3.2 - Project Tasks

TARGETED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE:Ulster County, New YorkMulti-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Planning Project

Task Deliverable Days Date if NTP = July 15, 2007

7/15/2007Proposal NTP Actual NTP

7/14/2007 10/15/20071 Project Initiation Meeting - Refinement of Work Plan 15 days from NTP 07/29/07 10/30/20072 Establish the Planning Committee 30 days from Task 1 08/28/07 11/29/20073 Project Kickoff Presentation with the Planning Committee 45 days from Task 1 09/12/07 12/14/20074 Outreach Tools 45 days from Task 1 09/12/07 12/14/20075 Review of Available Data 60 days from Task 2 10/27/07 1/28/20086 Identify Hazards 30 days from Task 5 11/26/07 2/27/20087 Profile Hazards 60 days from Task 6 01/25/08 4/27/2008

9B Land Uses and Development Trends in Hazard Areas 60 days from Task 3 11/11/07 2/12/20088 Asset Inventory 30 days from Task 9b 12/11/07 3/13/2008

9A Vulnerabilities Assessment 30 days from Task 8 01/10/08 4/12/200810 Research of Mitigation Alternatives 30 days from Task 9A 02/09/08 5/12/200811 Risk Assessment Meeting TBD by County tbd tbd12 Risk Assessment Interim Deliverable 30 days from Task 10 03/10/08 6/11/200813 Risk Assessment Q&A Session 15 days from Task 12 03/25/08 6/26/200814 Capability Assessment 150 days from NTP 12/11/07 3/13/200815 Mitigation Strategy 30 days from Task 13 04/24/08 7/26/200816 Plan Maintenance Procedures 210 days from NTP 02/09/08 5/12/200817 Plan Integration Strategy 210 days from NTP 02/09/08 5/12/200818 Draft to NYSEMO fixed per RFP 05/12/08 8/13/200819 Final 60 days from coordinated comments on draft 11/12/08 11/12/2008

of 49 Response to Ulster County, NY #RFP-UC07-51 for Hazard Mitigation Planning Consulting Services May 24, 2007

Our Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan for Nassau County, New York (approved by FEMA in February 2007) is included in our proposal package as a representation of the targeted final deliverable for Ulster County particularly regarding outline, graphics, setup, and content. Approximately 90 percent of the team members assigned to the Nassau project have also been selected for the Ulster project. Task 1 – Project Initiation Meeting with UCECEM and Wish List (Meeting #1)

third, it facilitates a feeling of ownership in the final plan amongst participating jurisdictions, since they play such a key role in its development.

To maximize efficiency, URS is proposing to attend a total of six meetings over the course of the project. Our attendance will be geared to points in the project process where key information is needed from the Planning Group, where key milestones/work products need to be presented to the Planning Group, or where key decisions need to be made. We strongly support and recommend that the Planning Group may wish to meet on a regular basis on its own simply to maintain continuity but would suggest that the Group convene only when there is a clear agenda and desired outcome, not simply meeting for the sake of having a meeting. Our experience shows that conducting meetings too frequently can sometimes place undo stress on the committee members, particularly through the summer months and holiday periods where inherently it is difficult to get attendance at meetings due to team member vacation schedules.

In terms of the final plan deliverable, we envision a product looking much like the FEMA-approved plan we recently prepared for Nassau County, New York. The outline of this plan and graphics, setup, content, etc. are an excellent representation of what Ulster County might expect to see in terms of a final product from URS. We have included in our proposal submittal five copies of this plan for your perusal.

3.2 - Project Tasks Task 1 – Project Initiation Meeting – Refinement of Work Plan. Once price and scope are agreed upon and we receive Notification of Award, URS will meet with the UCECEM to review the final Scope of Services and tasks, scheduling and milestones so that all parties actively involved in the process have a clear understanding of expectations and when information will be needed or decisions made. At this time the level of “soft matching” costs will be more clearly defined with the level of County labor support clearly defined, and a rapport established between the URS Project Manager and the County staff to be assigned to this project. URS will bring to this meeting a “wish list” detailing the information that, if available, would be beneficial in conducting the study and preparing the plan. URS proposes that the County distribute the “wish list” to all participating jurisdictions as soon as possible after the Task 1 meeting, as URS will require available information promptly at the project outset in order to maintain this project’s schedule. It is anticipated that the data identified by URS and determined to be available will be assembled by participating jurisdictions and forwarded to the County, who will then provide the full package of information to URS for our use through the remainder of the project. URS has proposed this relatively hands-off approach in terms of gathering data from local municipalities in order to minimize our fee and maximize the unique expertise we are able to offer to the planning process. The cooperation and quality of data obtained from each of the parties will ultimately determine the quality of the final Hazard Mitigation Plan. URS will create a tracking log of information received (along with the person who submitted the information, their affiliation, and the date it was provided) for

2 of 49 Response to Ulster County, NY #RFP-UC07-51 for Hazard Mitigation Planning Consulting Services May 24, 2007

Task 2 - Guidance Memorandum and Sample Letter

inclusion in the plan as a means of documenting how each jurisdiction participated.

Task 2 – Establish the Planning Committee To best serve the County’s population, participation of the public and other stakeholders in the hazard mitigation planning process is essential to provide local information to the planners; to identify potential risks and impacts; and to help develop, evaluate, and prioritize projects to mitigate those impacts. The first step in establishing the Committee will be to measure the level and source of community support and to determine if the community (that is: local officials, the general public, and other stakeholders) has the knowledge, support, and resources to begin the process. Consideration will be given to representation from local government agencies; business owners and operators; interested citizens; neighborhood groups and other non-profit organizations and associations; state, regional, and local government representatives; businesses and development organizations; elected officials; federal agency representatives; and academic institutions. The planning team can often be built around existing organizations or boards with smaller subgroups established in cases where the number of stakeholders is too large for effective discussion of issues.

