Linking the Capability Assessment, the Risk Assessment, and the Mitigation Strategy

5.6 Linking the Capability Assessment, the Risk Assessment, and the Mitigation Strategy

The conclusions of the Capability Assessment and Risk Assessment serves as the foundation for a meaningful hazard mitigation strategy. During the process of identifying the goals and mitigation actions, each jurisdiction must consider not only their level of hazard risk but also their existing capability to minimize or eliminate that risk. In jurisdictions where the overall hazard risk is considered to be moderate, and local capability is considered limited, then specific mitigation actions that account for these conditions should be considered. This may include less costly actions such as minor ordinance revisions or public awareness activities. If necessary, specific capabilities may need to be improved in order to better address recurring threats.Similarly, in cases where the hazard vulnerability is limited and overall capability is moderate, more emphasis can be placed on actions that may affect future vulnerability such as guiding development away from known hazard areas.

Section 6: Mitigation Goals, Objectives, & Strategies

The Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Strategy section describe how Valley County intends to reduce or eliminate potential losses. The Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Strategies section provides a framework for the county and participating jurisdictions to mitigate the effects of natural hazard events on their population, economy, and property. The mitigation strategy is the coordinated effort of agencies and partners to develop and implement a comprehensive range of inventive and effective natural hazard mitigation actions.

• 
  Establish mitigation goals and objectives that aim to reduce or eliminate long-term vulnerability to natural- hazard events
  
• 
  Identify and analyze a comprehensive range of hazard-specific mitigation strategies that aim to achieve the goals and objectives of the mitigation strategy
  
• 
  Describe how Valley County and participating jurisdictions will prioritize, implement, and administer mitigation strategies
  

FEMA Requirements Addressed in this Section

The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team developed the mitigation strategy consistent with the process and steps presented in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) How-To-Guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3).

§201.6(c)(3) [The plan shall include the following:] 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.
§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.
§201.6(c)(3)(ii) [The hazard 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. All plans approved by FEMA after October 1, 2008, must also address the jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP, and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate.
§201.6(c)(3)(iii) [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include an] action plan, describing how the action identified in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section 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.
§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.

6.1 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, & Development

6.2 Strategies/Projects

The process of creating new mitigation projects officially commenced on November 2015 with the planning team visiting each of the jurisdictions. Based on the concepts found in FEMA Publication 386-3, these meeting included a mitigation tutorial, an overview of what mitigation projects, how to identify potential projects, a review the past plan and an overview of the purpose of the mitigation plan as set by FEMA, the State of MT and the Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee. Attendees were instructed to review the existing mitigation goals, objectives, and strategies of the previous plan to determine what had been accomplished over the past five years, what projects were currently relevant and what new projects should be added to the plan update. Subsequently, the Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee, key stakeholders, and public attendees discussed the current mitigation goals, objectives,and strategies. The feedback provided from these discussions, allowed modifications to the goals, objectives, and projects as needed.

In the evaluation of mitigation strategies, stakeholders were instructed to consider the following criteria:

• 
  Funding Options &Cost
  
• 
  Staff Time
  
• 
  Feasibility ((the findings of the capability assessment)
  
• 
  Population Benefit
  
• 
  Property Benefit
  
• 
  Values Benefit
  
• 
  Maintenance
  
• 
  Hazard Rating
  

In the evaluation and creation of projects, stakeholders were asked to assess each potential project in terms of eliminating risk and probability of success. Stakeholders were also requested to consider and provide direct and indirect costs and benefits. Indirect costs and benefits were defined as intangible things such as social effects.

Upon completion of the mitigation project creation/evaluation process, the stakeholders provided a comprehensive list of desired strategies to the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team who subsequently organized the lists into common themes as well as evaluated and prioritized the submitted projects. Once the arranged actionable projects, the mitigation strategies were shared with stakeholders. Stakeholders were asked to accept, reject, modify, and or re-rank/prioritize the projects.
Once the data from all of the jurisdictions was again received, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team again reorganized the data into a comprehensive list of strategies. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team, who refined the list by eliminating duplication, providing succinctness, and generally organizing the strategies into a comprehensive and workable format, then reviewed the list. Once the refinement was complete, the mitigation strategies list was again shared with the participating jurisdictions and stakeholders for additional comment. After all of the comments were received and incorporated, a final list of strategies was made public for review and comment. The final comment and review section lasted approximately one month, ending at the end of January 2016.

.

The following is a summary of the mitigation update planning process:

1. 
   New goals
   
2. 
   Prioritization Criteria
   
3. 
   Implementation Process
   
4. 
   Projects
   
5. 
   Mitigation Strategy Implementation and Administration
   

For this update, the mitigation goals were reorganized to be more general and all encompassing. The goals were also increased from four to five. The mitigation goals were chosen and created by the Steering Committee with input from those wishing to participate.

Mitigation Goals:

• 
  Increase community understanding of emergency management and build support for hazard mitigation
  
• 
  Develop, promote, integrate and track mitigation strategies
  

• 
  Continue to improve and enhance the county's emergency management program
  
• 
  Increase the economic stability, core values, and quality of services of the participating jurisdictions
  
• 
  Increase mitigation resources to eliminate or minimize harm done to people, property, jobs, and natural resources in Valley County by natural and manmade hazards
  

Download 4.32 Mb.

Share with your friends: