Mitigation Initiatives

This section identifies existing and proposed mitigation programs and projects (pre- and post-disaster) and identifies how local policies, procedures, and regulations support these initiatives. All mitigation programs, policies, or projects should be linked to an implementation mechanism. Associated costs should also be considered when proposing or developing a new program, policy, or project.

Importance

The mitigation initiatives that a community develops must have their basis in the community’s guiding principles on hazard mitigation. The initiatives must also actively reduce a community’s vulnerability to hazards. This can be justified through the vulnerability assessment section of the strategy. Finally, mitigation initiatives must accurately reflect the community’s needs. The working group assigned to develop the strategy can help assure that local needs are incorporated in the mitigation initiatives. These steps prevent a projects that have no basis in a community’s overall vision of hazard mitigation, or in its vulnerability to hazards on the vulnerability assessment, from being proposed.

Most governments conduct mitigation activities on an on-going basis. Itemizing the amount of money a community spends each year on these activities will help identify where mitigation dollars are being spent. Some federal grant programs require local governments to secure matching funds. In the future, program funds spent on mitigation in the community may count as a local match. In addition, procedures developed to monitor and coordinate these expenditures will help likely reduce the cost of recovering from a natural disaster.

Expectations

The first step in this process is to prepare a list of a community’s existing and proposed mitigation initiatives and the policies, ordinances, and regulations that guide these efforts. Agencies of local government, as well as the public, should be included in reviewing, revising, and adding to this list so that it accurately reflects a community’s vision for hazard mitigation.

The list will guide local government funding decisions on an ongoing basis and will function as a road map after a disaster. The projects included on this list will be justified based on a community’s vulnerability assessment, and should be supported by guiding principles, or existing policies and ordinances. This inventory of proposed projects and programs will guide funding decisions for both pre- and post-disaster mitigation activities.

Guidance

Staff from the local government agencies that are members of the working group tasked with developing the strategy should work closely together to identify existing policies and ordinances that address mitigation. Local building codes, land development and floodplain management regulations, and municipal or county comprehensive emergency management plan address mitigation, and can be used as sources of information. The Capital Improvements schedule from a local government comprehensive plan includes a list of prioritized work projects. This list can serve as a model for prioritizing mitigation projects and programs for funding. The full working group can add to this list by identifying needed policies, and will be responsible for selecting and prioritizing mitigation projects.

Numerous funding programs are available to facilitate this process of identifying and implementing mitigation initiatives such as the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), the Emergency Management and Preparedness and Assistance Program (EMPA), the Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program (HMGP), and the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMAP). Projects identified for funding under the FMAP must have the following elements evaluated: a) cost-effectiveness; b) environmental effects; c) technical feasibility; d) explanation of how each project or group of projects contributes to the overall strategy outlined in the mitigation plan; e) conformance with the minimum standards of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); and f) physical location in a NFIP-participating community. The Department of Community Affairs is currently working on a resource identification strategy for local governments to assist in accessing these funds.

Mitigation Initiatives: Examples

Okaloosa County Hazard Mitigation Project

Okaloosa County prepared a long-term recovery plan that addressed a wide range of recovery issues. In the aftermath of Hurricane Opal, Okaloosa County, and the cities of Destin and Fort Walton Beach worked together to select projects for funding with available Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds. Okaloosa County used its long-term recovery plan as a guide to identify an appropriate project. The project that the County identified involved retrofitting a bridge to remove vulnerable utility lines and was submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for funding. (This long term recovery plan is currently under revision to accommodate lessons learned from Opal.) Contact: Okaloosa County Planning Department, tel. 904-651-7524

 

City of Tallahassee Stormwater Utility Fee

The City of Tallahassee has implemented a stormwater utility fee. The fee is based on the total amount of a property’s impervious surface and has been used to prepare a stormwater program and fund a wide range of drainage improvements. Since the devastating 1994 hurricane season, which included Tropical Storm Alberto and other flooding events, several neighborhoods on the south and west sides of town have experienced repeated flooding. However, since no federal monies were immediately available to address this problem, the city used a combination of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and some of its stormwater fee proceeds to acquire the repetitively damaged structures and remove them. Contact: City of Tallahassee Stormwater Management Department, tel. 904-891-8037