URS can offer unique experienced support to help the County and the Core Planning Group to organize their resources to undertake this effort in a way that maximizes involvement and assures compliance with applicable regulations. We propose to accomplish this objective in three ways:

First, at the outset of the project, URS will provide to the UCECEM a guidance memorandum with suggestions for assessing community support, building the planning team, and engaging the public and other stakeholders throughout the plan development process and prior to plan approval. In this memorandum, URS will describe criteria used in other hazard mitigation planning projects, and provide guidance on how to do so in a manner that will meet FEMA’s requirements. It is our experience that this selection process varies significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and URS will work with County officials and the Core Planning Group to develop a process that is appropriate for Ulster County.

Second, URS will provide to the UCECEM a sample letter that can be sent to various potential team members requesting their representation in the process. Both the guidance memorandum and sample letter will be provided to the UCECEM within two weeks of contract execution and receipt of a notice to proceed.

Task 3 – Project Initiation Kickoff Presentation with the Planning Team After the Planning Committee is established, URS will be available to attend and take the lead role at a Project Initiation Kickoff Presentation of the

URS will:

• Describe criteria to aide County in establishing the committee

• Provide a sample letter on the planning process for soliciting participation


Task 3 – Kickoff Presentation (Meeting #2) Task 4 – Fact Sheet and Web Site Support as Outreach Tools

Planning Team. URS suggests that in addition to the Core Planning Group and the remainder of the planning team, UCECEM should invite the public and other stakeholders as well to assist in meeting the FEMA public involvement requirements. In this manner URS will be able to meet with the County and all local governments affected by the plan prior to beginning the planning process. One of the purposes of this meeting will be to inspire the Planning Team with the importance of this project and to gain public support of the initiation. URS will lead the discussion, and prepare a PowerPoint presentation for this meeting, describing the purpose and need for the project and a summary of the FEMA regulations.

At the meeting, URS will prepare and distribute a sign-in sheet that will be used to keep a log of team member participation, used later as part of the documentation for FEMA’s review. Each Planning Team member will be asked to provide email addresses to facilitate information distribution and coordination throughout the process. URS will use this information to track participation for inclusion in the plan. Again, in the interest of keeping our fee to a minimum and providing the County with most efficient use of available funds for this project, we are proposing that County staff will prepare and distribute meeting invitations, distribute meeting minutes, and secure a meeting date, time, and location.

Task 4 – Outreach Tools

First, under this task, URS will prepare a Fact Sheet for the County and Participating Jurisdictions to use to reach out to the public and other stakeholders in their jurisdictions to educate them on the planning process, intent of the project, and how they can become involved. The fact sheet will be provided to UCECEM electronically in PDF format. UCECEM will then distribute to participating jurisdictions, the public, and other stakeholders. The fact sheet can be posted in common locations throughout the County (i.e., town halls, libraries, etc.); can be used as a means for targeted outreach to key stakeholders; can be distributed at conferences, fairs, etc.; and can be posted on the web site and in document repositories. The fact sheet can be used as an outreach tool by both the County and each participating jurisdiction.

Second, URS will provide a sample hazard mitigation planning web component for the County OEM web site. Again, while we have the capability and capacity to build web sites, we are proposing to present some ideas to the County in the form of a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation, which contains general format and content for the mitigation planning web site. The County could in turn use their own I.T. staff members as a means of cutting costs and utilizing a limited budget for contractor support on the planning project tasks for which the County may not have the capability. We have used this approach in the past for Nassau County, NY and Burlington County, NJ and we invite you to contact our references for those clients to obtain their feedback on this approach. While the County would create and maintain the central web site, local participating jurisdictions could add a link on their own municipal web sites to the overall multi-jurisdictional project information posted at the County level. Again, we have successfully implemented this approach in the past as a means of supporting our clients and giving them tools for conducting outreach


Task 5 – Data Review Task 6 – Hazard Identification and Questionnaire

to the public and other stakeholders.

Task 5 – Review of Available Data URS will work primarily from the “wish list” information received through UCECEM from representatives of the participating local jurisdictions. We will supplement this step with research of readily available online information from reputable sources, including web sites such as the US Geological Survey (USGS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), New York State Emergency Management Office (NYSEMO), US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), etc.

Identifying Hazards Task 6 - Hazard Identification URS will evaluate a full range of natural hazards in order to determine which hazards could potentially affect the County. Then, through research and coordination with local County representatives (in part through a Hazard Identification Questionnaire), we will identify the subset of natural hazards that are most likely to affect the County. Available on-line information will be used in conjunction with coordination with other Federal, state, and/or local agencies, to identify areas of greatest hazard. The process will include, but is not limited to, evaluations of available agency data and mapping such as earthquake hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, FEMA flood maps, wind zones, erosion hazard areas. The remainder of the plan development process will focus solely on the hazards found to be most prevalent in the County. URS is well versed in all the natural hazards and their likely impacts having been directly involved in a post-disaster environment, following the fires in the Hollywood Hills of California, ice storms in Pennsylvania and New York, the Loma Prieta earthquake in California, numerous hurricanes and northeasters along the eastern seaboard, tornadoes throughout the country, and of course riverine flooding, including that resulting from dam breaks. At the completion of this step, URS will prepare a questionnaire to provide opportunities for input regarding the relative significance of the identified hazards (reflecting findings on historical occurrences, damage levels, injury and loss of life, cost, and probabilities of future occurrence). URS will provide this questionnaire to the County, who will distribute to the Planning Group, and forward Group responses back to URS. Participating jurisdictions will be asked to document their concurrence with our


Task 7 – Hazard Profiles

determinations, and to provide local information on past hazard occurrences in their communities.

Profiling Hazards Task 7 - Hazard Profiles Based on the results of Task 6, and using readily available data in concert with responses received during the Hazard Identification step, URS will initiate the Hazard Profile step, which attempts to describe each hazard and discuss the location of the hazard area, its extent (magnitude or severity), previous occurrences of the hazard, and its probability or likelihood of future occurrence. As stated above, from over 20 years of post-disaster response for FEMA, URS is well-versed in assessing the magnitude of impact that is likely from virtually every type of natural disaster. The objective of this task is to expand on the findings from Task 6, to provide a more detailed analysis of the characteristics of the hazards that potentially affect Ulster County. Where data allows, one of the products of the Profile step will be a series of hazard maps in a GIS format that delineates the areas of highest risk to the identified hazards.

Hazard profiles will be prepared to define hazards in terms of previous events, probability or likelihood of occurrence, physical characteristics, anticipated area(s) of affect, potential severity of the hazard’s occurrence, and any factors in the County that may exacerbate the severity of such hazards. Our team will rely heavily on the National Climate Data Center’s Storm Event database to identify and document historical hazard occurrences.

URS will ensure that the hazard profile section of the plan includes:

Historical occurrences of hazards in Ulster County or adjacent communities, including damages that have occurred, costs of recovery, injuries and lives lost, and level of severity; and

Characterization of each hazard, including the geographical extent of the hazard (if relevant) displayed on GIS based mapping; duration and intensity of the hazard events; the probability or likelihood that the hazard event would affect various areas of the County; and county conditions (e.g., meteorological conditions, topography, etc.) that may make these areas more or less vulnerable to the hazards.

One of the more important components of these characterizations is to gain an understanding of which of the identified hazards has the potential for a large scale event. URS will customize and apply the same type of criteria that we have found successful for other Counties in to this effort.

URS’ experience in post-disaster response provides firsthand knowledge in types of impacts to expect.


Task 8 – Identification and Characterization of Assets (Overall Versus Percent In Hazard Areas) Task 9 – Vulnerability Assessment (Land Uses and Development Trends, Questionnaire, and Loss Estimation)

Identifying and Characterizing Assets Task 8 – Asset Inventory To meet FEMA criteria, the plan must provide an overall summary of each hazard and its potential impact on the County. To accomplish this objective, potential impacts will be quantified first by identifying and characterizing assets at risk within hazard areas. URS will provide as comprehensive an inventory as possible of buildings, critical facilities and infrastructure within identified hazardous areas that will then be used in later steps to estimate losses. Characteristics of the assets located in each hazard area will be identified to the greatest extent practicable given data limitations. Using the best readily available data, this will include the number and type of existing and expected future assets within each hazard area. URS would prefer to use County GIS data sets, if they are readily available and can be provided to us within 2 months from the project outset. As an alternate means of accomplishing this objective if the case should be such that County GIS data is not readily available for use by URS, this task can rely on readily available national GIS inventories of transportation and utility lifelines and essential facilities that FEMA has prepared for all states.

URS shall quantify the impact of potential disasters by comparing assets County-wide to the percentage of these assets located in hazard areas. URS shall then relate these percentages to the anticipated potential impact of each hazard on the County.

URS will use Committee feedback obtained in Task 9B regarding anticipated and/or planned land uses and development trends to determine whether community assets in hazard areas will likely increase or decrease over time (for example, after fifty (50) years), and the extent of such change.

Estimating Losses Task 9 – Vulnerability Assessment

9A. Estimating Losses URS will use GIS-driven analysis when property value information is available (either through detailed parcel data or through aggregated data sources like the US Census) to provide comparative estimates of hazard associated losses for further ranking and prioritization of efforts for mitigation by overlaying the hazard area with the property value data and considering the relative vulnerability to the hazard. Information shall be presented in text format, at a minimum, with associated mapping, as applicable. Given that there are limited resources to implement mitigation projects and the time horizon for the plan (once finalized and adopted), as prescribed by federal law is five (5) years, this task will highlight the areas where the greatest risk occurs and the greatest benefit from mitigation could result. Where applicable, we shall focus on key assets (i.e., sensitive populations such as nursing homes or hospitals, dense populations, and high-value development) so that the initial attention of the Plan can be focused on the most vulnerable assets. The methodologies used to


Task 10 – Types of Hazard Mitigation Options For Identified Hazards; Mitigation Options Questionnaire

estimate potential losses to identified hazards will be fully described in the plan to assure replication and ease of future updates to the vulnerability assessment periodically over time.

9B. Land Uses and Development Trends The vulnerability assessment will provide an overall summary of each hazard’s potential impact based upon an inventory of existing and future development in the identified hazard areas. In this step, URS will also facilitate the determination of which community assets are in harm’s way based on current conditions and on expected changes in land development and demographics. URS will prepare a questionnaire for participating jurisdiction’s to complete and submit back to URS. Through the questionnaire, each participating jurisdiction will summarize development trends (planned, and expected future) in their community. It is assumed that GIS-based land use maps will be available for the County and participating jurisdictions. URS will use the GIS maps combined with questionnaire responses to evaluate land uses and development trends in relation to each identified hazard, with an eye toward intensified use in or near the hazard areas. URS will supplement this with information provided by UCECEM, which could include state/county reports, local zoning maps and local master plans. Information obtained will provide the basis for projecting future trends and for evaluating potential institutional changes as a nonstructural mitigation solution in subsequent tasks. The plan will strive to identify any new development that is planned (or potentially anticipated, based on current development trends and zoning) within a hazard area. Feedback will be required from the Core Planning Group and appropriate land use/zoning officials within the jurisdiction (i.e., planner and/or planning board). To accomplish this, Planning Team members will distribute the Land Uses and Development Trends Questionnaire to appropriate officials within their respective communities, who will complete the form and return it to UCECEM, identifying approved developments that have not been implemented and any large developments that they might be anticipating in the future. This look into the future is important because development in hazard areas could put more assets at risk and, in turn, could work to increase potential disaster-related damages at a time when the mitigation plan’s purpose is to reduce the potential for damages emanating from disasters. URS will also coordinate directly with the County Planner in an effort to identify proposed or planned developments and identify areas slated for future development. Hazard Mitigation Strategy Task 10 - Research of Types of Mitigation Alternatives Using the expertise of our mitigation planners, civil and structural engineers, environmental scientists, and other specialists, URS will research appropriate types of mitigation alternatives and identify a series of types of mitigation options for each identified hazard. Input from the Core Planning Group (in the form of a Mitigation Options questionnaire) will be solicited to identify the

Approved yet not implemented development can be a source of increased losses in the future.


