 acquisitions of flood prone properties? Where would you find this information for your county? What are the easiest references for the history of natural hazard events in your community? Discussion Question: 1) National Dam Inventory; 2) Keithsburg (110); Evergreen Village (129); Grafton , Illinois (111); East St. Louis (612); St. Clair County (259); Valmeyer (244); Monroe County(136); Alexander County (150)

Profiling Hazards - CFR
CFR §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the … location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events. First step after hazard identification is to determine how each hazard affects the planning area by describing: Location affected by the hazard Extent of the hazard History of hazard events Probability of future hazard events * Only hazards that are chosen as affecting the jurisdiction should be profiled In a hazard mitigation plan, “location” is not equivalent to “extent” in describing a hazard. The extent of a hazard refers to the severity or magnitude of the hazard and the location refers to where the hazard will likely occur. For example, for flooding, the locations would generally be identified Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) and low-lying areas prone to flash flooding or urban flooding. To describe the extent of flooding, the plan should identify the expected average depth of flooding (5 inches or 5 feet). The plan author must explain how each hazard affects the jurisdiction by discussing the: locations affected by each hazard how severe each hazard might be previous hazard events in the jurisdiction probability of the hazard occurring again Note that only hazards that impact the planning area should be profiled.

Profiling Hazards - Location
Identify the location (i.e., geographic area affected) of each natural hazard addressed in the new or updated plan. Specifically identify those areas of the jurisdiction that each hazard might affect How? Narratives: description of a hazard or hazardous events and their effect on the jurisdiction Maps: common frame of reference when describing where and how hazards can affect a jurisdiction In the plan, clearly identify which areas of each jurisdiction are vulnerable to damage by each hazard. Affected hazard areas can be described in a narrative or visually shown on a map. Narratives or a map is required. A narrative should describe the hazard event and the impact on the jurisdiction. Include sources. A map is recommended to give users a frame of reference for a hazard’s location and extent. If possible, show locations using legible maps.

Narratives Describing the areas at-risk for hazards is the easiest way to communicate risks to community residents. The most significant hazards in Region V have boundaries. Special flood hazards are typically mapped. When people attend meetings on hazard mitigation planning they want to know the boundaries of hazards relative to their own homes. Where the boundaries of hazard risks cannot be described—snow storms, tornadoes, hail storms— there is no requirement for describing areas affected because all areas are equally affected. Describe the locations where each hazard may occur. Be sure to clearly state if the entire planning area may be affected by a hazard. List those hazards that could affect the entire community or occur anywhere in the community as well as those that are location specific. Note in the plan any data limitations that make it difficult or impossible to identify the location of one or more of the identified natural hazards. Include as an action item strategies to obtain the data. Explain how data deficiencies have been addressed in the updated plan.

Maps Show locations affected by each hazard—maps should include clear and accurate reference points. Don’t try to show too much on one map! Dam and levee location maps should help clarify the areas downstream that may be affected by a failure or breach. Where modern flood hazard maps are available, there should be an effort to incorporate these maps in the local plan. If flash flooding is identified as a hazard, its location should be shown on a map or with narrative Some hazards impact specific locations in the planning area. These hazards include Flooding, Dam Failure, Levee Failure, Wild/Grass Fires, Expansive Soils, and Land Subsidence/ Sinkholes. Maps must be clear, accurate, and legible to all users. This can be accomplished by limiting the amount of information shown on one map. Note that dam and levee hazard boundary descriptions must include more than just the location of the structure. The dam and levee breach inundation area must also be indicated. Although FEMA strongly encourages using FIRMs in the plans to show the location of flooding, it is not required. It is enough if the flood hazard boundaries are otherwise shown on a map or described in a narrative. Locations susceptible to flash flooding must be described within a narrative or shown on a map. When including maps in the plan: Use an appropriate scale throughout so that maps are legible Provide a title, legend, scale, and north arrow Show jurisdictional boundaries and major roadways Use uniform land use designations

Use a Map to Show Locations
Maps are typically the easiest way to convey information Begin with a base map Transfer data for each hazard to the base map Create a map showing Special Flood Hazard Areas and Base Flood Elevations Create a map showing dam and levee locations Create a map showing areas at risk of wildfire Create other hazard maps—landslides, earthquakes, shoreline erosion if data exists Maps can make a plan much easier for readers to understand. For the purpose of hazard mitigation planning, a map should show the area potentially affected by each hazard and help to determine which structures and infrastructure facilities are at risk of damage. This, in turn, will help the HMPC to determine mitigation actions to include in the plan. The best way to show areas potentially affected by hazards is to record the data on a digital map. Using a Geographic Information System (GIS) or FEMA’s Hazus data will be helpful. Maps that are included in the mitigation plan should: Use a base map such as a road map, a USGS topographic map, or an orthophoto Be as complete, accurate, and current as possible Shouldn’t be overly complicated; a single map should not be utilized to display too many facts Plan preparers should record the sources of map data. A map might show the floodway, 100-year and 500-year flood boundaries, and Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), which are delineated on Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs). Note that for multi-jurisdiction plans, a FIRM for each mapped jurisdiction is needed, if available. For earthquakes, a map might show the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) zones. For dam and levee failure, the map should show dam/levee breach inundation areas.

Boundaries vs. Planning-area wide Hazards
Remember that not all hazards have a defined hazard boundary within the planning area Boundaries: Hazard has definable limits Planning-area wide: Could impact any jurisdiction Boundaries Planning-Area Wide Flooding Thunderstorms Dam Failure Hail Levee Failure Tornadoes Wildfire Winter Storms Shoreline Erosion Land Subsidence/Sinkholes As previously stated, the impact of some hazards is planning-area wide. Others have definable boundaries and impact only specific areas. For example, flood risks are higher in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). However, for hazards such as thunderstorms, lightning, and tornadoes, one participating jurisdiction is just as likely to experience an event as another. Some examples of hazards with boundaries are: Flooding Dam Failure Levee Failure Wildfire Expansive Soils Land Subsidence/Sinkholes Some examples of hazards that are planning-area wide are: Thunderstorms Hail Tornadoes Winter Storms 32

Floodplain Maps Flood Hazard Maps can be overlaid on aerial photographs or structure base maps to highlight those structures, roads and public buildings at risk . The map at right illustrates the areas in Alexandria County within the boundaries of the 1% flood hazard. . 33

Dams/Levees in Rock Island County

Map Areas Post-Disaster
Campbell’s Island, 2001

Map the Properties At-Risk
Flooding in Illinois April, 2011 Ottawa, Ohio, August 27, 2007 – Flooding in North Central Ohio damaged several towns during the summer of Mike Moore/FEMA

Areas of Land Subsidence Risks in Saline County
Saline County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Profiling Hazards - Extent
Identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan. Extent, as used in the Mitigation Plan, describes the expected magnitude of the hazard and should not be confused with impact Extent can be described in both quantitative and qualitative measures of the strength of a particular hazard event including a range of the hazard’s potential severity. A hazard’s “extent” is defined as its severity or magnitude. The plan must explain the extent of each hazard’s magnitude in each jurisdiction within the planning area. Extent can be described by answering the following question: How bad can the hazard be? The extent must be described for occurrences of a hazard within the jurisdiction, not within the State or nation. Structures can be 100% vulnerable but estimated losses should not include all structures in jurisdiction. Vulnerability does not equivalent to losses. Extent is not the same as impact—this differentiation is especially important when trying to correlate the extent with the loss estimates to avoid contradictions.

