 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Part 2: Section B
Index Section B: Mitigation Strategies Partners for Disaster Resistance & Resilience: Oregon Showcase State State Funding Action Plan for Hazard Mitigation Coordination with Local Mitigation Planning Prioritization for Local Assistance Section B: Mitigation Strategies Section Purpose This section of the plan will:
Natural Hazard Mitigation Overview Natural hazard mitigation consists of a full range of activities that have one overriding goal: to lessen future losses from natural hazard events. While the concept is simple, there are many complex issues involved in achieving effective hazard mitigation. As a practice, hazard mitigation actions relate to public policy, intergovernmental relations, public-private partnerships, economics, acceptable risk, and a wide range of specialized activities and programs. In all cases, hazard mitigation programs and procedures are based on understanding the nature and probable severity of the hazard, as well as the risk or vulnerability of the area. The soundest, but often not the most feasible, hazard mitigation action is to avoid the hazard. This takes a combination of knowledge and a willingness by decision-makers to define such situations as unacceptable risks. For example, often it is much safer and less environmentally disruptive to avoid constructing improvements in high velocity floodplains and to avoid landslide-prone hillsides than it is to build expensive structures to control flooding or landslides. There are several societal values to be achieved developing and implementing effective hazard mitigation programs. Actions taken by state, regional, and local governments, the private sector, public utilities, and others who invest in hazard mitigation help ensure the continuity and survivability of their respective physical assets. Some of the most apparent benefits of hazard mitigation are reduced human and physical losses, lower response costs and demands on emergency services providers, and reduced direct and indirect impacts on the economy. Further benefits of hazard mitigation include maintaining or improving natural, recreational, and environmental assets, such as habitats, water quality and agricultural and forest productivity. Risk results from a combination of a natural hazard and a vulnerable population. This convergence of people, their structures, and natural hazards presents both challenge and opportunity in our state as the population continues to grow, potentially increasing the exposure of people to the threats of natural hazards. The state recognizes a need to make substantial progress in the coming years in understanding the extent of natural hazards and the resulting risks. The need to advance this knowledge is reflected throughout this plan. For a hazard to be properly mitigated, risk must first be properly characterized and understood. Characterization is a determination of what the hazard is, where the hazard occurs, how severe it is, and how often it might occur. These are broader considerations than simply "delineation" of the hazard (determining where the hazard is located), which is just a part of characterization, or of an examination of the history of the hazard. For many hazards in Oregon, the historic record of losses tells only part of the story, given the shortness of the record. Available scientific information interpreting hazards should also be consulted. For example, knowledge of geology helps to provide a complete perspective of the severity of the hazard. By developing this information in addition to historic information, we better position ourselves to make good judgments about how much or what kinds of risk reduction strategies to pursue. Proper characterization of the hazard enables us to understand the extent, magnitude, frequency, and causes of the hazard in a manner adequate to develop and implement risk management strategies. With proper characterization, the state, county, or community can determine where and which mitigation strategies are needed. Back to Index Concurrent Hazards and Compound Disasters When considering the impacts of natural hazards on current and future development, it is important to understand that depending on the triggering event, many other problems may result, subsequent events cascading from the initial event. Therefore, in developing hazard mitigation programs it is important that all relevant hazards be considered, including the potential for their interactions to have combined effects on the area. For example, landslides and floods are generally associated with heavy rainfall. Earthquake shaking could trigger the collapse of a volcanic dome, which might be followed by an eruption that ignites wildfires. A major landslide could destroy a road, damage utility systems, isolate an area, and block a stream or river resulting in flooding. Sometimes a proposed solution for one hazard will aggravate another hazard. Multi-hazard analysis is therefore recommended where more than one hazard exists. While not all combinations or variables can be controlled via effective hazard mitigation programs, it is important to consider how various hazard-specific mitigation measures might be combined to help avoid compound disasters (e.g.: properly bracing an elevated home subject to strong earthquake ground motions which also sits in a floodplain). Back to Index Tools, Policies, Programs, and Capabilities to Reduce Future Losses This piece of the plan provides information on general hazard mitigation tools, followed by state and federal policies and programs related to natural hazards, and then followed by local and state capabilities.
Hazard Mitigation Tools There is no perfect way to organize the many natural hazard mitigation tools used to reduce losses over time. Sometimes tools are organized into “prevention” versus “protection,” sometimes into pre- versus post-disaster measures. Some guidebooks use the imprecise and sometimes misleading terms “structural” versus “non-structural.” We have instead organized the tools that follow under: land use planning, building codes, retrofitting/rehabilitation, removing buildings from harm’s way, structural projects, multi-objective management, and education. Land Use Planning The following measures are usually administered by planning and/or zoning agencies. Comprehensive land use planning provides mechanisms to prevent development in hazardous areas or to allow development in a manner that minimizes damages resulting from the presence of natural hazards. In Oregon, land use plans inventory hazardous areas; assess risks associated with the hazards, and present options available to minimize future losses. Land use plans can be used to guide new development to a community's less hazardous areas. Land use plans can also identify opportunities for redevelopment projects that will improve hazard mitigation by adjusting current land uses, and by requiring up-to-date building codes and standards for rehabilitation of existing structures as well as for new development. In Oregon, every city and county is covered by a "comprehensive plan" that includes the information, policies, and maps that guide community land use decisions. These plans are formulated by planners with citizen input to address local concerns, adopted by public bodies (planning commissions, city councils, and/or county boards), and are organized around nineteen statewide planning goals. Goal 7 specifically applies to natural hazards and calls for local comprehensive plans to include inventories, policies, and ordinances to guide development in hazard areas thereby reducing losses. Oregon's statewide land use program requires local governments to adopt laws and ordinances to implement their comprehensive plans. Many local governments adopt zoning ordinances as part of meeting this requirement.