 

Lake County Floodplain Management Ordinance

All local governments that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program are required to adopt a floodplain management ordinance which meets the Federal Emergency Management Agencies minimum standards. Often, local governments pass ordinances which exceed these minimum standards to better protect public health and safety. Lake County has adopted a floodplain ordinance that offers better protection to residents than the minimum standards established by FEMA. FEMA requires the lowest floor of all new construction to be built at the established base flood elevation. Lake County requires that all new construction or substantial improvements be constructed using the lowest floor elevation at no lower than eighteen inches above base flood elevation. Contact: Lake County Public Works Department, Stormwater Management, tel. 352-343-9659.

 

State of Florida Emergency Operations Center Construction

The State of Florida constructed its Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to withstand the most extreme storm conditions. The State EOC was designed to withstand 200 mph hurricane wind forces and the impact of wind-blown debris: It has a standing seam metal roof of 18 gauge aluminum with two 1/2" protection board layers on 20 gauge structural metal deck supported by open web steel joists, 8" of reinforced and fully grouted concrete masonry unit load bearing exterior walls with brick facing, an aluminum window system with protective glazing (a three layer composite that has been factory-laminated onto the window glass), and heavy duty entry doors with a three-point latching system. Contact: Mr. Dan Kilcollins, Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management, tel. 850-413-9859.

 

Sarasota County Coastal Setback Ordinance

In 1994, Sarasota County passed an ordinance establishing a Gulf Beach Setback Line (GBSL) and a Barrier Island Pass 20-year Hazard Line (BIPHL) for the unincorporated areas of Sarasota County. The GBSL is based on the original county County Coastal Construction Line (CCCL) established by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in the late 1970s and is a line of prohibition; construction is not permitted seaward of this line. The BIPHL is also a setback line established by Sarasota County. This setback line addresses the shores that are omitted from the CCCL program because they are located behind a barrier island on which the CCCL is drawn. The line is based on a 20-year erosion projection. Contact: Sarasota County Natural Resources Department, Resource Permitting Division, tel. 941-378-6113.

 

Upper Ocklawaha River Basin Restoration and Flood Mitigation Approach

In an attempt to successfully restore the Upper Ocklawaha River and its floodplains, the St. Johns River Water Management District, the State of Florida, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Lake County Water Authority, county and local officials, and the public cooperatively developed a river basin restoration plan. The restoration approach included purchasing property in the floodplain, public outreach and education programs, marsh reconstruction (to store flood waters and filter out pollutants), filling private internal drainage ditches, and restoring the natural flow of the river. This plan simultaneously addressed the goals of flood control, restoration, fisheries improvement, recreation, wetland enhancement, and habitat improvement. This approach is called "multi-objective management and incorporates multiple group goals. By virtue of the fact that this management approach involves many groups, multiple funding sources are often available to accomplish the management objectives. Contact: Mr. David Walker, St. Johns River Water Management District, tel. 352-821-1489

Mitigation Initiatives Guidelines

Policies

• Identify policies that limit public expenditures in areas identified as subject to repetitive damage from disasters. It is important not only to have good policies but to evaluate how well they are working. [Refer to the evaluation worksheet example in Appendix I.]
  
• Identify policies to ensure the protection of critical facilities, such as prohibitions on constructing critical facilities in high hazard areas.
  
• Identify policies on the removal and relocation of damaged and vulnerable infrastructure.
  
• Identify policies to eliminate development in hazard prone areas (floodplains, beach dune areas). [Include participation in the National Flood Insurance Program and the Community Rating System.]
  
• Identify policies to regulate non-conforming land uses, particularly in areas subject to damage from disasters.
  
• Identify policies that regulate land use, beach and dune alteration, floodplains, non-point source stormwater runoff, and the design and location of sanitary sewer and septic tanks in hazard-prone areas, pursuant to Section 9J-5.012(3)(c)3.
  
• Identify policies that prioritize the use of coastal areas for water-dependent uses such as public access and selective aquaculture, pursuant to Section 9J-5.012(3)(b)5.
  
• Identify policies that encourage the removal of septic tanks and technologically-hazardous sites (such as chemical manufacturing plants) from high hazard areas.
  
• Identify policies that regulate watershed alteration (such as channelization, diking, damming, etc) and wetland fill and development. Also, identify policies that address restoration or enhancement of disturbed or degraded natural resources that can mitigate hazards (such as beach and dune systems and wetlands), pursuant to Section 9J-5.012(3)(c)2.
  
• Identify policies that encourage economic diversification (to protect a community from complete dependence on a particular economic source).
  
• Identify policies that designate and prioritize properties for acquisition.
  
• Identify policies that address repetitively damaged and vulnerable residential and commercial structures. [Include policies on structural retrofitting , property acquisition, and relocation.]
  
• Identify policies and procedures for post-storm reconstruction, such as building moratoria or special emergency permitting procedures.
  
• Identify policies to ensure that applications for state and federal funding assistance are reviewed by local planners for concurrence with and support of local mitigation objectives. [This includes CDBG, P2000, and others.]
  
• Identify policies that establish a working group or a task force comprised of local government agency representatives, public and private sector representatives, and liaisons to other government agencies (such as county commissioners) to direct mitigation initiatives. The working group should be directed by a chief elected or appointed official who can coordinate a working group that includes community staff responsible for a wide variety of tasks. (See Section 5, "Public Participation")

Programs

• Identify the adopted local government building code and any areas designated with additional development restrictions, including the CCCL jurisdiction, the Coastal Building Zone (CBZ), and Areas of Critical State Concern.
  
• Provide a review of local land development ordinances and building codes and practices as they relate to hazard mitigation.
  
• Identify procedures, related to the community’s ongoing National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) participation, to request limited revised FIRM studies or FIRM re-studies from FEMA, or to conduct these studies with other funding sources. [This will include any procedure for utilizing future build-out models in flood studies.]
  
• Identify procedures that address the following activities which can earn credits in the Community Rating System Program of the National Flood Insurance Program: loss prevention, property protection (e.g., retrofitting existing structures), natural resource protection, emergency services, structural projects, and public information. [Referenced from the Community Rating System Commentary Guide, July 1996, page 510-13]
  
• Identify procedures to coordinate with the local business community in the development of existing and proposed mitigation activities. (This could be accomplished through a hazard mitigation working group or task force.) [This includes local government participation in the development of a private sector business recovery plan]
  
• Identify land acquisition programs which target property in high hazard areas (in particular, undeveloped property).

Projects

• Identify and prioritize proposed mitigation projects and their associated costs, including, but not limited to those provided in the Capital Improvement Elements of the local government Comprehensive Plan (such as drainage improvements, road repairs, school /shelter retrofitting).

Funding

• Identify one-time and annual local expenditures on mitigation programs and projects (pre- and post-storm).
  
• Identify funding mechanisms, such as special tax districts, impact fees for new development, or beach parking fees, that will assure funds for hazard mitigation programs and projects (e.g., land acquisitions).
  
• Identify economic incentives that discourage development in high hazard areas (such as impact fees on new development). [The proceeds of such costly development could then be used to fund mitigation programs and projects.]
  
• Identify available and potential funding opportunities from external sources to support the implementation of mitigation programs and projects.
  
• For each mitigation project that has been identified for funding under the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, provide information that demonstrates evaluations of: a) cost-effectiveness; b) environmental effects; c) technical feasibility; d) explanation of how each project or group of projects contributes to the overall strategy outlined in the mitigation plan; e) conformance with the minimum standards of the National Flood Insurance Program; and f) physical location in a National Flood Insurance Program-participating community.

- - BACK - -