Profiling Hazards – Extent
Severity is typically related to the size and scale of the hazard event. Plans should include consideration of the probability of certain size events. There may be a low probability for the most catastrophic tornadoes but a much higher probability of smaller events. Suggestions Use scientific scales to describe extent For floods, say “1-percent-annual-chance flood” or “100-year flood event” For tornadoes, say “five EF3 events” Do this for each jurisdiction if multi-jurisdictional plan If it is the same for all jurisdictions, say so In narrative form, describe a typical event that might occur in the jurisdiction. The extent of the hazard may be described, for example, as a wind speed, the depth and duration of flooding, or the anticipated peak ground acceleration in an earthquake. Scientific measures of magnitude include the Enhanced Fujita Scale, TORRO Hail Scale, Richter Scale, Beaufort Wind Scale, Saffir-Simpson Scale, and the Palmer Index. Quantitative measurements such as miles per hour, inches of rain, Fire Danger Rating, and acres burned can also be used. Jurisdictions can illustrate extent by describing the land area a hazard event could cover. Hazards could be classified using terms like high, medium, or low (or major, minor, minimum), with definitions of each classification. Note any data limitations that make it difficult or impossible to determine the magnitude or severity of a hazard. Include plans to obtain the data as an action item in the plan.

Profiling Hazards – Severity/Magnitude
Magnitude / Severity: Assessment of severity in terms of injuries and fatalities, personal property, and infrastructure and the degree and extent with which the hazard affects the state The categories of the magnitude scores are defined in the plan, as follows: Score Description 1. Negligible: Less than 10% of property severely damaged, shutdown of facilities and services for less than 24 hours, and/or injuries/illnesses treatable with first aid 2. Limited: 10% to 25% of property severely damaged, shutdown of facilities and services for more than a week, and/or injuries/illnesses that do not result in permanent disability 3. Critical: 25% to 50% of property severely damaged, shutdown of facilities and services for a least 2 weeks, and/or injuries/illnesses that result in permanent disability 4. Catastrophic: More than 50% of property severely damaged, shutdown of facilities and services for more than 30 days, and/or m multiple deaths The defined magnitude criteria as given here could potentially be used later to estimate potential losses for jurisdictions if data is available (if you multiply the affected structures by the structure value and apply the magnitude percent then the result would be potential structural losses). 40

Profiling Hazards – Historical Events
Provide information on previous occurrences of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan. List previous occurrences of each hazard for each jurisdiction Do this separately for each hazard Must have enough history to do an accurate assessment Cite information sources Each hazard profile should clearly explain previous occurrences of that hazard by jurisdiction. The history should be as complete as possible and include dates of events, the types of damages incurred, and the duration of the events. The plan must include a sufficient number of past events in a long enough time frame upon which to base analyses regarding the true characteristics of the each hazard. As information on previous occurrences of hazards is gathered, record the sources of this information and cite these sources in the plan. This will add credibility and demonstrate thoroughness and care in preparing the plan.

Profiling Hazards – Historical Events
Suggestions Communities should keep records of their own histories of hazard events. Documenting high water marks, documenting property damages and losses, and identifying unique vulnerabilities will help future planning. Keep a record. Document the impacts of significant events. Include sufficient historical information to create probability estimates Some hazards may happen simultaneously. If two hazards are combined in the plan’s risk assessment, like thunderstorms and lightning, be sure that historical events for both hazards are included in the plan narrative. A number of agencies, such as NOAA, USGS, Forest Service, FEMA, and State agencies, may provide historical information. Histories may be developed by reviewing archived editions of local newspapers and by obtaining verbal accounts from community members. Note in the plan any data limitations for developing the history of the hazards. Include strategies to obtain the data as an action item to be addressed prior to the 5-year update.

Think Outside the Box! Additional Resources for Historical Events
Electrical Outages due to Inclement Weather School Closings due to Snow/Severe Winter Weather Weather Related Highway Closures Fire Department Data Local Emergency Management Data Assessor’s Data National Funding Applications & Grants Historical Society records Explore your jurisdiction’s resources Historical Records Anecdotal Evidence Historical event information can be obtained from many sources. Think outside the box when locating historical event data. The more localized the data the more accurate the mitigation actions will be. Explore the resources in your jurisdiction, such as: Electrical Outages due to Inclement Weather School Closings due to Snow/Severe Winter Weather Weather Related Highway Closures Fire Department Data Local Emergency Management Data Assessor’s Data National Funding Applications & Grants Historical Society records When available, historical records and anecdotal evidence can contribute greatly to the compilation of historical event data. 43

Profiling Hazards - Probability
Include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan. Estimate the probability of future occurrences of each hazard for each jurisdiction If history shows that one hazard typically occurs every 4 years, say the probability in any year is 25% (1/4=0.25) If probability is the same for all jurisdictions, say this! For each hazard (and for each jurisdiction in a multi-jurisdictional plan), the mitigation plan must, to the extent possible, provide an estimate of the probability of future occurrences. If the probability is the same for each jurisdiction, the plan should state this. Probability should be based on historical events. For example, if history shows that a hazard has occurred every 4 years, the plan would say that the probability of the hazard occurring in any one year is 25%. The plan should explain how the probability was calculated and the source(s) of information upon which the probability estimate is based. If probability is the same for all jurisdictions, the plan should state this.

Profiling Hazards - Probability
Structural improvements—dams, levees, flood walls may reduce risks but they do not completely eliminate risks. Many dams, levees and other structural safeguards were constructed years ago and some have not been adequately maintained. Structural improvements do not completely eliminate hazards; there will always be some residual risks. In the plan, distinguish between the probability of hazards that have not been mitigated from the probability of those that have. For example, a floodwall will lessen the affects of a flood but it will not completely eliminate the threat of a flood. So the area behind the floodwall is less likely to experience flood damage than unprotected areas, but could still flood in large events. This is also true for levees. .

Profiling Hazards – Probability
Suggestions If probability cannot be calculated statistically, quantify the probability as , , or Describe how probabilities were determined Quantify the categories Define terms If history shows no occurrences of a hazard but it is still possible, say the probability is low low medium high If the probability cannot be calculated numerically, the plan should quantify the probability as high, medium, or low. These terms must be clearly defined and the plan must explain whether the same meaning applies to different hazards and different jurisdictions involved in a multi-jurisdictional plan. If there is no history of a hazard occurrence but it is still possible (such as tornadoes) the probability must be categorized. Land subsidence probability can be categorized as high, medium, or low based on soil type or wildfire probability can be categorized as high, medium, or low based on vegetation type.