Back to Index Building Codes The adoption and effective enforcement of building codes are among the most important hazard mitigation tools related to the design and construction of structures for human occupancy. The state building code is composed of several specialty codes (e.g.: plumbing, structural, mechanical, elevator, electrical, boiler and pressure vessel). All buildings in Oregon must conform to the state's codes, which influences the way buildings are constructed with respect to seismic risk, wind, snow, wildfire, and flood hazards.
Back to Index Retrofitting/Rehabilitation Depending on the nature of the risk and the expected performance of the buildings and systems under defined hazard conditions - especially where the risk may not be severe - it may or may not be cost effective to retrofit or rehabilitate buildings or infrastructure elements.
Back to Index Removing Buildings from Harm’s Way Especially with respect to the flood hazard, although not exclusively so, rather than attempting to "control the hazard," there is a now an emphasis on moving structures - especially homes - out of harm’s way by elevating them well above flood danger, relocating, or even acquiring (purchasing) and demolishing them. Oregon is able to use hazard mitigation funding from a number of federal programs, and from local governments and the private sector to accomplish this work with respect to the flood hazard, these elevation, relocation, or acquisition efforts are especially appropriate for homes that were built in floodplains prior to the establishment of the National Flood Insurance Program, which have sustained repetitive flood losses over the years. Oregon has also embraced the concept of moving buildings out of harm’s way following disasters. For example, instead of only making repairs to flood damaged buildings, opportunities to elevate, relocate, or acquire buildings are pursued soon after the flood waters recede to break the cycle of rebuilding and flooding again and again. When flood prone homes are acquired or relocated, the once developed land is returned to open space uses in perpetuity by means of deed restrictions. This removes the possibility of future disaster losses to buildings at that location. In some cases, acquisition or relocation of a building might be pursued for other hazards, such as streambank or coastal erosion, or its location in an area especially vulnerable to debris flows. Back to Index Structural Projects Measures which are intended to "control the hazard" so that it does not reach or damage developed areas are often called "structural." These measures are structural because they involve the construction of facilities. However, many structural projects are expensive to construct and maintain, and they may have other shortcomings such as environmental impacts and recurring maintenance costs. On the other hand, occasionally structural projects are the most cost effective way to protect an area, especially a densely developed area, and can sometimes serve several objectives. Statewide there are numerous structural projects that have been constructed over the course of the past century. Some are for flood control and some are multi-purpose, such as the Bonneville Dam, which was built for both flood control and power generation purposes. Multi-Objective Management Multi-objective management has emerged as an effective way to achieve several community objectives - one of which is hazard mitigation - by planning and implementing projects that simultaneously achieve other community objectives and values. For example, a project in a community's floodplain can be designed and implemented to simultaneously improve flood protection, enhance habitat, improve water quality, and provide additional park space. Multi-objective management requires building alliances with other stakeholder groups in the search for shared community solutions, and leveraging resources from a variety of sources to implement the various parts of an overall project. Guidebooks on the use of multi-objective management are available, such as Using Multi-Objective Management to Reduce Flood Losses in Your Watershed, Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc., 1996. Education Hazard mitigation oriented education activities inform the community (residents, government, and businesses) about hazards and protective actions to reduce exposure to loss. This tool generally falls into three types: outreach, technical assistance, and disclosure requirements. Several state agencies have ongoing educational programs that include hazard mitigation or that could include mitigation information for their intended audiences. Outreach: Reaching out to the community through public meetings, cable television, local newspapers, announcements, school sponsored presentations, and community-based web pages provide a diversity of pathways to inform those interested of methods to reduce the effects of disasters. Information inserts included with local utility bills, for example, can provide explanations of simple mitigation strategies available to homeowners to protect their developed property from windstorm or flood damages. Sharing mitigation success stories is an effective method of showing how mitigation can provide sustainable benefits to the community.
Technical Assistance: These efforts provide the technical support that is necessary to mitigate against potential loss of life, and minimize the amount of damage as a result of a natural disaster. Educational opportunities for local jurisdictions in the form of technical assistance can be of help in assessing a community’s natural hazards and risks, developing mitigation plans and local ordinances, preparing applications for grant assistance, and implementing approved mitigation measures. Many state and federal programs and knowledgeable staff are available at no cost to assist with local hazard mitigation activities. Disclosure Requirements: An informed public can make knowledgeable decisions when founded on the full disclosure of hazards and associated risks. Whether through statutory requirement or by individual choices, hazard disclosure is an essential aspect of community-based mitigation. Effective real estate disclosure, when selling and buying residential properties, affords the greatest opportunity to educate the public of natural hazards. Table 2-3 provides an outline of the various policies and programs related to specific natural hazards that are discussed throughout this section. For more information on the programs listed below, visit the Oregon’s policies and programs summary page. Back to Index Table 2-1. Hazard Policies and Programs
For more information on the programs listed above, visit the Oregon’s policies and programs summary page. Click Here Back to Index Local Capability Assessment Following the three flood and landslide major disaster declarations in 1996 and early 1997, the state convened a series of Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team meetings with FEMA that included significant local government participation and input in developing a comprehensive hazard mitigation action plan. An outcome of those meetings included, among other things, a state policy framework on flood and landslide hazard mitigation that called for developing and implementing locally developed plans that address hazard mitigation or avoidance. This policy framework, in turn, established a range of criteria for mitigation activities including local mitigation planning and projects proposed for funding by the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). One criterion element, local hazard mitigation planning, was required to participate in Oregon’s implementation of the HMGP, long before FEMA established a federal requirement for local mitigation plans. These plans and local hazard mitigation projects provide important feedback to the state mitigation policy framework, substantiating mitigation actions previously identified and suggesting other activities not previously identified in the state-level plan. Two significant aspects of Oregon’s mitigation strategy and capability of state and local governments to effectively apply mitigation have been identified:
State Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team In early 1997, the Governor convened the State Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team, initially for reducing loss of life from rapidly moving landslides. It meets quarterly and monitors statewide progress in mitigating the effects of natural hazards. Since all hazard mitigation is ultimately “local,” the State IHMT closely monitors the effectiveness of local mitigation policies, programs and capabilities. Also, the agency representatives to the State IHMT report to the group on mitigation-related activities they support for local governments. OEM has a leadership role in convening and chairing the State IHMT meetings as well as providing overall staff support though routine communication with the membership, agenda development and meeting logistics. Sub-committees of the State IHMT are responsible for developing the hazard-specific chapters to this plan. Members of the State IHMT are called upon to assist with various mitigation activities outside of the scheduled State IHMT meetings to include such things as project identification and review, particularly following major disaster declarations. Success stories are of particular interest to the State IHMT and validate local and state mitigation plan action items and provide the impetus to maintain project implementation where there is a continuing need to do so. Meetings of the State IHMT are open to the public for their comments and have also included invited participation by FEMA staff on numerous occasions. Back to Index Oregon Emergency Management State mitigation planning and project activities are an integral component of OEM’s mission. OEM’s Financial and Recovery Services Section provides oversight and administration of financial services and related funding that is passed-through to local governments, and to manage disaster recovery activities for state and local governments in the event of a devastating emergency or disaster. Specifically, the Section Director, SHMO, Alternate SHMO, Facilities Engineer (Public Assistance Officer), and financial support staff work together closely on pre- and post-disaster mitigation grant programs and project activities. Although OEM has limited staff support available for mitigation planning and project implementation activities, the state is able to effectively secure and manage FEMA’s HMGP, PDM and FMA grants. For example, Oregon was highly successful in securing $4.5 million and $14.5 million in competitive grants from the FY03 and FY05 offerings of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program, respectively. HMGP activities from recent disasters DR-1405 (2002) and DR-1510 (2004) are either closed or on schedule to close, respectively, within prescribed performance periods. All HMGP activities from prior disasters (pre-DR-1405) have been closed, with documentation of measurable mitigation benefits as they occur. As previously mentioned, the success of mitigation planning activities state-wide combines Oregon’s past history of landuse planning and goals with the integration of resources from FEMA’s mitigation grants leveraged through the Partnership for Disaster Resistance. The concept of aggregating regional, jurisdictional mitigation planning needs that leverage and target financial and technical resources to geographic areas around the state has proven to be successful in securing funding and completing local mitigation plans. A single, aggregated planning grant (one each) from the FY03 and FY05 offerings of the competitive Pre-Disaster Mitigation secured sufficient funding to resource 17 county mitigation plans … nearly half of Oregon’s 36 counties! OEM also uses staff as county liaisons that are assigned specific counties for the purpose of continuity in program delivery and support both during routine and disaster operations. By working closely with the state’s Public Assistance Officer, the state is able to identify early mitigation opportunities immediately following a disaster declaration that can frequently be implemented quickly as a component of Section 406 disaster assistance. Back to Index Building Local Capacity – Mitigation Strategies, Successes and Partnerships Flood hazard mitigation became a top priority in Oregon for the federal mitigation dollars in the later 1990’s. In fact four areas that experienced repetitive flooding in 1996 and 1997 received the bulk of the project funding: lower Johnson Creek in Portland, Tillamook County and City, the Lower Siletz area in Lincoln County, and the unincorporated area of Mapleton in Lane County. Many dozens of flood-loss properties have been elevated, relocated or acquired in these areas that have been subsequently flooded with no reported damages to the mitigated properties - clearly a successful mitigation strategy! In addition to these local governments, many other local governments around the entire state have developed and successfully implemented strategies to address repetitive hazard losses. By proactively planning for and implementing mitigation measures, local governments are developing policies, and thereby building local capability to reduce disaster losses. Mitigation for the earthquake hazard in Oregon is a top legislative priority that became law as a result of four senate bills from the 2005 legislative session. The legislation focused on: 1) Performing a statewide needs assessment for all schools and emergency facilities, 2) Formation of a temporary committee to establish a new state grant program to distribute earthquake rehabilitation grants using state bond funds, and 3) Issue of state bond funds through the newly established grant program to state and local communities for the rehabilitation of fire stations, police stations and hospitals and high occupancy school buildings. Funding provided by a FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation competitive grant for the seismic rehabilitation of three university facilities (two dormitories at Portland State University and operations/administration building at the Oregon Institute for Technology) helped lay the foundation for this successful legislative action. The PDM-funded projects successfully showed the state could leverage the funding, program management, technical assistance and university-managed implementation to complete the projects within the grant budget and on schedule. Up to $100 million in state-bonded funding could become available to seismically retrofit facilities around the state. Oregon’s local governments and their representative associations play major roles in natural hazard mitigation. Typical responsibilities include assessing hazards, preparing and maintaining appropriate land use and emergency response plans, facilitating the work of post-disaster hazard mitigation teams, preparing project applications and supporting documentation, and if funded, acting as the “subgrantee” (or sponsor) of approved projects. Local governments are represented by several associations that play important roles in hazard mitigation. These include the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC), the League of Oregon Cities (LOC), the Special Districts Association of Oregon (SDAO), and the Oregon Emergency Management Association (OEMA). For example, the AOC and OEMA participate on the Hazard Mitigation Grant Review Board, all advocate legislation and/or regulatory changes, and all provide contacts with their members as the need arises. Back to Index Partners for Disaster Resistance & Resilience: Oregon Showcase State The Partners for Disaster Resistance & Resilience: Oregon Showcase State Initiative (Partnership) provides a comprehensive, cost-effective approach for partners to bring together resources – both human and financial – to enhance disaster safety, preparedness, and mitigation statewide. The Partnership fosters collaboration among private and public agencies; works with communities and organizations to determine needs, identify issues and resources; and helps develop strategies for risk reduction. Oregon’s mitigation strategy or ‘blueprint’ can be organized into three levels: Statewide Activities, Regional Activities, and