Hamlin County, SD 2014
LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW TOOL
The Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool demonstrates how the Local Mitigation Plan meets the
regulation in 44 CFR §201.6 and offers States and FEMA Mitigation Planners an opportunity to
provide feedback to the community.
•
•
•
The Multi-jurisdiction Summary Sheet should be used to document contact information
for each jurisdiction and if each met the requirements of the Plan, if a multijurisdictional plan.
The Regulation Checklist provides a summary of FEMA’s evaluation of whether the Plan
has addressed all requirements.
The Plan Assessment identifies the plan’s strengths as well as documents areas for
future improvement.
The FEMA Mitigation Planner must reference this Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide when
completing the Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool.
Jurisdiction:
Hamlin County
Title of Plan:
Date of Plan:
Hamlin County Pre-Disaster
June 23, 2014
Mitigation Plan, 2014-2018
Local Point of Contact:
Address:
David Schaefer
PO Box 237
Hayti, SD 57241
Title:
Hamlin County Emergency Management Director
Agency:
Hamlin County Emergency Management
Phone Number:
E-Mail:
605-783-7831
hamcoem@itctel.com
State Reviewer:
Martin Christopherson
Title:
Mitigation
Date:
FEMA Reviewer:
Julie Baxter
Margaret Doherty
Date Received in FEMA Region VIII
Plan Not Approved
Plan Approvable Pending Adoption
Plan Approved
Title:
Senior Community Planner
Community Planner
July 7, 2014
August 21, 2014
Date:
August 18, 2014
August 21, 2014
Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool
1
Hamlin County, SD 2014
SECTION 1:
MULTI-JURISDICTION SUMMARY SHEET
MULTI-JURISDICTION SUMMARY SHEET
Requirements Met (Y/N)
#
Jurisdiction Name
Jurisdiction Type
Jurisdiction Contact
Email
A.
Planning
Process
B.
HIRA
C.
Mitigation
Strategy
D.
Update
Rqtms.
E.
Adoption
Resolution
1
Hamlin County
County
David Schaefer
EM Director
hamcoem@itctel.com
Y
N
N
Y
N
2
City of Bryant
Municipality
Terry Isler
Finance Officer
bryantsd@itctel.com
Y
N
Y
Y
N
3
City of Castlewood
Municipality
Sheila Gerhold
Finance Officer
castcity@itctel.com
Y
N
Y
Y
N
4
City of Estelline
Municipality
Mary Saathoff
Finance Officer
www.estelinesd.com
Y
N
Y
Y
N
5
City of Hayti
Municipality
Carol Reuer
Finance Officer
605-783-7839
Y
N
Y
Y
N
6
Town of Hazel
Municipality
Jasmine DeSmet
Finance Officer
605-628-2250
Y
N
Y
Y
N
7
City of Lake Norden
Municipality
Delores Kangas
Finance Officer
cityln@itctel.com
Y
N
Y
Y
N
8
Hamlin-Deuel Electric
Cooperative
Rural Electric Coop
Matt Hotzler
General Manager
info@h-delectric.coop
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool
2
Hamlin County, SD 2014
SECTION 2:
REGULATION CHECKLIST
REGULATION CHECKLIST
Location in Plan
(section and/or
page number)
Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans)
Met
Not
Met
ELEMENT A. PLANNING PROCESS
A1. Does the Plan document the planning process, including how it
was prepared and who was involved in the process for each
jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(1))
A2. Does the Plan document an opportunity for neighboring
communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard
mitigation activities, agencies that have the authority to regulate
development as well as other interests to be involved in the planning
process? (Requirement §201.6(b)(2))
A3. Does the Plan document how the public was involved in the
planning process during the drafting stage? (Requirement
§201.6(b)(1))
A4. Does the Plan describe the review and incorporation of existing
plans, studies, reports, and technical information? (Requirement
§201.6(b)(3))
A5. Is there discussion of how the community(ies) will continue public
participation in the plan maintenance process? (Requirement
§201.6(c)(4)(iii))
A6. Is there a description of the method and schedule for keeping the
plan current (monitoring, evaluating and updating the mitigation plan
within a 5-year cycle)? (Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i))
ELEMENT A: REQUIRED REVISIONS
p. 10-20
Appendix B
X
p. 10-20
Appendix B
Appendix C
X
p. 16-17, Table 3.2
Appendix C
X
p. 19 Table 3.3
X
p. 121
X
p.121-122
X
ELEMENT B. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT
B1. Does the Plan include a description of the type, location, and
extent of all natural hazards that can affect each jurisdiction(s)?
(Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i))
B2. Does the Plan include information on previous occurrences of
hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events for each
jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i))
B3. Is there a description of each identified hazard’s impact on the
community as well as an overall summary of the community’s
vulnerability for each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii))
B4. Does the Plan address NFIP insured structures within the
jurisdiction that have been repetitively damaged by floods?
(Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii))
Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool
p. 21-39
X
p. 21-39
X
Chapter 4 p61-91
X
p. 49
X
3
Hamlin County, SD 2014
REGULATION CHECKLIST
Location in Plan
Not
(section and/or
Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans)
Met
Met
page number)
ELEMENT B: REQUIRED REVISIONS
B3: For each participating jurisdiction, the plan must describe the potential impacts of each of the identified
hazards. The Plan explains on page 78 that the team considered the vulnerability of the County and
jurisdictions to each hazard. However, the risk assessment only provides information on vulnerability of
specific jurisdictions to flood. Although the plan explains that hazards have a similar probability of occurrence
throughout the county (p.70), it does not describe the required analysis of the impacts (defined in the FEMA
guidance as the consequence or effect of the hazard on the community and its assets) of hazards other than
flood for each jurisdiction. For example, how are assets unique to each jurisdiction, such as critical facilities,
vulnerable populations, roads, infrastructure, and major employers affected by each hazard? Worksheets
ranking vulnerability fail to describe the actual impacts that resulted in the high, medium, or low designations.
The problem statements in Table 5.13 summarize the vulnerability being addressed by the mitigation action
but do not describe impacts of the identified hazards for each community. Maps included in Appendix E are
illegible but providing this information in a legible format would help meet this requirement for
unincorporated Hamlin County.
ELEMENT C. MITIGATION STRATEGY
C1. Does the plan document each jurisdiction’s existing authorities,
p. 19 Table 3.3
policies, programs and resources and its ability to expand on and
p. 58-61
X
improve these existing policies and programs? (Requirement
§201.6(c)(3))
C2. Does the Plan address each jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP p. 48
and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate?
Table 5.1
X
(Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii))
C3. Does the Plan include goals to reduce/avoid long-term
p. 79
vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? (Requirement
X
§201.6(c)(3)(i))
C4. Does the Plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of
p. 94-102
specific mitigation actions and projects for each jurisdiction being
p.106-112
considered to reduce the effects of hazards, with emphasis on new
X
and existing buildings and infrastructure? (Requirement
§201.6(c)(3)(ii))
C5. Does the Plan contain an action plan that describes how the
p.103-112
actions identified will be prioritized (including cost benefit review),
X
implemented, and administered by each jurisdiction? (Requirement
§201.6(c)(3)(iv)); (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iii))
C6. Does the Plan describe a process by which local governments will
p. 120, 123
integrate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning
X
mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans,
when appropriate? (Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii))
ELEMENT C: REQUIRED REVISIONS
C4. This requirement is met for all jurisdictions except Hamlin County. The County does not have actions based
on the risk and vulnerabilities identified. For instance, there are no actions to address repetitive loss
properties, although the County has the highest number in the State. The Townships identified vulnerabilities
and potential mitigation projects, which is documented on maps in the Appendix (although they are not
legible) but there are no actions addressing these issues in the Mitigation Strategy.
Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool
4
Hamlin County, SD 2014
ELEMENT D. PLAN REVIEW, EVALUATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION (applicable to plan updates
only)
D1. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in development?
(Requirement §201.6(d)(3))
D2. Was the plan revised to reflect progress in local mitigation
efforts? (Requirement §201.6(d)(3))
D3. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in priorities?
(Requirement §201.6(d)(3))
ELEMENT D: REQUIRED REVISIONS
p. 61-77
Appendix G
p.20, 93, 103-112
Appendix G
X
X
X
ELEMENT E. PLAN ADOPTION
E1. Does the Plan include documentation that the plan has been
formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting
approval? (Requirement §201.6(c)(5))
E2. For multi-jurisdictional plans, has each jurisdiction requesting
approval of the plan documented formal plan adoption?
(Requirement §201.6(c)(5))
ELEMENT E: REQUIRED REVISIONS
E2. Pending FEMA approval.
X
X
ELEMENT F. ADDITIONAL STATE REQUIREMENTS (OPTIONAL FOR STATE REVIEWERS ONLY;
NOT TO BE COMPLETED BY FEMA)
F1.
F2.
ELEMENT F: REQUIRED REVISIONS
Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool
5
Hamlin County, SD 2014
SECTION 3:
PLAN ASSESSMENT
A. Plan Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement
This section describes the strengths of the plan document and includes recommendations for how
the plan could be improved as part of the next plan update.
Element A: Planning Process
The Hamlin County plan demonstrates a strong planning process that focused on each jurisdiction.
The letters sent by the Chairman of the Hamlin County Commissioners and the Hamlin County
Emergency Management Director to stakeholders to promote the plan’s importance and solicit
participation was a successful approach. The plan also describes how Town Board members
provided input on the plan during the process. One improvement in the next update could be
describing the type of input provided by the general public and elected officials and how it was it
informed the plan’s content.
Although planning team titles were included in the Plan Review Tool submitted with the plan, as
part of the next update, the plan must identify the position or title and agency of person(s)
representing each jurisdiction. For some jurisdictions, this is included in the sign-in sheet, but for
others it is not included in Chapters 2 and 3 or the Appendix. Additionally, the plan should do more
to describe how information from other sources formed the content of the mitigation plan
Element B: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
The risk assessment is one area of improvement for the plan. The hazard profiles are short and
concise, which is good. However, a ten-year period is not sufficient for assessing natural hazard risk.
The complete range of historic data must be assessed. There is no need to include large tables listing
each event. Instead, summarize events of certain magnitude or damages and direct reader to where
they could find more complete data if interested, such as an external website or an appendix to the
mitigation plan.
Element C: Mitigation Strategy
The mitigation strategy does a nice job of considering a comprehensive range of potential actions
specifically linked to problem statements, then narrowing down to a prioritized list of actions for
implementation for the towns.
Consider listing Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) instead of HMGP for a funding source for
projects that are also eligible for Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) and Flood Mitigation Assistance
(FMA) programs. In some cases, HMGP is listed as a potential funding source for actions that are
not eligible activities under the grant program, such as establishing base flood elevations and
firefighting training and equipment, and installing a water tank.
Element D: Plan Review, Evaluation, and Implementation (Plan Updates Only)
The plan addresses the problems with implementation and integration of the previous plan. The
inclusion of a permanent file memo reminder to include review of mitigation actions during budget
preparation process is a great idea.
Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool
6
Hamlin County, SD 2014
There are other planning mechanisms, such as a zoning ordinance and site plan review, in place in
the participating jurisdictions that could be considered for further integrating mitigation concepts.
The next plan update must differentiate between communities with varying capabilities and
distinguish jurisdiction’s individual process for integrating mitigation into planning mechanisms.
Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool
7