Task 11 – Risk Assessment Meeting (Meeting #3)

appropriate/preferred mitigation measures through consideration of the following general approaches:

Preventive measures (i.e., regulations and building codes, etc.); Property protection (i.e., hurricane clips, structure elevation/retrofit,

etc.); Emergency services (i.e., redundant communications systems, etc.); Structural projects (i.e., floodwalls, channel improvements, dams, etc.); Natural resource protection (i.e., set aside flood prone land for parks,

etc.); and Public information (i.e., newsletters, information at civic association

meetings, etc.).

Task 11 - Risk Assessment Meeting URS will be available for one meeting at any time during the Risk Assessment phase of the project (Tasks 5 through 9). We are proposing to allow the County to identify a project stage when they feel our attendance would be the most beneficial to the participating team members. It is envisioned that the first part of the meeting will be a formal presentation (PowerPoint) to present an overview of project status, while the second part of the meeting would be a working session whereby URS would provide guidance to any participating jurisdictions in need of assistance with their completion of the requested questionnaires and feedback forms (specifically: Hazard Identification Questionnaire; Land Uses and Development Trends Questionnaire; Outreach Log; Mitigation Options Questionnaire; and Capability Assessment Questionnaire).

It is assumed that the County will schedule the meeting and invite team members. URS will prepare an agenda, sign in sheets, and PowerPoint presentation with applicable handouts. The County will prepare and distribute meeting minutes.

Since this meeting is intended to provide participants with guidance in completing questionnaires/forms, and given that URS needs these responses to complete the Risk Assessment, we suggest that the County schedule the meeting no later than 30 days after the Kickoff Presentation. It is, however, the county’s option to time this meeting at their discretion, and we will be happy to explore ideas for an alternate agenda.

URS is proposing to attend one meeting during the Risk Assessment phase of the project to maximize the use of the County’s available funding. We strongly support and recommend that the Planning Group may wish to meet on a regular basis on its own simply to maintain continuity but would suggest that to best work within the County’s targeted project budget and time frame, contractor attendance would only be needed at one meeting during this phase of the project. As with other aspects of this project where we have tailored our proposed approach to provide the County with the most efficient use of


Task 12 – Risk Assessment Interim Deliverable Task 13 – Q&A Session (Meeting #4) Task 14 – Assessing Capabilities (Local, State, and Federal)

available funding, we would certainly be happy to explore our attendance at additional meetings, at an added cost.

Task 12 – Risk Assessment Interim Deliverable URS shall prepare a Risk Assessment Interim Deliverable, summarizing Tasks 5-11, as working chapters to the overall plan. We are proposing to provide this deliverable in electronic format (Adobe PDF files) to the UCECEM, and that UCECEM will further distribute the document to participating jurisdictions, the public and other stakeholders. This approach has been identified to make the best use of the County’s available funding. As with other tasks, we would be happy to discuss an expanded role for URS at an added cost.

Task 13 – Risk Assessment Question and Answer Session with the Planning Committee After the completion of Task 12 URS shall be available to attend a question and answer and discussion session with the Planning Team regarding the Risk Assessment Interim Deliverable document. This will be strictly a working session with an informal structure to solicit input from the Team. URS suggests that the Core Planning Group invite the public and other stakeholders as well to assist in meeting the FEMA public involvement requirements. URS will come prepared with some PowerPoint slides available in anticipation of questions which may arise, to supplement discussions. The County will maintain an attendance log, prepare meeting minutes, provide the minutes to the Planning Team via email, and retain them for later inclusion in the plan appendix. Task 14 – Capability Assessment The objectives of this subtask are to determine the successes and shortfalls of the Ulster County plans, policies, programs, and projects; and to identify existing and untapped resources. As Core Planning Group members have the greatest knowledge of their individual communities, in order to maximize efficiency, the focus of this analysis will be the Core Planning Group itself. It will consist of an in-depth look at the mechanisms that affect hazard mitigation activities, roles, and responsibilities in Ulster County. URS will guide the Core Planning Group through the process of evaluating and identifying the capabilities of the County and participating partners’ policies, procedures, programs and regulatory ordinances for Plan implementation. This will be done through examining government development plans, ordinances, and regulations (including building codes, subdivision regulations, etc.), and relevant programs. FEMA has capability assessment worksheets available on-

FEMA’s capability assessment questionnaire is a series of worksheets which ask the preparer to document community agencies/departments/ organizations and their missions, functions, programs, plans, policies, regulations, funding, etc. of each group, in order to create an inventory of resources that can be brought to bear on mitigation efforts. It also walks preparers through a process of identifying regulatory, administrative, technical, and fiscal capacities and capabilities of each entity.