Local Activities. Each level of activity builds off of the other and leads to a more coordinated and collaborative statewide program. The mission of the Partners for Disaster Resistance & Resilience: Oregon Showcase State Initiative is: To develop and sustain a statewide partnership that offers a comprehensive, cost-effective approach for states, communities and organizations to bring together resources – both human and financial – to enhance community disaster safety and risk reduction…facilitating the development and implementation of risk reduction strategies. The purpose of the Partnership is to connect communities to the knowledge, resources, and information that can help them improve their capacity to fulfill risk reduction, public safety, and community sustainability goals. The mission will be accomplished by linking federal and state agencies, organizations, resources and programs directly to communities, individuals, businesses and organizations engaging in complex issues surrounding risk locally. The intention is to offer communities a seamless support network aimed at building their capacity to address risk reduction in a holistic and sustainable fashion. This collaborative strategy can generate activity that could not be as effectively accomplished by any single entity working independently. Back to Index The Goals of the Partnership:
The Partnership seeks to make disaster resistance and resilience a part of every community’s routine decision making, thus making Oregon safer-now and for generations to come. Back to Index The Partnership’s primary activities The Partnership is based upon 14 core elements. A five-year strategic plan identifies which activities are priorities (To view or download the Partnership's strategic plan Volume 1 and Volume 2.) Primary activities to make Oregon more disaster resilient and resistant include:
The Partnership started with a core group of state agencies, insurance companies, Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup (ONHW), and Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS), who provided the model and framework for the development of the Oregon Showcase State. ONHW at the University of Oregon’s Community Service Center has been the “spark plug” to facilitate state, regional, and local interests – both public and private – to plan ahead; to develop and unite existing coalitions for natural disaster safety; and to increase the public will and resolve to implement measures for protection of people, property, and the economy. For the past 25 years, the CSC, an interdisciplinary organization at the University of Oregon, has provided planning and technical assistance to help solve local and regional issues, improve the quality of life in Oregon, and help make Oregon communities more self sufficient, while providing the highest quality of graduate-level education and professional training. The role of ONHW is to link the skills, expertise, and innovation of higher education with the natural hazard risk reduction needs of communities and regions in Oregon, thereby providing service to the state and learning opportunities for the students. Through the CSC service-learning model, students gain important service and professional experience by helping solve community and regional natural hazards issues. The Partnership continues to engage a broad range of organizations – from state and local government, nonprofit organizations, and citizen groups – to private industry of all varieties. The Partnership focuses on audiences who have authority and accountability to make a difference in natural hazard protection and loss reduction. These individuals range from those making household and business decisions to those who affect the sustainability of an entire community and beyond, e.g., urban planners, local fire marshals, city managers, conservation club members, and builders/contractors. By becoming involved in The Partnership, organizations and agencies can enhance their work and improve their capacity to reach their goals as they relate to loss reduction, protection of public safety, corporate citizenship, and community sustainability. Back to Index Linking the Partners for Disaster Resistance & Resilience: Oregon Showcase State to the Disaster Mitigation Act / Hazard Mitigation Planning In February 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published Interim Final Rule 44 CFR Part 201, which required all states and local governments to develop natural hazard mitigation plans by November 1, 2003. This deadline was later extended to November 1, 2004 for local plans and May 1, 2005 for state plans. For local governments, the requirement only applies towards maintaining eligibility for certain FEMA hazard mitigation grant programs, but for states, this requirement also applies to certain categories of federal disaster assistance. These planning and mitigation requirements for states and local governments will be accomplished in great measure through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM). ONHW is working with Partnership, Oregon Emergency Management (OEM), FEMA and local governments statewide to coordinate Partnership activities in a manner consistent with the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program and that will assist communities and the state in meeting the requirements of 44 CFR Part 201. This relationship of Oregon’s hazard mitigation planning and the Partners for Disaster Resistance & Resilience programs will help achieve the broad goals of both programs, while assisting communities to address the requirements of the new Federal Rule. To accomplish the goals of this plan, OEM and Partnership will promote a collaborative approach to mitigation planning and activities that promote inter-governmental coordination, foster public-private partnerships, and build local capacity to develop risk reduction strategies and activities. The partnering of Oregon’s hazard mitigation planning and Partners for Disaster Resistance & Resilience will ultimately lead to an integrated, cost-effective and systematic approach for all levels of government and the private sector by bringing together resources – both human and financial – to prepare for and minimize natural disaster impacts. The activities of both programs will provide measurable outcomes that serve to institutionalize disaster protection into long-range policies, procedures, programs, designs and plans and to take immediate action in reducing costs associated with disasters. Oregon communities will become more disaster resistant as this undertaking links various programs and partners with specific community needs. Project progress and successes will be assessed through quarterly reporting methods. Additionally, this planning process aims to incorporate economic, environmental, cultural, and historical considerations into natural hazard mitigation planning while adhering to state and federal requirements for community mitigation planning. These requirements include the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Oregon Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 7, and State Senate Bill 360, among other federal and state requirements for mitigation planning. Back to Index State Funding Capabilities
