Res21 16010 final - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2021 Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 44 CFR Requirement 2016 Plan Updated Plan §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i). This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community Vulnerability was assessed for all hazards of concern. The Hazus computer model (version 2.2) was used for the earthquake, flood and tsunami hazards. These were abbreviated Level 2 analyses using planning partner and County data. Site-specific data on County-identified critical facilities was entered into the Hazus model. Hazus outputs were generated for other hazards by applying an estimated damage function to affected assets. The asset inventory was extracted from the Hazus model. Best available data was used for all analyses. The same methodology was deployed for the 2021 plan update, using updated data. Hazus version 4.2 was utilized for all analyses. Analyses were expanded for the dam failure and sea-level rise hazards. All analyses utilized best available data and science. §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment] must also address National Flood Insurance Program insured structures that have been repetitively damaged floods The repetitive loss section was provided to meet Disaster Mitigation Act and Community Rating System planning requirements. The update includes a comprehensive analysis of repetitive loss areas that includes an inventory of the number and types of structures in the repetitive loss area. Repetitive loss areas were delineated, causes of repetitive flooding were cited, and these areas were reflected on maps. The 2021 plan included a Community Rating System level-of-detail repetitive loss area analysis based on 2016 repetitive loss data and the 2017 Community Rating System Coordinator’s Manual. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area. A complete inventory of the numbers and types of buildings exposed was generated for each hazard of concern at the Census block/tract level. This data was updated with relevant current assessor’s data where available. Each hazard chapter provides a discussion on future development trends as they pertain to each hazard. The same methodology was deployed for the 2021 plan update, using updated data. The Steering Committee elected to revise the definition of critical facilities and infrastructure to follow FEMA’s “lifeline” construct. The critical facilities inventory was adjusted accordingly. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate. Estimates of dollar loss were generated for all hazards of concern. These were generated by Hazus for the earthquake, flood, and tsunami hazards. For the other hazards, loss estimates were generated by applying a regionally relevant damage function to the exposed inventory. In all cases, a damage function was applied to an asset inventory. The asset inventory was the same for all hazards and was generated in the Hazus model. The same methodology was deployed for the 2021 plan update, using updated data. Hazus modeling was expanded for dam failure and sea- level rise hazard profiles Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. A qualitative analysis of future trends in development was applied to all hazards of concern. The same methodology was deployed for the 2021 plan update, using updated data. In addition, a look at the change in risk due to new development over the performance period of the plan was performed for each hazard of concern. 2-6