Task 15 – Working Session (Meeting #5)

line; URS is proposing to distribute these to participating jurisdictions at the project outset. Participating jurisdictions will be asked to complete these worksheets, and provide completed copies to URS. URS will support the Core Planning Group as they conduct a capability assessment of the regulatory, technological, informational, financial, and human resources available to the County and participating jurisdictions. While sounding like an ominous task, working under the direction of URS, this can be easily accomplished by the Core Planning Group members as they work their way through the FEMA form which for the most part requires a series of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ responses. URS will summarize capabilities at the State and Federal levels, and will incorporate the results of capability assessments completed by local jurisdictions. A disaster-resistant community should have in place a number of safeguards that control where and how development can occur. The following list includes many of the policy and regulatory documents to consider and evaluate, for both positive and negative impacts on community safety:

Building codes; Land use, zoning and subdivision regulations; Comprehensive plans; Capital improvement and transportation plans; Facilities and needs studies; Population growth and future development studies; Economic development plans; and Emergency management response and recovery plans.

Upon task completion, URS will incorporate results into the overall plan.

Task 15 – Mitigation Strategy Working Session After the team has had time to meet with their respective jurisdictional assessment teams to discuss mitigation strategy options and preferences, URS will meet with the Core Planning Group in a working session format to identify hazard mitigation goals and actions for the County. The team will be asked to evaluate mitigation measures based on FEMA’s “STAPLE+E” criteria, often used by communities preparing hazard mitigation plans, whereby alternative hazard mitigation actions are ‘scored’ as a function of their Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental factors. This analysis will be done in lieu of a formal benefit cost analysis. Informal, qualitative assessments of the comparative benefits and costs are sufficient to meet FEMA’s requirements. The STAPLE+E criteria has proven to meet FEMA’s requirements yet yields a more flexible result that will allow the County to meet its future obligations without being overly restrictive in the actions the County must take to be in compliance. After the actions have been ranked using the STAPLE+E criteria, URS will assist the participating jurisdictions in completing FEMA worksheets in order to assist them in documenting an implementation strategy for the highest-ranked mitigation actions based on STAPLE+E evaluation results. By completing this worksheet, participating jurisdictions will describe the activities, establish preliminary costs, identify responsible entities for action item implementation, and potential


Task 16 – Guidance Memorandum, Plan Maintenance Task 17 – Guidance Memorandum, Plan Integration

funding sources and target time frames for completion of the activity. URS will document feedback obtained from participating jurisdictions on their worksheets into the plan. Each participating jurisdiction must provide feedback at this juncture in order for the jurisdiction to be included in the FEMA-approved plan. URS will document results in such a way that actions are linked to specific jurisdictions and specific hazards. URS is very cognizant of local and County budgetary constraints and institutional hurdles that often play a key role in the decision making process and will be sensitive to these issues when developing a hazard mitigation strategy. Participants will be provided with the two ranking forms in advance (as part of the Risk Assessment Interim Deliverable), and will be asked to bring completed copies to the working session, where URS will provide support by answering any outstanding questions before they are collected.

Plan Maintenance Task 16 – Plan Maintenance Procedures Long-term plan maintenance will be the responsibility of the County and its participating jurisdictions and as such, the Core Planning Group’s input is paramount. URS is proposing a means of guiding the Core Planning Group through the process of developing a maintenance procedure that will be deemed acceptable by FEMA. URS will provide guidance on potential means to satisfy FEMA requirements regarding Plan monitoring, evaluation, and updates in the form of a brief memorandum that will be distributed to the Core Planning Group at the project outset. URS will include written guidance in the memorandum on specific Plan update procedures, including what could trigger a Plan update, who within the Planning Team or County would lead the effort to update the document, and the time frame in which the document would need to be updated. The Planning Team will need to consider URS’ recommendations and come to a consensus on a plan maintenance procedure. To maintain the schedule a consensus must be met within 30 days. URS suggests that the Planning Team provide sufficient time for public comment as well to assist in meeting the FEMA public involvement requirements. URS will incorporate the received Planning Team-identified plan maintenance procedure into the Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Task 17 – Plan Integration Strategy To meet FEMA requirements, the plan must include a process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvements plans, when appropriate. URS will assist the Core Planning Group in identifying a plan integration strategy for the County and its participating jurisdictions. URS staff will communicate with local jurisdiction and County planning departments to determine an initial course of action to best integrate the mitigation strategy. At the project outset, URS will prepare a memorandum of recommendations for integrating mitigation into job descriptions, comprehensive plans, capital improvement plans, zoning and building codes, site plan reviews, permitting, and other planning tools where such tools are the appropriate vehicles for implementation. Many of these initiatives will require adoption at the local or


Task 18 – The Draft Plan; Meeting #6 Task 19 – Comment Incorporation and the Final Plan

jurisdictional level. URS proposes to establish general requirements and then to solicit input from the participating jurisdictions on how they would best implement the recommendations into their local processes. The recommendations will be provided to the Core Planning Group via the Guidance Memorandum for their consideration. After a 30-day review period, URS will incorporate the Core Planning Group’s recommended plan integration procedure into the Hazard Mitigation Plan.

The Draft and Final Plan Task 18 – Draft Plan URS will prepare a Draft Plan documenting the process described above, and submit to the UCECEM one color electronic copy in PDF format that is “camera ready” for the purpose of County reproduction and distribution. It is assumed that the UCECEM will circulate the plan to participating jurisdictions and other agencies, including but not limited to NYSEMO, stakeholders, and the public for their review and comment and providing URS with one set of coordinated comments on the Draft Plan. URS will be available to attend one meeting on the Draft plan, at the discretion of the County.

Task 19 – Final Plan URS’ preparation of the Final Plan will be initiated upon receipt of coordinated comments from UCECEM on the Draft. Targeted completion for the Final Plan is 60 days from URS’ receipt of a single set of coordinated comments on the Draft. Please note that it is not uncommon for Federal and State review cycles to take several months. Within 60 days of receipt of coordinated comments on the Draft Plan, URS will provide to the UCECEM an electronic version of the Final Plan in PDF format along with a maximum of 30 bound color hard copies.