Profiling a Tornado – Probability
Use FEMA & NOAA Maps and Data Who has a higher tornado probability: Illinois or Wisconsin? This is a NOAA National Tornado Probability Map based on NOAA storm predictions center statistics. The areas are divided into categories relating to the number of recorded F3, F4, and F5 Tornadoes per 3,700 square miles from This map indicates which geographic areas are more susceptible to tornadoes. For example, according to this map Oklahoma has a higher probability of tornado activity than California. 47

Profiling a Flood – Probability
This is a FEMA map The probability of flooding will be higher in the darker red areas. These maps are produced as part of FEMA’s RiskMAP program. The area within the yellow area has a lower probability of flooding than the area within the red. 48

Profiling Hazards – Ranking
What is ‘ranking? Assignment of values or numeric scores to chosen elements of each hazard, such as severity, probability of future events, and warning time. Rankings are totaled, allowing prioritization Be sure that the descriptions and data match the score! (e.g., don’t score high if the data says it’s low) How is this ranking helpful? Ranking prioritizes hazards which helps direct the prioritization of hazard mitigation actions Ranking is a commonly used approach to profiling hazards. Some plan development processes include a ranking effort conducted by the planning committee. It involves the assignment of rankings for each hazard, such as severity, probability of future events, and warning time. The ranking activity should include definitions for what is meant by each score. For example, the magnitude/severity of a hazard could be scored a “3” and defined as “Critical; percent of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for at least two weeks; and/or injuries and/or illnesses result in permanent disability.” The scores for each hazard are then totaled, allowing prioritization of hazards according to their total scores. Ranking can be an important aid in prioritizing mitigation actions. Mitigation actions addressing the top-rated hazards could be given a higher priority by the HMPC. It is important to note that scoring is not required by FEMA, it is just one commonly used approach to profiling hazards.

Profiling Hazards – Ranking
Suggestions Use criteria used in the current Illinois Hazard Mitigation Plan Conduct jurisdiction-specific rankings for those hazards that have defined boundaries, such as flooding Conduct planning area-wide ranking or hazards that can impact the entire planning area The scoring activity model has evolved and become more accurate over the years. Plan authors should review the current State Hazard Mitigation Plan and use the same scoring system used in the state plan. Plan authors should also ensure that the hazard prioritization is taken into account when prioritizing the action strategies. The scoring process must be adequately documented. Some hazards are planning-area wide impacting any jurisdiction while others have definable boundaries or limits only affecting specific jurisdictions. The scoring process may be different for boundary specific and planning-area wide hazards. CAUTION: Scores must be based on data, not on the perceptions of the HMPC members - plan preparers should have data available to HMPC members during the scoring process. The bases for score assignments should be adequately explained in the plan narrative, citing relevant data sources and defining scoring methodology. Scores for one element must not conflict with scores for another element (e.g. if no tornadoes have occurred in the planning area, do not rate the “probability” high).

Profiling Hazards - Ranking
This is an example of a Priority Risk ranking. This ranking assists in the prioritization of mitigation actions.

Profiling Hazards: Tornado Paths

Profiling Hazards Tips
Present information in an organized manner By hazard Use consistent labels for hazards By jurisdiction Address area-wide hazards just once, but clearly state that such hazards affect the entire area equally Use tables If data are not adequate Say so Include actions to improve the quality of the data in the mitigation strategy Some tips for profiling hazards: Present information in an organized manner by hazard and by jurisdiction. Use the same title for each hazard throughout the plan. For example, do not use “thunderstorms” in one portion of the plan and “thunderstorms/lightning” in another portion. Address area-wide hazards just once so that information is not repeated. Clearly state that such hazards impact the entire area equally. Use maps to illustrate risk assessment information and to present information that is geographically bounded. Use tables to summarize the narrative. Identify data limitations. FEMA recognizes that data may not be readily available to complete the risk assessment and requires that plans identify any data limitations. Include actions in the plan to obtain the missing data before the next plan update.

Profiling Hazards –Exercise
Group Discussion: What is the flood of record in the State of Illinois? What is the most severe tornado event in Illinois? What is the probability of the 25 year flood over a 30 year mortgage? What is the probability of the 100 year flood over a 30 year mortgage? Group Discussion: Profile Hazards 1) 3) 71% and 26% 54

Assessing Vulnerability - CFR
CFR §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [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 jurisdiction After identifying and profiling hazards, the next step in the Risk Assessment process is to conduct the Vulnerability Assessment. This needs to focus on the properties uniquely at risk for specific hazards. After identifying and profiling hazards, the next step in the Risk Assessment process is to conduct the vulnerability assessment. This will address the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each identified hazard and the hazard’s impact. The plan must include an overall summary on how each hazard impacts the jurisdiction. This is the first of several CFR statements regarding vulnerability assessment.

Assess Vulnerability - Overview
Vulnerability: the number/value of structures, infrastructure and critical facilities that are identified as most likely to sustain damage or loss of use from a given hazard. Exposure vs Vulnerability…for example The entire county may be exposed to winter storms but businesses with flat roofs are more vulnerable to damage from heavy snow. Homes in and adjacent to the floodplain are exposed to flooding but elevated homes are less vulnerable to damage. Farms are more vulnerable to damage from droughts. The elderly may be more at risk for extreme temperatures than others. Places of assembly—schools, churches, community centers may have greater vulnerabilities to tornadoes than buildings with different occupancies. Risk is a combination of the probability that an event will occur and the consequences of its occurrence. Vulnerability is susceptibility to physical injury, harm, damage, or economic loss. Vulnerability depends on location, construction, contents, and the economic value of the function(s) of a structure or other facility. Assets that may be vulnerable include residential, commercial, industrial, and public structures as well as infrastructure. Susceptibility to harm may, for example, be related to the location of a structure in a floodplain and the design of that structure (elevated or not elevated). Exposure is sensitivity to a hazard. What is potentially at risk in your jurisdiction should a disaster occur? There is a difference between exposure and vulnerability. Many buildings may be exposed to a hazard but not necessarily all exposed buildings are vulnerable to damages. For example: The entire county may be exposed to winter storms, but flat roof structures are vulnerable to collapse due to heavy snow. So while snow may fall across the area, most buildings with pitched roofs are not likely to experience damage from heavy snow loads, while flat roofs may fail under the pressure and weight of several feet of snow. Homes in and adjacent to the floodplain are exposed to flooding, but pre-FIRM buildings are more vulnerable because their finished floor elevations are likely below base flood elevation. Pre-FIRM buildings may have basements that are vulnerable to flooding and could collapse during flooding.

Assess Vulnerability - Summary
Exposure to a hazard event occurs in three specific situations: All locations in a jurisdiction are equally exposed to a hazard Example: severe winter storms Location is within a hazard boundary Example: flooding in a FEMA designated flood zone Location is in a group of structures with unique locational or structural characteristics Examples: mobile home parks, water treatment or water pumping stations, or electrical distribution lines. Remember to distinguish between three different situations; Structures in a jurisdiction can be exposed equally to a hazard such as thunderstorms and winter storms. A structure could be uniquely exposed to a hazard with a delineated hazard boundary such as flooding, by being located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). A structure could be a mobile home, which is more vulnerable to damage by high winds or a tornado.

