NC Emergency Management Association Fall 2014 Conference
Mitigation Update: Coordination of Hazard Mitigation Plan
and Community Rating System Plan Requirements
Presenter:
Chris Crew,
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
Agenda:
 Welcome and introductions
 Grants update
Non-Disaster UHMA PDM/FMA 2013 and 2014 HMGP DR 4167 Application
Process/LOI Assessment
 Plan Review Update—Patterns in Submitted Drafts: 8 concerns with updates
 Questions/discussion
2013-2014 Mitigation Funding:
2013
 PDM applied for 6 grants, awarded 5……4 plans + NCEM Management
Costs……total $523,967
 FMA applied for 24 grants, awarded 6……5 project grants + NCEM
Management Costs……total $4, 344, 696
 ONLY SRL projects (100% Federal funding) Awarded
2014
 PDM applied for 9 grants, awarded 9……6 plans, 2 projects + NCEM
Management Costs……total $656,523
 FMA applied for 14 grants awarded 9……8 projects + NCEM Management
Costs……total $10,356,892
 ONLY SRL projects (100% Federal funding) Awarded
HMGP DR 4167 Severe Winter Weather March 6-7, 2014
 Estimated funding $9,200,000
 Prioritized Central Branch Counties for project and plan funding
 Rec’d 28 LOIs for 5% projects……12 LOIs for brick and mortar projects......1
Plan application……totaling $13,000,000+ from Central Branch Only
 Will complete eligibility and prioritization review and begin submitting to
FEMA via NEMIS in October
Eight Common Revision Requests from FEMA
NC is starting on a five-year update cycle that will last through 2018 and include the
update of both the State 322 Plan and all of the 53 Local/Regional Hazard Mitigation Plans.
NCEM is partnering with the UNC System and the NC Community College System to develop a
Hazard Mitigation Plan for each of the Community College Campuses in NC. During update of
the CC Plans beginning in 2019, we anticipate a roll-up of those plans into the corresponding
Regional/Local HMP.
To date, we have reviewed 6 plans and submitted 4 Draft Updates to FEMA.
Following are 8 common revision requirements we are seeing:
Element A1. DOES THE PLAN DOCUMENT THE PLANNING PROCESS, INCLUDING HOW IT WAS
PREPARED AND WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS FOR EACH JURISDICTION?
Plan must provide, at a minimum, the jurisdiction represented and the person’s position or title and
agency within the jurisdiction.
For each jurisdiction seeking plan approval, the plan must document how they were
involved in the planning process. Jurisdictions that adopt the plan without documenting how
they participated in the planning process will not be approved.
Solution: Rosters and sign-in sheets from ALL planning meetings/MAC meetings/Public Meetings—
Identify participants by name and title. Page 15 of guide
Element B3. IS THERE A DESCRIPTION OF EACH IDENTIFIED HAZARD’S IMPACT ON THE
COMMUNITY AS WELL AS AN OVERALL SMMARY OF THE COMMUNITY’S VULNERABILITY FOR EACH
JURISDICTION.
The plan must provide an overall summary of each jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the identified
hazards. This means more than a list of the total exposure of population, structures, and
critical facilities. An overall summary is a list of key issues or problem statements that clearly
describes the community’s greatest vulnerabilities and that will be addressed in the mitigation
strategy.
Solution: Write vulnerability NARRATIVE FOR EACH PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION—explain the
vulnerability to “someone who isn’t from around here.” Page 20 of guide
Element C1. DOES THE PLAN DOCUMENT EACH JURISDICTION’S EXISTING AUTHORITIES,
POLICIES, PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES, AND ITS ABLITY TO EXPAND ON AND IMPROVE THESE
EXISTING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS?
The plan must describe each jurisdiction’s existing authorities, policies, programs and
resources available to accomplish hazard mitigation. If local jurisdiction allows county to
manage all aspects of a specific local program then this should be described.
Solution: Tell us about your local staff and what they do—Planning, Public Works, Inspections,
Economic Development, Emergency Management. Tell us about local plans—Comprehensive
Plans, Unified Development Ordinances, CAMA Plans, Zoning and Building Ordinances, etc, etc, etc.
Page 23
Element C2. DOES THE PLAN ADDRESS EACH JURISDICTION’S PARTICIPATION IN THE NFIP AND
CONTINUED COMPLIANCE WITH NFIP REQUIREMENTS, AS APPROPRIATE?
The plan must describe each jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP and describe their floodplain
management program for continued compliance. Simply stating “The community will continue to
comply with NFIP,” will not meet this requirement. Jurisdictions that are currently not participating in
the NFIP may meet this requirement by describing the reasons why the community does not
participate.
Solution: Tell us WHAT you are doing to manage your community’s participation:
Scheduled CAVs, Recent CAV results, ADOPTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF PROGRAM--process for
review of new development applications; process for on-going inspections of flood plain properties to
insure continued compliance; MAPPING UPDATES AND ADOPTION; public outreach efforts—water bill
stuffers, public notices, public meetings, websites, etc. Page 23
Element C4. DOES THE PLAN IDENTIFY AND ANALYSE A COMPREHENSIVE RANGE OF SPEFICIF
MITIGATION ACTIONS AND PROJECTS FOR EACH JURISDICTION BEING CONSIDERED TO REDUCE
THE EFFECTS OF HAZARDS, WITH EMPAHSIS ON NEW AND EXISTING BUILDINGS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE?
Must have a comprehensive range of different hazard mitigation alternatives that address the
vulnerabilities to the hazards that the jurisdiction(s) determine are most important.
Solution: Describe a minimum of 2 actions per hazard and identify actions that address old and new
structures and infrastructure as well as limiting risk to new development and redevelopment. Be sure
and include both PREVENTION measures like zoning and land use planning, AND include some
PROPERTY PROTECTION measures like elevation/acquisition/relocation of structures and critical
facilities; DON’T RELY SOLELY on education and outreach, response, and preparedness measures.
“Making sure the fire truck always has ½ a tank of gas and a charged battery” is PREPAREDNESS,
not mitigation. Page 24
Element C4. (CONTINUED)
A timeframe of “ongoing” is not acceptable in any of the mitigation action plans. A timeframe within
the five-year span of the hazard mitigation plan is acceptable.
This applies to both the REVIEW of Previous Mitigation Actions AND timeframes for NEW ACTIONS. If
your measure is “continue to provide plan reviews and permits for floodplain development” describe
how many you did in the last five years for the update, and describe how many you anticipate
conduction in the NEXT FIVE years based on the number of buildable lots, average annual number of
permits/inspections over last period, etc. Remember to explain it to “folks who aren’t from around
here.” Page 24
Element C6. DOES THE PLAN DESCRIBE A PROCESS BY WHICH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
WILL INTEGRATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MITIGATION PLAN INTO OTHER PLANNING
MECHANISMS, SUCH AS COMPREHENSIVE OR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS, WHEN
APPROPRIATE?
A multi‐jurisdictional plan must describe each participating jurisdiction’s individual process for
integrating hazard mitigation actions applicable to their community into other planning mechanisms.
The updated plan must describe how the mitigation strategy, including the goals and hazard
mitigation actions will be incorporated into other planning mechanisms.
Solution: Narrative description of HOW members of various interested parties, (EM, Planning, etc) are
working together to make sure various plans and processes are checked for consistency. You MIGHT
want to add a column to your mitigation measures table to identify OTHER PLANS OR AGENCY
ACTIONS impacted by the mitigation measure. Page 25.
Element D2. WAS THE PLAN REVISED TO REFLECT PROGRESS IN LOCAL MITIGATION EFFORTS?
Plan must describe the status of hazard mitigation actions in the previous plan by identifying those
that have been completed or not completed. For actions that have not been completed, the plan
must either describe whether the action is no longer relevant or be included as part of the updated
action plan and describe any activity that has been accomplished since the last plan update.
Solution: Narrative description of progress toward goals, analysis of successes/incomplete
actions—what went right/what went wrong. SOME of your completed actions might become
capabilities. If you included “earn CRS Credit” as a measure or action in your last plan, and you
succeeded, discuss it in your capabilities section and consider a new measure of IMPROVING your
CRS rating. Page 27