Note that FEMA strongly recommends that plans be

adopted by participating jurisdictions after the federal plan review is completed and all comments have been

adequately addressed. If local elected officials formally adopt plans before the FEMA review is

initiated, and if FEMA has comments, then the previously ‘adopted’ plan will be superseded when revisions are made to address the FEMA comments, and as such would need to go before elected officials yet again to be re-adopted. It is therefore recommended that the participating jurisdictions wait until after the

plan has been approved by FEMA before they formally adopt it. Upon receiving copies of all adoption resolutions, FEMA then gives their final

“stamp of approval”.

The Final Plan will have a placeholder appendix for a copy of the adoption


resolutions for each participating jurisdiction, which must be included for the plan to meet applicable regulations and guidance. URS will provide to the UCECEM a sample adoption resolution (at the project outset) for the convenience of the County and its participating jurisdictions. Each participating jurisdiction will coordinate with their respective elected officials to have the Final Plan formally adopted. Each participating jurisdiction needs to forward to UCECEM their respective adoption resolutions, including that of the County Freeholders. UCECEM must insert a copy of the official adoption resolutions into the appropriate appendix prior to submittal of the Final Plan to NYSEMO for their forwarding to FEMA for their final review and approval.

Assumptions

URS will work collaboratively with the Planning Team and seek input from the Planning Team during all phases of the plan development process. Our costs and schedules are generated assuming prompt responses from the Planning Team as well as active participation from its members in order to address DMA 2000 planning requirements within the timeframes allowed. We are up for the challenge, and will do everything we can to walk you through this process efficiently and effectively. FEMA needs to see that every “participating jurisdiction” did, in fact, actively participate in the plan development process; therefore, jurisdictions who are nonresponsive are jeopardizing their jurisdiction’s participation status. The plan can be approved by FEMA for some communities, and not for others, depending on the degree of participation by team members.

Our proposed strategies and measures will involve the collective efforts of the Planning Team and the URS staff. Our collective success in achieving the objective of a DMA 2000 compliant hazard mitigation plan will require teamwork and dedication from all parties. URS’ past history in working with similar planning teams, the public and other stakeholders has proven this can be accomplished. Due to the nature of the planning process, support will be required at the local level if the final plan is to be prepared according to schedule and to the standards required for FEMA approval. As consultants, URS can conduct the analyses required to arm local officials with the information they need to make sound decisions; yet, we cannot be the ones to make those decisions. URS will make every effort to guide the County Planning Team through the necessary steps to meet FEMA’s requirements and to document those steps, but it will be up to the Group to include the community, assess their alternatives, and ultimately select the course of action to be followed. The final mitigation plan is the County’s plan; as such, its success rests on the decisions and directions set by the stakeholders and staff members throughout the plan development process. We look forward to assisting Ulster County in its pursuit of this most important endeavor.

Meeting costs assume presentations by the URS Project Manager, who will prepare meeting PowerPoint presentations, agendas, handouts, sign in sheets, and meeting minutes. It is assumed that the County will prepare and distribute meeting invitations; set meeting dates, times, and locations;


and distribute meeting minutes. URS has identified this approach to make the best use of the fairly limited funding allotted for this project (as identified in the RFP). We would be happy to explore options for an increase URS role, at an added cost. Meeting costs assume preparation time, travel time, setup/takedown, and two hour meetings.

Cost and level of effort assumes that URS will identify a series of appropriate types of mitigation actions to address the identified hazards. URS will generally describe the particular options and their potential mitigation effectiveness and cost effectiveness, as well as implementation constraints based on conceptual level plan development.

URS will work with the County to develop its Hazard Mitigation Plan and perform risk identification and vulnerability assessments using criteria and methodologies identified based on applicable regulations (DMA 2000), criteria (44 CFR Part 201), and guidance (FEMA’s “Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000”, and its Mitigation Planning “How-To” guides).

L O C A L H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N R E V I E W C R O S S W A L K F E M A R E G I O N [ I N S E R T # ] J u r i s d i c t i o n :

Instructions for Using the Plan Review Crosswalk for Review of Local Mitigation Plans Attached is a Plan Review Crosswalk based on the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, published by FEMA, dated March 2004. This Plan Review Crosswalk is consistent with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390), enacted October 30, 2000 and 44 CFR Part 201 – Mitigation Planning, Interim Final Rule (the Rule), published February 26, 2002. SCORING SYSTEM N – Needs Improvement: The plan does not meet the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments must be provided. S – Satisfactory: The plan meets the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments are encouraged, but not required. Each requirement includes separate elements. All elements of a requirement must be rated “Satisfactory” in order for the requirement to be fulfilled and receive a summary score of “Satisfactory.” A “Needs Improvement” score on elements shaded in gray (recommended but not required) will not preclude the plan from passing. When reviewing single jurisdiction plans, reviewers may want to put an N/A in the boxes for multi-jurisdictional plan requirements. When reviewing multi-jurisdictional plans, reviewers may want to put an N/A in the prerequisite box for single jurisdiction plans. States that have additional requirements can add them in the appropriate sections of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance or create a new section and modify this Plan Review Crosswalk to record the score for those requirements. Optional matrices for assisting in the review of sections on profiling hazards, assessing vulnerability, and identifying and analyzing mitigation actions are found at the end of the Plan Review Crosswalk. The example below illustrates how to fill in the Plan Review Crosswalk.

Example Assessing Vulnerability: Overview Requirement §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 community.

SCORE Element

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #)

Reviewer’s Comments N S

A. Does the plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard?

Section II, pp. 4-10 The plan describes the types of assets that are located within geographically defined hazard areas as well as those that would be affected by winter storms.

B. Does the plan address the impact of each hazard on the jurisdiction?

Section II, pp. 10-20

The plan does not address the impact of two of the five hazards addressed in the plan. Required Revisions: • Include a description of the impact of floods and earthquakes on the assets. Recommended Revisions: • This information can be presented in terms of dollar value or percentages of damage.