Assess Vulnerability - Overview
Describe each jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard in a summary format Describe the types of structures, including structures, infrastructure, critical facilities, structures housing elderly, and low- to moderate-income housing Determine proportion of land or structures in the jurisdiction that could be affected by each hazard Remember that some jurisdictions might be equally exposed to a hazard in terms of probability of getting impacted, but their vulnerability could differ greatly To develop an overall summary for the vulnerability analysis, describe each jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard. The narrative discussion should be in a summary format and must describe the types of structures, including but not limited to structures, infrastructure, critical facilities, structures that house the elderly, and low- to moderate-income housing. The vulnerability analysis should determine the proportion of land or structures that could be affected and include the methodology or data source used for determination. Some jurisdictions may be equally exposed to a hazard but the impact may be different. For example, all areas within a jurisdiction could be equally exposed to a tornado, however, the impacts of the tornado could vary throughout the jurisdictions. For example, the impact to a mobile home development may differ from the impact to an industrial park. The vulnerability assessment leads to an understanding of the types and costs of injuries and damages that may result from a hazard event of a given intensity in a jurisdiction.

The new or updated plan must include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard. The plan must include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard Suggestions Describe vulnerability ( , , or ) of each jurisdiction to each hazard – define the terms The summary should be supported by data presented in the plan and correspond to the description of impact. low medium high Data in the risk assessment needs to support the summary. Also, be sure that how impact is defined in the plan does not contradict the summary of vulnerability. An acceptable vulnerability analysis must include an inventory of the structures in each participating jurisdiction and their value. Structures that are uniquely at risk, such as those located within defined hazard boundaries, must be identified. Although it is not necessary to identify individual structural characteristics, identification of pockets of uniquely vulnerable structures, such as mobile home developments, should be included in the plan. Vulnerability to each identified hazard must be described. If categories are used for vulnerability description, they must be defined. Assets that may be affected should be described, such as loss of electricity or roadway closures. Sources for all information should be included. The plan narrative should differentiate between those assets that may be damaged from those that are less likely to be adversely affected. In those instances where data limitations prevent a full analysis, identify the data limitations and propose action strategies to obtain the data prior to the next plan update. When the data is limited the HMPC can select the most likely event for each hazard and estimate the losses for that event. The summary can be presented in terms of dollar value or percentages of damage.

Determine which assets in which participating jurisdiction are vulnerable to damage Are critical facilities vulnerable? Are major highways vulnerable? Are emergency shelters vulnerable? Guidance does not require discussion of special needs populations, but it is recommended Explain data deficiencies and include strategies for remedying the deficiencies in the next plan update The vulnerability analysis can be located in a separate section of the plan. Alternatively, the plan may be organized so that the summary of vulnerability is part of the hazard profile of each hazard. Identification of the vulnerability analysis in the plan narrative is recommended for clarity. The vulnerability analysis should indicate not only which hazards can affect a jurisdiction, but the anticipated results of the hazard events. In order to do this, the HMPC must determine the assets (structures, infrastructure) in the jurisdiction that are vulnerable to damage. The vulnerability assessment will provide an indication of how many people and structures may be affected by a hazard event. Later in the plan development process, the HMPC will use hazard profile and vulnerability information to determine the mitigation actions that should be implemented to reduce damage. The Guidance does not require discussion of special populations (elderly, disabled, day care centers, hospitals, etc.) at risk, but FEMA recommends including such considerations. Recent disasters have illustrated the importance of planning for vulnerable populations and critical facilities.

Assess Vulnerability - Describe the Impact of Each Hazard The new or updated plan must address the impact of each hazard on each jurisdiction. For each hazard, and for each jurisdiction, discuss: Types of damage Extent of damage to Structures Infrastructure Critical facilities Major employers Cultural, historical, environmental assets Public assembly or public meeting facilities For each hazard and for each jurisdiction: discuss the type(s) of damage expected probable degree of damage to: structures infrastructure critical facilities result or effect of the hazard occurrence on: major employers cultural, historical, and environmental resources areas of high density development

Assess Vulnerability – Inventory Assets
What assets are in your jurisdiction? Critical facilities Structures: Residences Businesses Mobile Home jurisdictions Government Facilities Service Industries Cultural, Historical Resources Vulnerable Populations Economic Assets Higher risk facilities--schools, hospitals, stadiums, assembly halls, etc.. The first step in a vulnerability assessment is to inventory jurisdiction assets. Assets are the people, property, structures, infrastructure, and other resources in a jurisdiction. The purpose of conducting this inventory is to answer the question, “What assets will be affected by the hazard event?” The inventory must address residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional structures. Multi-jurisdiction plans should include jurisdiction-specific inventories. Begin the process of asset inventory by collecting information on the location, value, and potential occupancy of all structures in the jurisdiction. Infrastructure and structure content information should be included, but this is not required. Identify the most important assets within the jurisdiction such as: Critical facilities essential to the health and welfare of the jurisdiction, such as hospitals, police, and fire stations Vulnerable populations, such as elderly and special needs populations that might require special assistance or medical care Areas with high percentages of mobile homes or mobile home developments that are particularly vulnerable to weather events Economic assets, such as major employers and financial centers; the loss of contents and loss of function could disrupt the local or regional economy Areas of industrial or agricultural activity that if damaged could create economic stress in the planning area Historic, cultural, and natural resource areas protected under State or Federal law Areas of unique geography or areas with structurally unique qualities making them more at risk to specific hazards Identify and give special consideration to other important facilities needed to ensure a full recovery of the jurisdiction following a disaster event, such as government facilities, banks, grocery stores, hardware stores and gas stations.

Assess Vulnerability– Inventory Assets: Critical Facilities
Essential facilities - Hospitals, police and fire stations, emergency operations centers, evacuation shelters, schools Transportation systems - Roads, airports, railroads, waterways Utility systems - Potable water, wastewater, natural gas, electricity, communications systems High potential loss facilities - Nuclear power plants, dams, military installations Hazardous material facilities - Produce and/or use corrosive, flammable, radioactive, toxic materials Among the most urgent and important assets within the jurisdiction are critical facilities. Critical facilities must be determined locally on a jurisdiction-specific basis. Generally, critical facilities are categorized by FEMA (and in Hazus) as: Essential facilities for the health and welfare of the whole population (e.g., hospitals, police and fire stations, emergency operations centers, evacuation shelters, and schools) Transportation systems, including airways, highways, railways, and waterways Lifeline utility systems, such as potable water, wastewater, oil, natural gas, electric power, and communication systems High potential loss facilities, such as nuclear power plants, dams, and military installations Hazardous material facilities that produce or manage industrial/hazardous materials (e.g., corrosives, explosives, flammable materials, radioactive materials, and toxins) It is up to each jurisdiction to define and identify their own critical facilities. Hazus databases include critical facility data, but it will not be as accurate as local data. Assets and critical facilities may be listed in a table or could be shown on a map. (Note that some Emergency Managers don’t want to show critical facilities on a map due to homeland security concerns). Data deficiencies should be identified, and a strategy for obtaining the information by the next plan update provided.