Many factors contribute to a state’s capability to fund hazard mitigation projects. For example, does the state maintain a mitigation contingency fund to implement projects in both pre- and post-disaster scenarios? In Oregon, the state does not have a statutory mitigation funding capability to pay for mitigation projects either in their entirety or to fulfill the non-federal matching requirement for federally-funded mitigation grants. It’s not that mitigation is not important, but rather, it may not be high enough priority with many other programs competing for very limited general revenue funding. State agencies that identify mitigation projects must secure their own funding on a piecemeal basis when the need arises. Mitigation projects that benefit local government (cities, counties, special districts) are funded by the local governments; the state does not traditionally provide funding for local mitigation projects either in their entirety nor for the required non-federal match. Rather than being a deterrent for local project implementation, the lack of state funding creates an opportunity to develop highly competitive grant applications for federal funds particularly for the annual offerings of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant program. OEM works closely through the Partnership for Disaster Resistance to develop competitive planning applications and identifies local communities with top priority migration projects that are justified by strong benefit-cost ratios (highly cost effective). Even though Oregon does not have an established mitigation funding capability, state and local governments are still able to implement mitigation projects that provide long-term benefits. Ultimately, all mitigation becomes local. This is largely a function of commitment to the measured benefits of mitigation and a community’s desire to minimize disaster losses while maintaining a resilient economy. The local mitigation planning process is critical in developing a community’s commitment to reducing disaster losses and is evident in communities that have embraced planning for and implementation of mitigation projects. For example, the positive results of recent mitigation initiatives in Tillamook County following the flooding of 1996 have significantly reduced flood losses to homes and businesses in subsequent years (recently measured by statewide flooding in late December 2005 – January 2006). The Oregon Partners for Disaster Resistance and Resilience initiative has helped build and foster collaborative partnerships to reduce future disaster losses through planning and project implementation. Oftentimes, mitigation opportunities can be identified in conjunction with other funding programs to achieve multi-objective benefits. For example, wetlands restoration projects or creating floodwater storage for environmental enhancements also have the collateral benefit of reducing flood losses to developed properties. Back to Index Current and Potential Sources Funding to implement mitigation measures can come from a number of sources; these include government (local, state and federal), private sector, foundations, and from citizens themselves. The funding can be in the form of grants that may or may not require matching funding as well as loans of different types. Prior to a disaster, grants and loans can be made available on a scheduled or special announcement basis. Following disasters, post-disaster grants and loans come from a number of sources when the opportunities for mitigation are oftentimes best coupled with the recovery effort. Citizens themselves make significant contributions to mitigation projects including, oftentimes, matching funds or providing the full amount of funding from their own resources. For more information about current and potential sources of funding see Part IV, Appendix 5: Hazard Mitigation Funding Programs. Back to Index Action Plan for Hazard Mitigation Overview of Plan's Action Items
The action items are detailed recommendations for activities that state agencies and others could implement to reduce risk. The action items for this plan can be found in the detailed hazard specific sections located in Part III of this plan. The mitigation plan identifies short and long-term action items developed through data collection and research, along with the public participation process. Mitigation plan activities may be considered for funding through state and federal grant programs, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive Grant Program, as funds are made available. Action items address both multi-hazard (MH) and hazard specific issues for the hazards addressed in this plan. To facilitate implementation, each action item includes information on lead and support agencies, timelines, resources needed for implementation, and plan goals addressed. Lead Agency: The lead is the state agency with regulatory responsibility to address a particular proposed action, or that is willing and able to organize resources, find appropriate funding, and oversee implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. The coordinating organization for all action items within the plan is the State Interagency Hazard Migration Team. Support: Internal partner organizations are agencies within the State Interagency Hazard Migration Team or other state agencies that may be able to assist in the implementation of a particular proposed action item by providing relevant resources to the lead agency. Timeline: Each hazard chapter includes both short and long-term actions. Each action item includes an estimate of the timeline for implementation. Short-term action items (ST) are activities that state agencies may implement with existing resources and authorities. Long-term action items (LT) require new or additional resources and/or authorities. Resources: Resources are generally expressed as a level of effort in full time equivalent (FTE) staff members. While costs are not estimated for this plan, $100,000 (in 2000 dollars) is a commonly used value for one FTE; it includes direct salary plus benefits, and overhead costs. Back to Index Action Item Matrix The Action Item Matrix pulls together the short and long-term action items found in the individual hazard chapters and combines them in an easy to read matrix (Appendix 11 Click here for the pdf version). This matrix lists the action items and then indicates which of the four plan goals they help to accomplish. It also shows the priority (high, medium, low) for each short and long-term action. Back to Index Coordination with Local Mitigation Planning Local Funding and Technical Assistance
Oregon’s natural hazards mitigation strategy or “blueprint” can be organized into three levels: statewide activities, regional activities, and local activities. Each level of activity builds off of the previous and leads to more coordinated mitigation strategies and plans. This approach links state strategies, resources and activities directly to regional and local planning processes. Oregon’s strategy is to build local capacity in developing and implementing risk reduction activities through plan development support, technical assistance and training, partnership development and resources sharing. To achieve this objective, our approach fosters partnerships among agencies, communities, academia and community organizations to determine needs, identify issues and resources, and develop both short-term and long-term risk reduction strategies. An example of this coordination and sharing of resources is illustrated by vulnerability assessments and other baseline information collected at the state and regional level that are then made available to local governments and organizations planning for natural hazards. Mitigation action items and implementation measures are most effective at the community level as local considerations drive the planning process. A number of projects have already been completed and evaluated in Oregon using the coordinated partnerships approach. Back to Index Local Plan Integration Local NHMPs receive an initial review by the State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) at OEM or his staff, generally while in draft form, before they are submitted to FEMA Region Ten for a formal pre-adoption review. In fact, it is common for local governments in Oregon to submit individual pieces of their plans to OEM for review as they are drafted. This allows OEM to play a role in minor course corrections, should it be necessary, fairly early in the local planning process. Given that many local governments are at various stages in the development of local NHMPs, the SHMO and his staff are commonly reviewing one or more plans at any given time. Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup (ONHW) also provides staff support to the SHMO for local plan review. OEM and ONHW mitigation staffs are available as a technical resource to local mitigation planning committees when asked to participate and when time permits. OEM and ONHW periodically and routinely offer training to local government officials on natural hazards mitigation planning. The selection criteria for HMGP grants in Oregon have long included an element on local mitigation planning; this first occurred five years before FEMA issued the interim final rule on state and local mitigation planning. Oregon has been tracking local hazard mitigation planning activities since 1996, and communities around the state continue to develop and implement mitigation plans that increase local capacity to mitigate natural hazards. The state of Oregon maintains a set of benchmarks that evaluate progress toward Oregon’s strategic vision that includes, among other components, caring, safe and engaged communities. One such benchmark includes a performance measure that tracks the percentage of jurisdictions with hazard mitigation plans. Since this benchmark was instituted before FEMA’s interim final rule on mitigation planning, it has and continues to track and encourage natural hazards mitigation planning for all of Oregon’s jurisdictions. The plans are tracked at the county level (36 Oregon counties) and inventory those plans that are completed along with future expectations. Development of a mechanism to cross-reference local plan strategies/actions/projects to the state NHMP is underway. OEM and ONHW plan to fully develop this cross-reference between local NHMPs and the state NHMP prior to the next three-year FEMA review of the state NHMP. In fact, OEM has already established a column in the table found in Part IV Appendix 11 to help facilitate this process. Resources to review local NHMP strategies and actions, and cross-reference them to the state NHMP have not been identified to date. Some local strategies/actions/projects link well with the actions proposed in the state Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (NHMP). Other local strategies/actions/projects do not apply to the state NHMP because their focus is narrow when compared with the nature of the actions proposed in the state plan. Finally, a third set of local strategies/actions likely will prompt the State IHMT to revise or add to the actions in the state NHMP because they are good ideas that are not especially well covered in the existing state NHMP. It is also our belief that posting the state NHMP on the Internet for the use of local governments in their planning efforts will help generate ideas for the development and revision of local natural hazards mitigation plans. A web-based document is simply easier to update and distribute making it a tool that will be used frequently while staying current and relevant. Back to Index Prioritization for Local Assistance Establish Project Priorities The mission of this state NHMP is: “To create a disaster resistant state by reducing the threat of natural hazards to life, property, emergency response capabilities, economic stability, and infrastructure while encouraging the protection and restoration of natural resources and the environment.” This philosophy of instilling disaster resistance encourages state agencies and local governments to incorporate natural hazards mitigation planning and project implementation into their normal day-to-day operations. By implementing plan activities through existing local programs and initiatives, the cost of mitigation is oftentimes a small portion of the overall cost of a project. If no federal funding is used in these situations, the prioritization process may be less formal and not tied to a strict benefit-cost model, but rather a willingness to simply implement hazard mitigation. When FEMA funding is provided, criteria for determining eligibility and selection of proposed multi-hazard mitigation measures include those developed by the state and those of the federal funding program. Following a severe storm and flooding disaster in Clatsop and Tillamook counties in January 1990, Oregon developed a state-specific set of project evaluation goals to complement FEMA post-disaster mitigation grant program eligibility requirements. After the statewide flooding disaster of February 1996, the state-specific mitigation project goals were further refined and still, today, emphasize:
Oregon was also one of the first states to include local natural hazards mitigation planning as a selection criterion for competitive multi-hazard mitigation project grant funding. More than five years before FEMA issued the interim final rule on state and local mitigation planning, Oregon established scoring criteria for HMGP grants that included a preference for local natural hazards mitigation planning. The state policy framework on hazard mitigation strongly encourages developing and implementing local multi-hazard mitigation plans that address hazard mitigation or avoidance. This emphasis on local planning encourages cooperation between the state and local governments and is essential in moving the mitigation plan to the implementation phase. Understanding local mitigation needs and priorities helps the state steer local governments to resource programs that can leverage resources for their mitigation activities. Local mitigation planning efforts that recognize grant program criteria for project implementation can tailor certain action items that meet the grant program project criteria and be eligible with little or no further development. In addition, when any federal funding is made available for hazard mitigation, there are usually requirements that establish a rigorous benefit-cost analysis as a predominate criterion in establishing project priorities. Projects to reduce or eliminate damage to infrastructure that has been damaged repeatedly by the same hazard in the same area can also be singled-out as a high priority for hazard mitigation. Critical infrastructure facilities such as police and fire stations, emergency operations centers, hospitals, utilities and primary transportation corridors that provide significant service benefits to a large population are also high priority mitigation opportunities. Businesses that carry the economic viability of a community are also likely candidates for hazard mitigation. When using FEMA grant funding for mitigation projects, specific recognition of the federal eligibility criteria must be addressed. These “gate keeper” criteria must be met before mitigation projects can be measured against other competing, worthy projects for the oftentimes very limited grant funding. In general, the minimum criteria for FEMA-funded mitigation projects using post-disaster funding include:
When using pre-disaster federal mitigation funding, there is an additional emphasis to address repetitive loss properties, particularly those insured by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). By its very nature, pre-disaster mitigation funding is not specifically earmarked for disaster areas. Therefore, the top priority federal mitigation grant funding criteria focus on the measured benefits for the cost of the mitigation and reducing damage to repetitive loss structures. Even the Increased Cost of Compliance component of NFIP flood insurance includes mitigation opportunities for those homes and businesses that have repetitive flood losses or are substantially damaged by a single flood event. For FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) the state is required to have a FEMA-approved administrative plan that establishes minimum applicant and project eligibility. Oregon’s HMGP Administrative Plan (current to disaster FEMA-1510-DR-OR) is an integral part of this mitigation plan; it includes these minimum applicant and project priorities, as well as selection criteria. Another example: following the February 1996 (FEMA-1099-DR-OR) flooding, landslides, and stream erosion disaster, the Governor established a mitigation policy that outlines preferences for mitigation actions. These mitigation preferences are not meant to be static, but rather are intended to be responsive to the needs of both post-disaster recovery and future mitigation actions. Federal environmental and historic criteria must also be addressed when establishing project priorities. Consideration for appropriate federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations is required. Oftentimes the multi-objective benefits of mitigation can also