SUMMARY SCORE

March 2004


Local Mitigation Plan Review and Approval Status Jurisdiction:

Title of Plan: Date of Plan:

Local Point of Contact: Title: Agency:

Address:

Phone Number:

E-Mail:

State Reviewer:

Title: Date:

FEMA Reviewer:

Title: Date:

Date Received in FEMA Region [Insert #]

Plan Not Approved

Plan Approved

Date Approved

NFIP Status*

Jurisdiction: Y N N/A CRS Class

1.

2.

3.

4.

5. [ATTACH PAGE(S) WITH ADDITIONAL JURISDICTIONS]

* Notes: Y = Participating N = Not Participating N/A = Not Mapped

March 2004 1

L O C A L H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N R E V I E W C R O S S W A L K F E M A R E G I O N [ I N S E R T # ] J u r i s d i c t i o n : L O C A L M I T I G A T I O N P L A N R E V I E W S U M M A R Y The plan cannot be approved if the plan has not been formally adopted.

Each requirement includes separate elements. All elements of the requirement must be rated “Satisfactory” in order for the requirement to be fulfilled and receive a score of “Satisfactory.” Elements of each requirement are listed on the following pages of the Plan Review Crosswalk. A “Needs Improvement” score on elements shaded in gray (recommended but not required) will not preclude the plan from passing. Reviewer’s comments must be provided for requirements receiving a “Needs Improvement” score.

SCORING SYSTEM

Please check one of the following for each requirement.

N – Needs Improvement: The plan does not meet the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments must be provided.

S – Satisfactory: The plan meets the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments are

encouraged, but not required.

Prerequisite(s) (Check Applicable Box) NOT MET MET Adoption by the Local Governing Body: §201.6(c)(5) OR

Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption: §201.6(c)(5)

AND

Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation: §201.6(a)(3)

Planning Process N S Documentation of the Planning Process: §201.6(b) and §201.6(c)(1)

Risk Assessment N S

Identifying Hazards: §201.6(c)(2)(i)

Profiling Hazards: §201.6(c)(2)(i)

Assessing Vulnerability: Overview: §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures: §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A)

Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses: §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B)

Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends: §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C) Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment: §201.6(c)(2)(iii)

Mitigation Strategy N S

Local Hazard Mitigation Goals: §201.6(c)(3)(i) Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions: §201.6(c)(3)(ii)

Implementation of Mitigation Actions: §201.6(c)(3)(iii)

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions: §201.6(c)(3)(iv)

Plan Maintenance Process N S Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan: §201.6(c)(4)(i)

Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms: §201.6(c)(4)(ii)

Continued Public Involvement: §201.6(c)(4)(iii)

Additional State Requirements* N S

Insert State Requirement



LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN APPROVAL STATUS

PLAN NOT APPROVED

PLAN APPROVED

*States that have additional requirements can add them in the appropriate sections of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance or create a new section and modify this Plan Review Crosswalk to record the score for those requirements. See Reviewer’s Comments

March 2004 2


March 2004 3

PREREQUISITE(S)

Adoption by the Local Governing Body Requirement §201.6(c)(5): [The local hazard mitigation plan shall include] documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council).

SCORE

Element

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments

NOT MET

MET

A. Has the local governing body adopted the plan? B. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution,

included?

SUMMARY SCORE

Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption Requirement §201.6(c)(5): For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted.

SCORE

Element

Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments

NOT MET

MET

A. Does the plan indicate the specific jurisdictions represented in the plan?

B. For each jurisdiction, has the local governing body adopted the plan?

C. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, included for each participating jurisdiction?

SUMMARY SCORE

Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation Requirement §201.6(a)(3): Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process … Statewide plans will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional plans.

SCORE Element


Reviewer’s Comments

NOT MET

MET

A. Does the plan describe how each jurisdiction participated in the plan’s development?

SUMMARY SCORE


March 2004 4

PLANNING PROCESS: §201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan.

Documentation of the Planning Process Requirement §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to

regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.

Requirement §201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.

SCORE Element



A. Does the plan provide a narrative description of the process followed to prepare the plan?

B. Does the plan indicate who was involved in the planning process? (For example, who led the development at the staff level and were there any external contributors such as contractors? Who participated on the plan committee, provided information, reviewed drafts, etc.?)

C. Does the plan indicate how the public was involved? (Was the public provided an opportunity to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to the plan approval?)

D. Was there an opportunity for neighboring communities, agencies, businesses, academia, nonprofits, and other interested parties to be involved in the planning process?

E. Does the planning process describe the review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information?

SUMMARY SCORE


March 2004 5

RISK ASSESSMENT: §201.6(c)(2): The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards.

Identifying Hazards Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type … of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction.

SCORE Element



A. Does the plan include a description of the types of all natural hazards that affect the jurisdiction?

If the hazard identification omits (without explanation) any hazards commonly recognized as threats to the jurisdiction, this part of the plan cannot receive a Satisfactory score.

Consult with the State Hazard Mitigation Officer to identify applicable hazards that may occur in the planning area.

SUMMARY SCORE

Profiling Hazards Requirement §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.

SCORE

Element



A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., geographic area affected) of each natural hazard addressed in the plan?

B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the plan?

C. Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each hazard addressed in the plan?

D. Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the plan?

SUMMARY SCORE


March 2004 6

Assessing Vulnerability: Overview Requirement §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 community.

SCORE Element



A. Does the plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard?

B. Does the plan address the impact of each hazard on the jurisdiction?

SUMMARY SCORE

Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area … .

SCORE Element



A. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?

Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from passing.

B. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?


SUMMARY SCORE

Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate … .

SCORE Element



A. Does the plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures?


B. Does the plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate?


SUMMARY SCORE


March 2004 7

Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.