Community Assets:

Planning Tip Inventory those community assets that may be uniquely vulnerable to specific hazards. Hospitals Schools and Colleges Recreation Centers Assisted Living Center and Nursing Homes

Assess Vulnerability – Describe Impact
Suggestions Impact can be described in terms of: Dollar value of losses Percentages of damages Where specific information for a hazard is not available, other acceptable methods would be to: base your assumptions on past experiences with each hazard in the planning area, or base it on an event scenario that could potentially occur in the jurisdiction Describe level of damage to structures, infrastructure, and critical facilities anticipated for each hazard Describe impact of each hazard on need for evacuation, emergency service, etc. Impact can be described in terms of dollar value or percentage of damage. The plan should identify any data limitations and include in the “mitigation strategy” actions for obtaining the data necessary to complete and improve future vulnerability assessments. Sometimes specific information on a hazard is not available. In this case, an acceptable vulnerability assessment method would be to base assumptions on past experiences. Another method would be to calculate vulnerability based on a hazard of a given intensity that could potentially impact the jurisdiction, such as an EF-3 tornado, and provide damage estimates. These estimates should be based on data and the source(s) of data should be included. The anticipated level of damage to structures, infrastructures, and critical facilities should be described. For example, if a Category 1 Hurricane were to hit the planning area, describe the level or type of damage the jurisdiction would sustain such as the flooding of structures in SFHAs, loss of electricity due to damaged power lines near coastal surge areas, or 50 percent damage to structure located in high wind areas. The impact of each hazard on evacuation and emergency service needs should be described, such as shelters located in SFHAs or hospitals/emergency service facilities not built to withstand high wind from tornadoes or hurricanes.

Assess Vulnerability – Describing Impact
Source: FEMA Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses This is an example of estimated economic impacts from flooding in Xenia, Ohio. The table summarizes estimated losses for structures at different levels of flooding and for different types of residential structures. The plan estimates includes estimates for building damage and structure losses. The plan should include information on the methodology and resources for estimating economic loss.

CFR §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment] must also address National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insured structures that have been repetitively damaged floods. Repetitive Loss Structure: An NFIP-insured structure that has had at least two paid flood losses of more than $1,000 each in any 10-year period since 1978. A repetitive loss structure is an NFIP-insured structure that has had at least two paid flood losses of more than $1,000 each in any 10-year period since This requirement addresses identification of repetitive loss structures in the planning area so that the jurisdiction understand the nature of the repetitive loss structures in their area (How many? What type?). This needs to be done for each participating jurisdiction in a multiple jurisdiction plan, rather than listing the properties for the planning area as a whole. The local floodplain manager, state NFIP Coordinator and FEMA should have this information.

Assessing Vulnerability - Repetitive Loss Structures
Describe the amount and types of NFIP repetitive loss structures located in identified flood hazard areas Do not use specific street addresses Include estimates of potential dollar losses to repetitive loss properties If a significant issue, the plan should include maps of general areas of repetitive loss properties Repetitive loss structures are defined as those are structures that flood repeatedly. The plan must address repetitive loss structures by describing the types (residential, commercial, etc.) and estimating the numbers of repetitive loss properties located in identified flood hazard areas. The specific street address of repetitive loss properties cannot be included in the plan. However, general descriptions or maps showing general areas where claims have been paid can be included. The plan should include estimates of the potential dollar losses to repetitive loss properties. The plan also should include a general description of land uses and development trends within repetitive loss areas. The plan should include maps of repetitive loss areas, areas prone to flooding that are not NFIP mapped, and areas of surface flooding identified in existing studies.

Assessing Vulnerability - Repetitive Loss Structures
Many local plans provide generalized maps identifying locations of repetitive loss properties. Taken from the Lake County Illinois Hazard Mitigation Plan. Red dots are correlated to watersheds.

CFR§201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future structures, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area … Estimate the numbers of existing and future structures, infrastructure, critical facilities located in hazard boundaries in each jurisdiction (exposure) Identification of existing structures Identification for future structures This requirement addresses identification of existing and future structures, infrastructures, and critical facilities. To efficiently assess vulnerability, existing structures and their characteristics should be inventoried. Future growth and development descriptions are recommended. This is a recommendation (“should”, not a shall”)—FEMA Regions will deal with any regional issues. The plan developer can use the same procedure for identification of both existing and future structures within hazard boundaries. Identifying structures and estimating potential losses are methods that could be used to satisfy the earlier requirement for an overview of vulnerability.

Assessing Vulnerability - Identifying Structures: Future Growth
Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future structures, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas. The hazard mitigation plan should consider the potential effects of hazards not only on existing development (required) but also on future development (recommended) in the jurisdiction. Assessing future development is recommended but not required. Future development may be construction that has already been approved but has not yet been built, development for which approval has been sought, and likely future development based on recent trends in the jurisdiction. Include data on types and locations of future structures to determine if they will be at risk of damage from hazards. Use land use plans or comprehensive plans to identify locations of future development. Identifying the location of future development is more difficult for jurisdictions without these documents. Nevertheless, jurisdictions should analyze development trends to identify likely types and locations of future development. Such analysis should be completed for each jurisdiction in a multi-jurisdictional plan. It may be that no new development is anticipated in the jurisdiction, as when population is declining or remaining stable. If this is the case, explain this expectation in the plan. Analysis of future development may suggest that future structures or infrastructure may be at risk of damage. If this is the case, the mitigation actions might include revisions of development codes or development of new ordinances to reduce potential damage. New codes could prevent new development in hazard zones. Address any data limitations in the mitigation strategy.

CFR §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)(ii)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate … Suggestions Methodology of estimating potential losses should be described in the plan Include data sources Loss estimation tables can be based on previous occurrences This portion of the CFR addresses estimating potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures from identified hazards. The methodology used to estimate economic loss should be described in the plan, including sources of data. Loss estimation tables can be based on previous occurrences. They can be used to estimate the percent of damage to structures, the percent of damage to contents, the average number of days that a business will be closed, and the average number of days that a business might have to operate from a temporary location due to a hazard. Hazus or other loss estimating tools may be used to meet the requirements of this element. Compliance with this component of the CFR is recommended, but not required (“should” instead of “shall”). The risk assessment involves gathering data on each hazard that may affect the jurisdiction and the assets that can be damaged by each hazard. That information is put to use in the final step of the risk assessment, the loss estimation. At this point, plan preparers use the data gathered to answer the question “How will the jurisdiction’s assets be affected by a hazard event?” Describe vulnerability in terms of potential dollar losses. Estimate potential losses for each identified hazard for each jurisdiction. Select a typical occurrence for each hazard and estimate the likely losses based on that event.

Assessing Vulnerability - Estimating Potential Losses
How do you estimate potential losses? Develop loss estimation tables Record methodology for loss estimation process Develop potential losses based on past hazard events Define methodology used to obtain data and perform calculations The loss estimation provides the jurisdiction with a measure of each hazard’s impact on vulnerable structures. To identify total losses the plan developer must compile information concerning estimated dollar losses due to structural damage, content damage, and loss of function, if available. When estimating losses it is helpful to develop a loss estimation table. This table should include estimated dollar losses resulting from identified hazards. Potential estimated losses can be based on past hazard events, Hazus data, or any other reasonable model. The plan should describe the methodology used to compile the loss estimation tables and list the sources of hazard data. Note data limitations and address them in the mitigation strategy.

Assessing Vulnerability - Estimating Potential Losses
Estimate potential dollar losses in jurisdiction(s) Suggestions Estimate dollar losses for structures and contents Estimate dollar losses for each hazard in each jurisdiction Estimate losses for the most likely events, not necessarily for catastrophic events or worst-case scenarios Be sure to describe the methodology used when estimating potential losses!!! How do you find the potential dollar losses in a jurisdiction? Through calculating the total sum of estimated dollar losses for structures, contents, functional loss, and displacement, when this information is available. Estimated losses should be based on a likely event, not a worst-case scenario event. In the plan describe the methodology to calculate losses. The estimation of potential losses puts a specific loss amount to each hazard, thus assisting in mitigation action development and prioritization. There really is not a “standard” methodology used for estimating losses for hazards—there are many different ways to estimate them. Some are simpler than others, some are more “accurate” than others…Let’s look at a few examples….

Assessing Vulnerability - Methodology for Estimating Potential Losses
76

Estimated dollar losses based on past losses: Another method for using past loss information is to tabulate the amount of claims paid for past hazard events. This could be from insurance claims, federal assistance grants, presidential declarations, or other documented sources. For example, Neosho County, Kansas calculated estimated potential severe weather losses by using past losses, specifically crop loss due to freeze and cold weather conditions from 2005 to Loss amounts were based on USDA Risk Management Agency claim amounts paid to Neosho County farmers. From 2005 to 2007, the loss of crops totaled $1,102,092 with the most expensive crop loss from wheat in If a similar event were to occur, the total estimated losses for the County would be $1,324. Reference: Neosho County, KS Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Assessing Vulnerability
Knox County, Illinois HM plan used hypothetical paths and model scenarios for estimating tornado losses from an F4 tornado path. Buffers were added around the F4 tornado path line to indicate the maximum damage expected. The GIS analysis estimates that 1,798 buildings will be damaged. The estimated building losses totaled $102 million. Knox County plan uses 2 analysis scenarios for tornado loss estimates. The County took two locations of possible tornado paths (F3 tornado and F4 tornado). Let’s look at the historical path analysis they used and see how they estimated potential losses should a similar event occur. The F3 tornado path used a historical path based upon the F3 tornado event that ran for 18 miles through Bargersville and the Whiteland/New Whiteland area in The selected tornado width was determined from a re-creation of the Fujita-Scale guidelines based on conceptual wind speeds, path widths, and path length. Buffers were added around the F3 tornado path line to indicate the maximum damage expected. The Plan does not include a table for F4 Zone buffers. The F3 tornado path and buffer areas were overlaid onto Hazus building data. The structures located within the buffer areas were used to estimate potential losses. Estimated potential dollar losses were calculated by the percent of maximum damage expected from the tornado by the total dollar amount of structures within the buffer areas.

The update of the Illinois state plan includes estimates of flood losses by county based on a statewide HAZUS analysis. Back during hazard identification, we told you to consult your State Mitigation Plan for a list of hazards to start from. The State Mitigation Plan is also a good place to look when you are estimating losses. State Mitigation Plans may contain loss estimates by county for many hazards. The plan may also contain estimates of building value or exposure, which may be helpful for local loss estimation. If you use loss data from the State Mitigation Plan, be sure to clearly reference where you obtained the data form and explain how the loss was calculated (e.g., include excerpt language from the State Mitigation Plan, describe the methodology used by the State to estimate the losses, etc). Here are two examples from the Kansas State Mitigation Plan. 79

Estimating losses without GIS NCDC data contains event data including limited estimated losses for property, crops, injury and death, but may only contain information regarding County-wide hazards. If a County does not have GIS capabilities, NCDC data, though limited, can be utilized to estimate loss amounts for potential future events. NCDC data contains the event data including losses for property, crops, injury, and death. NCDC data may only contain information regarding County-wide hazards. The plan author must keep in mind the description of the hazard’s impact to vulnerable structures within geographical areas susceptible to a particular hazard, such as densely populated urban areas adjacent to an earthquake fault lines or sparsely populated rural areas in a floodplain. If NCDC data is used, the methodology must still be specifically described, e.g. HOW was the NCDC data used. It should be noted that NCDC data may include repetitive data, such as multiple entries for one thunderstorm that included hail and lightning, for floods that lasted multiple days or for droughts that lasted multiple months. Also, the dollar loss estimates are provided form National Weather Service personnel during damage assessments and may not necessarily represent actual losses, so use with caution. But in a lot of cases, NCDC may be the best data available to many jurisdictions. 80 Reference: NCDC

Using NCDC data to help estimate potential losses: -how you might estimate drought losses in Butler County, IA Here is an example for using NCDC data to estimate losses, in this case, for drought. If we query the NCDC database for drought events since 1950 in Butler County, IA, we find the list of drought events. Note that the drought events include multiple counties (see the NWS zone #s under “location” column), so you can click on the location hyperlink and see the event record details which lists out all of the counties included for this event so the losses here cover the total of the counties. Also, remember that the loss estimates are in the dollars for the year of the event, so the 2003 losses are in 2003 dollars. When looking at multiple events in different years, you will need to inflate all of the loss numbers to current values so you are comparing “apples to apples”. To estimate losses per county, you can divide the total losses by the number of counties. Based on this drought data, we see that we have reported events from 1996 to 2011 [because no events were reported between 2003 and present (2011)], so this is the period we will consider—15 years. After we inflate our losses to current dollars, we find that we have over $41 million in losses over a 15 year period, so on average we may assume that Butler County may experience over $2.7 million annually in losses due to drought. You could possibly go one step further: Loss ratio is calculated as a percentage of losses to exposure, so if the county will potentially have $2.7 million in crops losses each year out of the $284 million in crops (got crop value from 2007 Agriculture census and inflated to current 2011 dollars) that reside in the county, then nearly 1% (0.97%) of those crops could be lost each year as a result of drought. The table presented is an example of a possible potential loss estimation. 81

Using NCDC data to help estimate potential losses: -hail loss estimates for Harrison County, MS Here is another example for using NCDC data to estimate losses, in this case, for hail in Harrison County, Mississippi. For this hazard, the plan developer queried the NCDC database for hail events since 1950 in the county, we find the list of events. After removing/combining duplicate entries and inflating each loss to current dollars (2008 in this case, when this plan was completed). This analysis found very little property damage (less than $1,000, which the County considered “negligible”), which when compared to the total assessed value of all buildings in the county caused very little concern regarding potential future damage resulting form hail. As you see here on the slide, the methodology for estimating losses was described (see bullets) and the last paragraph summarizes the results of the analysis. 82 Reference: Harrison County, MS Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Use Hazus to Estimate Losses
U.S. Multi-Hazards Risk Assessment Tool FEMA product GIS based software To inventory assets To estimate damages from: flood, earthquake, and hurricane winds Training is available at: Emergency Management Institute (EMI) ESRI (online) One methodology available for loss estimation of flooding, earthquakes and hurricanes is Hazus. Hazus is GIS-based software offered by FEMA and used to estimate potential losses from disasters. Hazus uses national databases and applies a standardized loss estimation and risk assessment methodology. It utilizes data on demographic characteristics, structure stock, essential facilities, transportation, and utilities to estimate losses. Many jurisdictions use this software in developing a mitigation plan. The Hazus database can also be used as a source for structural and infrastructure data. Training for Hazus may be obtained at FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute (EMI) or from a field-deployed course sponsored by your State. Information about training opportunities is available from the SHMO or State Training Officer. FEMA has used Hazus to develop national annualized loss estimates for earthquake (2006- See FEMA 366 publication), hurricane (2007) and flood (2010). Next we will look at two examples of how Hazus may be used to estimate losses.

