To ensure continuity from the immediate past iteration of the mitigation plan the Steering Committee decided that the action prioritization methodology of project prioritization remained the same as the previous Valley County Mitigation Plan. Thus, the philosophy and methodology remained intact from the immediate past iteration of the plan. It is again noted that each of the proposed projects has value, however, time and financial constraints do not permit all of the proposed actions to be implemented immediately. By prioritizing the actions, the most critical, cost-effective projects can be achieved in the short term. The prioritization of the projects serves as a guide for choosing and funding projects, however, depending on the funding sources, some actions may be best achieved outside the priorities established here.
To ensure that community goals and other factors are taken into account when prioritizing projects, a prioritization model that uses the following factors was again used: cost, staff time, feasibility, population benefit, property benefit, values benefit, maintenance, and hazard rating.
-
Costconsiders the direct expenses associated with the project such as material and contractor expenses.
-
Staff timeevaluates the amount of time needed by a local government employee to complete or coordinate the project.
-
Feasibilityassesses the political, social, and/or environmental ramifications of the project and the likelihood such a project would proceed through permitting, public review processes, and/or private business implementation.
-
Populationbenefitconsiders the possible prevention of deaths and injuries through the project’s implementation.
-
Property benefitestimates the reduction of property losses, including structures and infrastructure, from the hazard being mitigated.
-
Values benefitconsiders the economic, ecologic, historic, and social benefits of the project.
-
Maintenance rates the amount of work required to keep the mitigation measure effective and useful.
-
Hazard ratingis based on the results of the risk assessment and is a measure of the history, probability, severity, and vulnerabilities of the hazard.
Each of the factors was ranked qualitatively for each of the projects. The methods used to assign a category and the associated score id generally defined in Table 81. The highest possible score is 30. Some factors have a greater range than others, thus indicating a higher weighting. These weightings allow for appropriate prioritization of the project. More specifically, 11 of 30 points account for benefits (population benefit, property benefit, and values benefit), 11 of 30 points account for direct and indirect costs (cost, staff time, and maintenance), 5 of 30 points account for the hazard rating (incorporates hazard probability and impacts; see Section 4.5), and 3 of 30 points account for project feasibility.
Table 81: Prioritization Criteria
Factor
|
Threshold
|
Rating
|
Score
|
Cost (Range: 1-5)
|
Little to no direct expenses
|
Low
|
5
|
Less than $5,000
|
Low-Moderate
|
4
|
$5,000-$25,000
|
Moderate
|
3
|
$25,001-$100,000
|
Moderate-High
|
2
|
Greater than $100,000
|
High
|
1
|
Staff Time (Range: 1-3)
|
Less than 10 hours of staff time
|
Low
|
3
|
10-40 hours of staff time
|
Moderate
|
2
|
Greater than 40 hours of staff time
|
High
|
1
|
Feasibility (Range: 1-3)
|
Positive support for the project
|
High
|
3
|
Neutral support for the project
|
Moderate
|
2
|
Negative support for the project
|
Low
|
1
|
Population Benefit (Range: 1-4)
|
Potential to reduce more than 20 casualties
|
Very High
|
4
|
Potential to reduce 6-20 casualties
|
High
|
3
|
Potential to reduce 1-5 casualties
|
Moderate
|
2
|
No potential to reduce casualties
|
Low
|
1
|
Property Benefit (Range: 1-4)
|
Potential to reduce losses to more than 20 buildings or severe damages to infrastructure
|
Very High
|
4
|
Potential to reduce losses to 6-20 buildings or substantial damages to infrastructure
|
High
|
3
|
Potential to reduce losses to 1-5 buildings or slight damages to infrastructure
|
Moderate
|
2
|
No potential to reduce property losses
|
Low
|
1
|
Values Benefit (Range: 1-3)
|
Provides significant benefits to economic, ecologic, historic, or social values
|
High
|
3
|
Provides some benefits to economic, ecologic, historic, or social values
|
Moderate
|
2
|
None or very little benefit to economic, ecologic, historic, or social values
|
Low
|
1
|
Maintenance (Range: 1-3)
|
Requires very little or no maintenance
|
Low
|
3
|
Requires less than 10 hours per year
|
Moderate
|
2
|
Requires more than 10 hours per year
|
High
|
1
|
Hazard Rating (Range: 1-5)
|
See Table XX
|
High
|
3
|
See Table XX
|
Moderate
|
2
|
See Table XX
|
Low
|
1
|
Share with your friends: |