provide environmental benefits. Only those projects that are technically feasible should be developed. Projects that are not technically feasible and unsubstantiated by practice or engineering requirements will not be considered a high priority. Whether there is grant funding offered in the pre- or post-disaster environment, communities need to understand the basic federal grant program criteria which will drive the identification, selection, and funding of the most competitive and worthy mitigation projects. The state has the authority to develop selection criteria that consider a number of other factors. For example, the state does not “pre-select” nor target funding to a select group of jurisdictions. Rather, the state strives for geographic equity in its multi-hazard grant programs and strongly encourages projects from all regions of the state. Whether a community is facing the challenges of intense development pressures or may not be on a fast growth curve, the state has the obligation to consider a community’s needs to reduce those hazard losses that present the highest risk. Local governments are responsible for developing their jurisdiction-specific hazard mitigation plans that identify high-risk facilities, mitigation opportunities and priorities. The state will give significant consideration to those local plans that have identified and prioritized their mitigation actions and projects based on risk. As more Oregon jurisdictions develop FEMA approved mitigation plans, county-by-county set-asides of post-disaster mitigation funds will encourage implementation of their local plans using their plan priorities to make local project decisions. This strategy was implemented following DR-1405 with planning grant set-asides earmarked for Coos and Curry counties that now have FEMA-approved mitigation plans. Project set-asides could be simply calculated based on a county’s (FEMA) disaster costs with a HMGP project allocation earmarked for projects in that county. The state system used to rank mitigation measures incorporates state eligibility as well as federal eligibility criteria. Federal eligibility criteria are described in the specific FEMA/DHS grant program guidance (FMA, HMGP or PDM) while the state eligibility criteria are described in this document, HMGP Administrative Plan, and in the grant application documents developed by the state. The state selection process strives to be as objective as possible with an emphasis on those projects that reduce serious risks associated with repetitive losses, protection of critical facilities and services, are feasible, identified as an action item in the local community mitigation plan, and are cost effective. Additionally, all Oregon communities with a FEMA-mapped flood hazard participate in the NFIP and are in good standing while a number belong to the CRS. The benefit-cost ratio is, perhaps, the most objective selection criterion. Criteria that are much less objective emphasize the importance of geographic diversity with the idea that all communities whether small or large have equal standing in the review and ranking process. There is simply not enough grant funding to address all of the state’s mitigation needs, so it is important to use the grant programs to demonstrate the success of mitigation all around the state. The State Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team and Hazard Mitigation Grant Review Board (see Oregon’s HMGP Administrative Plan for Board membership) play key roles in not only reviewing, ranking and selecting projects, but remain available and ready to assist OEM in developing grant program outreach strategies, particularly in the post-disaster environment. State project rankings and selections are then forwarded by Oregon Emergency Management to FEMA Region 10 for their consideration, approval and funding obligation. Example of Implementation of Prioritization Process Most importantly, the state project prioritization process requires flexibility, due to varying program criteria, associated funding sources and legislative intent. The prioritization process can be tailored to both pre- and post-disaster needs and, for example, can be adjusted to the nature of the disaster and opportunities during the recovery phase. Because the state legislature has identified mitigation priorities, legislative intent can be a significant factor in establishing project priorities as well. When federal funding is utilized, the benefit-cost analysis (project cost effectiveness) is an essential component of the decision making and ranking process. Projects that address repetitive losses in addition to those measures that are multi-hazard in nature are oftentimes identified as stand-out projects for priority consideration. Together with local mitigation planning which identifies local mitigation measures and actions, the state prioritization process can quickly incorporate mitigation needs that have already been recognized in approved local mitigation plans. Selection and eligibility criteria vary depending on the source of funding, however, the state prioritization process not only considers the required criteria but goes beyond whether they are simply met or not. In some cases it can be a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer while in most instances it is possible to establish a gradation or score. And, yet other prioritization criteria do not necessarily lend themselves to a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer or score but can lead to further discussion in the selection process. For example, geographic equity (making sure mitigation measures are implemented statewide) and past grant performance are very subjective in nature. The following simplified example (table 2-2) shows how projects can be scored and prioritized for further discussion and selection by a review committee. This scoring scheme is used in concept each time mitigation funding decisions require a prioritization process. The scoring table synthesizes and scores the relevant project information as a starting point for discussion by the grant review committee. Selection criteria are representative, only, for this example. Back to Index Table 2-2: Sample Mitigation Grant Program – Ranking Table
So, for this example: Project 1 has the best overall average score while project 4 was determined to be ineligible as the BCR is less than 1.0 and the proposed mitigation action is not identified in the local mitigation plan. Projects 2 and 3 tied with the same numerical average, however, it was agreed that the utility line burial project provides important life safety benefits, addresses multiple hazards, and was submitted from a rural area of the state that had not previously received mitigation grant funding (the home elevation was in an area that had received multiple grants during the last five years). Not all projects submitted for federal grant funding consideration will meet the traditional program criteria. This is evident with those projects that have an educational component or function as a warning system, for example. The state does have some reasonable flexibility to work with communities to identify high priority mitigation projects that may not meet the traditional project and selection criteria. Funding in these situations is very limited and only represents a tiny portion of the overall grant program. Additional information on funding set-asides for mitigation planning and non-traditional mitigation projects can be found in the state’s HMGP Administrative Plan. Back to Index Environmental Review Process The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a federal law which establishes a national policy for the protection and maintenance of the environment by providing a process which all federal agencies must follow to ensure that: - The federal agency has considered the effects of their actions on the environment before deciding to fund and implement a proposed action, and - Environmental information is made available to other public officials and citizens before agency decisions are made and before actions are taken. NEPA is a component of the environmental review process that also includes, for example, historic consideration of buildings and facilities, endangered species, Presidential Executive Orders (EO), and so on. Oregon Emergency Management and FEMA Region Ten environmental staff work collaboratively to make sure mitigation project actions using FEMA-provided funding follow federal environmental laws. While Oregon Emergency Management has the lead role in ensuring the collection of “minimal NEPA” information from sub-applicants, the FEMA environmental review team is responsible to perform reviews for compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. The state’s support of the environmental review process is described in the state’s HMGP Administrative Plan, which is updated immediately following major disaster declarations when HMGP is authorized. FEMA will assist with the required federal environmental reviews, but projects may first be required to meet a state assessment of environmental impacts. According to the state’s HMGP Administrative Plan, applicants with projects that have potential environmental considerations must indicate this on the application and submit to OEM an assurance that appropriate environmental reviews will be conducted. To facilitate the collection of environmental information, the FEMA/NEPA Environmental Checklist is provided as an attachment to the state’s HMGP application. The FEMA/NEPA Environmental Checklist must be completed to flag any potential environmental considerations. Because of these environmental considerations, NO project shall commence prior to this review and appropriate approval(s). OEM is responsible for communicating all relevant environmental information in proposed projects to FEMA. The applicant is encouraged to work with the State Hazard Mitigation Officer and the FEMA Regional Environmental Officer to obtain and provide a reasonable level of environmental detail that is dependent on the type and location of the proposed mitigation project. Special attention must be directed toward floodplain and wetland management reviews (EOs 11988 and 11990), as shown on the FEMA/NEPA Environmental Checklist. The state will work with the sub-applicant to ensure the pertinent floodplain information is collected and submitted to FEMA. This can include project location on FEMA flood maps, discussions from Flood Insurance Studies, endangered species information, and anecdotal (local) reports on past flood events. Back to Index Benefit-Cost Analysis Process FEMA has adopted the use of benefit-cost analysis as the preferred method for determining cost-effectiveness. According to FEMA’s regulations, a mitigation project is cost-effective if the total cost of the project is less than the expected benefits of avoiding damage from future disasters. Thus, in simple terms the project must be expected to save at least $1 of every $1 spent or have a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of no less than 1.0. Sub-applicants are responsible for providing sufficient supporting documentation to substantiate the benefit-cost analysis of their proposed projects. If a sub-applicant cannot prove the proposed project has a BCR of at least 1.0, the proposed project is likely ineligible (if using federal funding, but could still proceed with non-federal resources). The BCR can also be used by sub-applicants and the state to establish project priorities. Generally, projects with higher BCRs provide greater benefits to the community in reducing future disaster losses. After receiving the sub-applicant’s benefit-cost analysis, the state reviews the analysis and supporting documentation provided by the applicant. Particular attention is paid to the supporting documentation with special emphasis on past damages. For flood hazard mitigation projects, OEM and the applicant work together closely on documenting those past flood damages covered by the NFIP. Additional information that is checked by OEM includes total project costs, project life in years, annual maintenance costs (if any), and frequency of occurrence of the most recent disaster event. If the project benefits business properties, displacement costs and temporary rental costs are also collected. After the state’s initial review, the state and FEMA Region Ten staff work together to validate the benefit-cost ratio meets the federal requirements. In the case of the nationally competitive PDM grant program, the state and FEMA Region 10 staff will jointly review the BCA analysis prior to submitting the application for national review. The state and sub-applicants have a variety of benefit-cost analysis resources available; these include FEMA-provided analytic tools, documentation and training. FEMA-provided benefit-cost analysis software and documentation are de facto standards that meet federal requirements. OMB directs most federal agencies on how to determine cost-effectiveness for their programs. OMB Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, is the guidance FEMA is required to use in this area. FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Desk Reference (Section 9: Cost-Effectiveness) outlines, in general, the process states should use in developing and submitting required benefit-cost analysis documentation to FEMA. Therefore, Oregon selects mitigation measures that are consistent with OMB Circular A-94 when federal funding is utilized. Understanding benefit-cost analysis and using the FEMA-provided software requires training and hands-on experience. In conjunction with grant program announcement offerings, OEM provides benefit-cost analysis training for eligible applicants. Only basic BCA training is provided by OEM, while the more rigorous sessions are offered in partnership with FEMA regional staff and/or FEMA contractor support. In the past year regional BCA training sessions have been offered in Portland, Bend, Eugene and Grants Pass with attendees representing jurisdictions from around the state and other FEMA Region 10 states. The state also directs local applicants to the BCA Helpline which is a good resource when there are questions. OEM encourages applicants to ‘triage’ projects using the very limited data module, first, and progressively use more rigorous approaches once they have minimally satisfied a lower bound ratio of at least 1.0. The benefit-cost analysis aspect of a potential multi-hazard mitigation project, therefore, includes many factors, such as the cost of project, damages avoided, continuity of services, population that benefits, and so on. The state and FEMA work together closely to assist potential applicants in understanding benefit-cost analysis techniques through group training sessions and specialized technical assistance. For example, FEMA and the state jointly presented benefit-cost analysis training sessions as part of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation grants during the FY 03 and FY 05 program offerings. Back to Index Grant Performance, Process, and Implementation Success Stories Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: All past disasters closed including DR-1405 (declared 2002). For DR1510 (declared 2004) all projects will be completed and the disaster closed by December 2006. For small disaster declarations, OEM has chosen not to apply for HMGP grant management funding since those funds would directly reduce the amount of funding available to local governments for their high priority projects. By doing so, OEM relies on local mitigation plans to identify priority project activities that can be implemented quickly in the post-disaster environment. Flood Mitigation Assistance Program. All grants prior to 2004 are completed and closed. Of the three grant programs, FMA has more rigorous project eligibility criteria and only addresses projects that mitigate the flood hazard. Experience has shown this program requires significantly more grant management oversight by OEM to ensure projects are completed in a timely manner. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program. All state earmark grants (2003 and prior) completed and closed. FY2003 Competitive grants are progressing on schedule while the FY2005 Competitive grants are just getting underway.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