Suggestions Hazus Calculations (Flood) Hazus can be used to estimate potential losses. The Jackson County, Illinois includes Hazus estimated loss amounts from a 100-year or 1-percent-annaul-chance flood. To get a more accurate calculation, the County used parcel point data with the generated Hazus data. Using the flood depth grid for a 100-year return period with County parcel data, Hazus calculated that 1,232 structures would be damaged resulting in $63 million in structural losses. Reference: Johnson County, IN Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Suggestions Hazus Calculations (Earthquake) Monmouth County, New Jersey used Hazus to estimate loss amounts from potential earthquakes. Estimated losses for a 100-year earthquake event in Monmouth County are considered to be negligible (less than $5,000) as stated in the plan, so this table shows estimated potential losses for 500-, 1,000-, and 2,500-year events for each municipality. As you can see, the estimated losses are much smaller than the value of exposed structures, indicating low vulnerability. Reference: Monmouth County, NJ Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

CFR §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 jurisdiction so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. How is the area expected to develop over the next 10, 20, 50 years? Determine potential location and types of future development Approved or anticipated Review land use or comprehensive plan Analyze development trends Talk to jurisdiction officials, developers Land use and development trends should be analyzed. This is not required but strongly recommended. Note that land uses and development trends are two separate issues that should not be confused. During the plan development process, plan author(s) analyze jurisdictional information to determine the location of future development. If the jurisdiction participates in comprehensive planning, such data will be readily available in the comprehensive plan or land use plan. The plan author(s) can also talk to local, County, and State officials to identify areas where developers are interested in structure new residential or commercial structures. When these resources are not available, this information should be included in the plan. In the plan, provide a general overview of types, density, pace, and locations of future land use. If no new development is anticipated, plan authors must state this clearly in the plan and explain how this conclusion was drawn. If no comprehensive or future land use plan has been developed, document development patterns over the past 10 years or so for different types of land use (residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, etc.). That information can be used to describe anticipated development. It will be important to know whether new development has been occurring along streams, on steep slopes, or near forested land. This type of development could result in higher losses from flooding, landslide, or wildfire.

Assessing Vulnerability – Existing Land Use and Critical Facilities
Goodhue County Will the build out to 2015 impact proposed hazard mitigation actions? For example, are any heavily commercialized zones located in flood boundaries? If the answer to this question is “Yes.” then the city should consider mitigation actions for protecting or limiting future development in these hazard areas. 87

CFR §201.6(c)(2) (iii): For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction’s risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. For each jurisdiction, identify and assess all hazards that may affect it or any part of it Describe exactly which jurisdictions are affected by each hazard or say that a hazard affects the entire planning area equally Jurisdiction Flood Earthquake Winter Storms Tornado Landslide Wildfire Winter, Town of X X Spring Lake, City of Windsong, Town of X Multi-jurisdiction plans must include a risk assessment that fully addresses each hazard to which any part of any jurisdiction participating in the plan is vulnerable. Some risks are common throughout a jurisdiction or throughout all of the planning area in a multi-jurisdictional plan, such as earthquake, winter storm and tornado. For such risks, the plan should identify that risk as uniform across the planning area. A range of mitigation actions can be developed for consideration by all jurisdictions. Other risks have geographically specific limits, affecting some jurisdictions or parts of some jurisdictions more than others, such as flood, landslide and wildfire. For example, one jurisdiction might have a heavy concentration of mobile homes vulnerable to flooding, while another might not. Note that the larger the planning area, the more likely it is that risks will vary. Some low-population planning areas could be relatively homogenous in nature throughout. This fact should be included in the plan, along with supporting data. The plan must specify whether risks are common throughout the planning area or unique to particular parts of the planning area. The plan author must explain which jurisdictions are at risk for each hazard. This may be illustrated by using a matrix or table.

Section 1 – Risk Assessment
Any Questions?? We have completed Section 1 of the workshop focusing on risk assessment in general. Does anyone have any questions before we move on to talk about the nuances of risk assessment for multi-jurisdictional plans and plan updates in Sections 2 and 3?

Section 2 - Multi-Jurisdiction Plans
Multi-jurisdiction plans bring local governments together in a cooperative effort of planning and risk management. Local governments rely on mutual aid agreements and cooperative municipal service agreements and multi- jurisdictional planning is consistent these trends. risk assessments for multi-jurisdictional plans should present the “big picture” for the entire county and should also include community specific risk information. Multi-jurisdictional plans should demonstrate that local jurisdiction worked together in formulating the plan. Now let’s move to Section 2 and discuss some of the nuances of doing a risk assessment for a multi-jurisdictional plan that includes multiple areas. While it is true that each participating jurisdiction may have Risk Assessments that vary to some degree, the multi-jurisdiction plan must also present information for the planning area as a whole so the “big picture” of risk across the entire planning area is conveyed. The multi-jurisdiction plan is not just a series of single-jurisdiction plans under one cover. Conducting completely individual Risk Analyses for each jurisdiction could also lead to misleading hazard identification. An example would be the situation where one jurisdiction chooses “thunderstorms” as a hazard while a nearby jurisdiction does not.

Multi-Jurisdiction Plans
Updated multi-jurisdiction plans must include information on which cities are in the updated plan OR dropped out of the plan. Update risk assessment to add or subtract jurisdictions and their risk information If risk and vulnerability are the same for Cities A, B, C…indicate this! Show differences in jurisdictions where appropriate Describe how each jurisdiction will participate in the plan. Describe specific mitigation actions each jurisdiction will adopt. For updated multi-jurisdictional plans, if new jurisdictions have been identified, the risk assessment must include these new jurisdictions or indicate if previous jurisdictions are no longer participating. If the list of jurisdictions has not changed, this must be stated. If risk and vulnerability is the same for all jurisdictions this must be stated. If risk and vulnerability are different, describe the differences between the multiple jurisdictions. For example, one jurisdiction may have SFHAs while another jurisdiction has none.