SCORE Element



A. Does the plan describe land uses and development trends?


SUMMARY SCORE

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment Requirement §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.

SCORE Element



A. Does the plan include a risk assessment for each participating jurisdiction as needed to reflect unique or varied risks?

SUMMARY SCORE

MITIGATION STRATEGY: §201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools.

Local Hazard Mitigation Goals Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.

SCORE Element



A Does the plan include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? (GOALS are long-term; represent what the community wants to achieve, such as “eliminate flood damage”; and are based on the risk assessment findings.)

SUMMARY SCORE


March 2004 8

Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure.

SCORE Element



A. Does the plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard?

B Do the identified actions and projects address reducing the effects of hazards on new buildings and infrastructure?

C. Do the identified actions and projects address reducing the effects of hazards on existing buildings and infrastructure?

SUMMARY SCORE

Implementation of Mitigation Actions Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.

SCORE Element



A. Does the mitigation strategy include how the actions are prioritized? (For example, is there a discussion of the process and criteria used?)

B. Does the mitigation strategy address how the actions will be implemented and administered? (For example, does it identify the responsible department, existing and potential resources, and timeframe?)

C. Does the prioritization process include an emphasis on the use of a cost-benefit review (see page 3-36 of Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance) to maximize benefits?

SUMMARY SCORE


March 2004 9

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv): For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan.

SCORE Element



A Does the plan include at least one identifiable action item for each jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval of the plan?

SUMMARY SCORE

PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.

SCORE Element



A. Does the plan describe the method and schedule for monitoring the plan? (For example, does it identify the party responsible for monitoring and include a schedule for reports, site visits, phone calls, and meetings?)

B. Does the plan describe the method and schedule for evaluating the plan? (For example, does it identify the party responsible for evaluating the plan and include the criteria used to evaluate the plan?)

C. Does the plan describe the method and schedule for updating the plan within the five-year cycle?

SUMMARY SCORE


March 2004 10

Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate.

SCORE Element



A. Does the plan identify other local planning mechanisms available for incorporating the requirements of the mitigation plan?

B. Does the plan include a process by which the local government will incorporate the requirements in other plans, when appropriate?

SUMMARY SCORE

Continued Public Involvement Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.

SCORE Element



A. Does the plan explain how continued public participation will be obtained? (For example, will there be public notices, an on-going mitigation plan committee, or annual review meetings with stakeholders?)

SUMMARY SCORE

L O C A L H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N R E V I E W C R O S S W A L K F E M A R E G I O N [ I N S E R T # ] J u r i s d i c t i o n : Matrix A: Profiling Hazards This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure that their plan addresses each natural hazard that can affect the jurisdiction. Completing the matrix is not required. Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An “N” for any element of any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk.

March 2004 11

Hazards Identified Per Requirement

§201.6(c)(2)(i) A. Location B. Extent C. Previous

Occurrences D. Probability of

Future Events Hazard Type

Yes N S N S N S N S Avalanche Coastal Erosion Coastal Storm Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils Extreme Heat Flood Hailstorm Hurricane Land Subsidence Landslide Severe Winter Storm Tornado Tsunami Volcano Wildfire Windstorm Other Other Other

To check boxes, double

click on the box and

change the default value to “checked.”

Legend: §201.6(c)(2)(i) Profiling Hazards A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., geographic area affected) of each hazard addressed in the plan? B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the plan? C. Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each natural hazard addressed in the plan? D. Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the plan?

L O C A L H A Z A R D M I T I G A T I O N P L A N R E V I E W C R O S S W A L K F E M A R E G I O N [ I N S E R T # ] J u r i s d i c t i o n : Matrix B: Assessing Vulnerability

This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure that their plan addresses each requirement. Completing the matrix is not required.

Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An “N” for any element of any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk.

March 20 12 04

Note: Receiving an N in the shaded columns will not preclude the plan from passing.

Hazards Identified Per Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i)

A. Overall Summary

Description of Vulnerability

B. Hazard Impact

A. Types and Number of

Existing Structures in Hazard Area (Estimate)

B. Types and Number of

Future Structures in Hazard Area (Estimate)

A. Loss Estimate B. Methodology Hazard Type

Yes N S N S N S N S N S N S Avalanche Coastal Erosion Coastal Storm Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils Extreme Heat Flood Hailstorm Hurricane Land Subsidence Landslide Severe Winter Storm Tornado Tsunami Volcano Wildfire Windstorm Other Other Other

§201

.6(c

)(2)(i

i) A

sses

sing

Vul

nera

bilit

y: O

verv

iew

§201

.6(c

)(2)(i

i) A

sses

sing

Vul

nera

bilit

y: I

dent

ifyin

g St

ruct

ures

§201

.6(c

)(2)(i

i) A

sses

sing

Vul

nera

bilit

y: E

stim

atin

g Po

tent

ial L

osse

s




Legend: §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview A. Does the plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to

each hazard? B. Does the plan address the impact of each hazard on the jurisdiction? §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A) Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures A. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings,

infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?

B. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future buildings,

infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses A. Does the plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures? B. Does the plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate?


Matrix C: Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure consideration of a range of actions for each hazard. Completing the matrix is not required. Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An “N” for any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk.

March 2004 13

Hazards IdentifiedPer Requirement

§201.6(c)(2)(i)

A. Comprehensive Range of Actions

and Projects Hazard Type

Yes N S Avalanche Coastal Erosion Coastal Storm Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils Extreme Heat Flood Hailstorm Hurricane Land Subsidence Landslide Severe Winter Storm Tornado Tsunami Volcano Wildfire Windstorm Other Other Other




Legend: §201.6(c)(3)(ii) Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions A. Does the plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard?

3.2 - Project Tasks

Documents

Transcript of 3.2 - Project Tasks