Multi-Jurisdiction Plans
Identify & address each hazard that might affect all or any part of any jurisdictions involved When wide variances exist between the list of hazards for different participating jurisdictions, support that variance with data explaining why a hazard impacts one planning area but not another If data limitations prevent a full risk assessment, explain the situation and provide strategy for obtaining the data at the next plan update in 5 years Let’s talk about a few specifics for identifying hazards in multi-jurisdiction plans. When developing a multi-jurisdiction plan, identify those hazards that affect all jurisdictions equally, such as winter storm, hail, lightning, or tornadoes. It should be clearly stated in the plan that these hazards can be area-wide in their impact. The plan developer’s hazard identification process might be more easily conducted on an area-wide basis. Failure to do this could result in unsupported variation in hazard selection from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, it would not make sense for one jurisdiction to identify lightning as a hazard, while a nearby jurisdiction does not, absent other factors. If a situation exists justifying a variation in hazard identification, this should be explained in the plan. For example, the housing of one jurisdiction could be comprised of a large percentage of mobile homes. This jurisdiction may be more vulnerable to tornado damages than others. Hazard history variations between jurisdictions should be explained in the plan. For multi-jurisdiction plans, be specific in describing the extent of each hazard in each jurisdiction, and particularly the relevant jurisdiction characteristics, such as geography, geology, topography and vegetative cover. For those hazards that are jurisdiction-specific, location descriptions and/or maps must include sufficient information. For example, flood maps that are county-wide may not be detailed enough to show flood hazard locations in the individual communities. After identifying area-wide hazards, then identify those which vary in their impact by jurisdiction, such as flooding. The Risk Assessment for these hazards must be performed on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. An easy way to illustrate this analysis in the plan narrative is by using a table listing the hazards and the participating jurisdictions. Multi-jurisdiction plans must fully address all hazards that might affect any one of the jurisdictions represented by the plan. No potential hazard may be overlooked or omitted from the analysis. For example, a multi-jurisdiction planning effort involving several jurisdictions may include only one jurisdiction bordering land prone to wildfire. Nonetheless, the plan must include an assessment of the risk of wildfire. If the plan lacks data regarding a certain aspect of a geographically specific hazard (location, extent, history, or probability of future occurrences), the plan should identify those jurisdictions lacking data. Those jurisdictions can then formulate actions in the mitigation strategy section to address those data limitations as part of the plan update process.

Section 3 - Plan Updates Take Note!!
Remember that the Plan Update is a new document, and is not just an annex to the approved plan — it stands on its own as a complete and current plan. Now lets talk about plan updates. Remember that the Plan Update is a new document and not just an annex to the approved plan. It is a stand-alone document that summarizes the planning area’s past, present, and future hazards and hazard mitigation actions.

Plan Updates Explain how the previous hazard identification section was reviewed during the plan update process Specify how the new hazard identification process is different Identify and explain inclusion of new hazards or deletion of previously identified hazards Review current state plan to determine if hazards have been added since previous plan approval If no new hazards are identified, explain why The updated plan must include a description of the process used to review the previously approved plan’s hazards. New hazards should be identified. If new hazards are added, then the risk to each jurisdiction must be assessed. If the list of hazards remains the same, explain why. Be sure to review the current State plan to determine if hazards have been added since the previous plan was approved. Note that plan updates should include explanations for any changes in hazard location information. If no changes have occurred, the plan should include this statement.

Plan Updates If improved hazard descriptions are available, they should be incorporated Note that plan updates should explain any changes in hazard location, and provide data to support this If improved descriptions of hazards are available for the five-year update, they should be incorporated into the risk assessment. Note that plan updates should include explanations for any changes in hazard location information. If no changes have occurred, the plan should include this statement. If new hazards are added, then the risk to each jurisdiction must be assessed.

Plan Updates Describe the recent history of hazard events—how has recent experience influenced local priorities and local mitigation strategies. Differences between jurisdictions may mean that an event is more severe in some areas and less severe in others. If the severity of a hazard is the same for all jurisdictions, state that in the text. If a ranking/scoring process is used, explain any changes to the scoring process or results. Differences in topography, vegetation, or the built environment can make an event more severe in some areas and less severe in others. This may vary greatly across large planning areas or multiple jurisdictions. If the severity of a hazard is the same for all jurisdictions, that fact should be stated in the plan narrative. Describe extent of each hazard in each jurisdiction using relevant characteristics, for example, flood inundation reaching a certain location. Explain any changes in the extent of hazards; if there have been no changes, state this. Explain how data deficiencies were addressed in the updated plan. If a scoring process was used in the previous plan( e.g., risk index, ranking, etc), the plan update must explain any changes to the scoring process or results. If there have been no changes, state this.

Plan Update Process Review the most recent State Plan to see if new hazards have been added – consider adding these new hazards to the local plan Incorporate additional and updated information on hazards – for example, the historical hazard events during the 5 years between the original plan and plan update should be included in the update Include a current inventory of existing and proposed structures, infrastructure, and critical facilities located within identified hazard areas. Identify any new structures that have been built since the last plan update. The update MUST address how previously identified data limitations were addressed and incorporated – failure to address must be explained Plan authors should review the most recent State Plan to see if new hazards have been added – consider adding new hazards to the local plan. Incorporate additional and updated information on hazards. For example, the historical hazard events during the 5 years between the original plan and plan update should be included in the update Include a current inventory of existing and proposed structures, infrastructure, and critical facilities located within identified hazard areas. If values haven’t changed then state this. The update MUST address how previously identified data limitations were addressed and incorporated – failure to address must be explained. Outline how previous plan data deficiencies were addressed and resolved. If data deficiencies were addressed, explain any changes in the information. If no changes occurred, state this in the plan. If data deficiencies were unable to be resolved, state why in plan.

Plan Update Process VERY IMPORTANT!!
Outline any changes brought on by mitigation projects completed or in the works Describe changes that have occurred in the planning area since the previously approved plan, such as the loss of a major employer, new road construction, etc. If the planning area was part of a recent presidentially declared disaster, SBA disaster, state disaster, etc. – include a summary of the impact of those occurrences Changes in NFIP status or FIRMs must be noted Attribute any new hazards to the appropriate jurisdiction(s) or to the planning area as a whole. If the list of hazards has not changed, this must be stated. Outline any changes brought on by mitigation projects completed or in the works. Describe changes that have occurred in the planning area since the previously approved plan, such as the loss of a major employer, new road construction, etc. If the planning area was part of a recent presidentially declared disaster, Small Business Administration disaster, state disaster, etc. – include a summary of the impact of those occurrences Changes in NFIP status or FIRMs must be noted For updated plans, if new hazards have been identified in the multi-jurisdictional risk assessment, the plan must attribute these new hazards to the appropriate jurisdiction or to the planning area as a whole. If the list of hazards has not changed, this must be stated.

Wrap Up Questions? Comments?
Any questions or comments on what we have discussed today? Let’s wrap up….

Ultimate Source: “The Blue Book”
This Workshop, based on FEMA guidance (the Blue Book), included the following subsections: Identifying Hazards Profiling Hazards Assessing Vulnerability: Overview Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends Multi-jurisdictional Risk Assessment The “Blue Book” is FEMA’s, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance. It includes specific references to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and is the ultimate resource when plan authors’ questions. The Risk Assessment Workshop, based on the Blue Book, includes the following subsections: Identifying Hazards Profiling Hazards Assessing Vulnerability: Overview Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends Multi-jurisdictional Risk Assessment In 2011, FEMA is revising this guidance as well as other tools .

Contact Information Ron Davis State Hazard Mitigation Officer Illinois Emergency Management Agency Bryan Purchis Mitigation Planner Contact Information: Regional contact information

Hazard Mitigation Planning

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Hazard Mitigation Planning"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Hazard Mitigation Planning

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Hazard Mitigation Planning"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback