A review of the planning needed to accomplish these objectives is described in this section of the Supplement.
Hazard identification data
Hazard identification information defines the natural, technological and societal hazards that threaten the county, as well as the areas or systems threatened by those hazards. Typically, several types of databases of hazard identification information will be available. These data may either precisely define specific hazard areas, such as flood plain maps, or provide a more general insight to the geographic areas vulnerable to specific types of hazards, such as those locations of the county subject to tornadoes or severe winter weather.
Each Working Group has important information from the Department of Community Affairs from the computer analysis using "The Arbiter of Storms" (TAOS) model. This information provides hazard identification information that is vital to successfully completing its vulnerability assessment process. The TAOS data give each Working Group an excellent understanding of the impact of tropical storms and hurricanes on the county.
The TAOS data are one of a several hazard identification information sources that are available to a Working Group. Other types of data include designated flood hazard areas, available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency through the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. In addition, counties with fixed facilities using or storing hazardous materials will also have information defining the areas that would be Impacted by a chemical accident. Working Groups may have other information regarding locations of repetitive flood damage, wildfire risk, likely terrorist targets, or other types of hazards. Several of these data sets are available in a geographic information system (GlS) format, making it easy to use them in conjunction with the TAOS data. Using a GIS based approach to the analysis greatly facilitates use of available hazard and vulnerability data in the decision making processes discussed later in this Supplement.
A review of the databases and other hazard identification information obtained by the Working Group allows it to more easily understand the validity, scope, currentness, and overall usefulness of this data to support the next steps in development of its Local Mitigation Strategy.
Vulnerability assessment data
The hazard identification process allows the Working Group to complete the vulnerability assessment process defining the vulnerabilities of the populations, facilities, systems and environmental features of concern. At this point, it is important for the Working Group to review the findings of the vulnerability assessment process to determine if all relevant populations, facilities, systems, and environmental resources are being adequately analyzed.
Each Working Group also has available data on the critical facilities and systems that occur within the impact areas defined during the hazard identification process. Data on designated critical facilities is available from county emergency management agencies. In many cases, the critical facilities information available to the Florida Division of Emergency Management are also included on the TAOS database provided to the Working Groups. At this point, the Working Group’s review can ensure that the most current and complete critical facilities data has been used to support the vulnerability assessment process.
Beyond designated critical facilities, the Working Group can review the analysis of other key facilities, systems, and neighborhoods that have been included in the vulnerability assessment to date. This information includes vulnerability assessments of threatened neighborhoods, public buildings, key businesses and industries, and similar locations within the community that are important to its welfare. Locations of repetitive disaster losses should also be included.
The final objective of the vulnerability assessment is to show how a population, facility, system or environmental feature is actually vulnerable to a hazard. The Working Group’s data review process should determine if the available data is adequate for this purpose.
Part One of the supplement provides an example of a matrix that could be used to define the mechanisms through which specific types of hazards harmed people and property. Through this or a similar approach, the Working Group gains an understanding of the types of impacts caused by specific hazards, which actually result in physical damage or operational failure. By comparing the type of impacts with the facilities and systems in question, the Working Group can identify the types of mitigation initiatives, projects or programs that could eliminate or lessening some or all of these vulnerabilities.
The Working Group’s data review process will determine if there is adequate information to have identified the hazard areas of the community and to predict the specific vulnerabilities of facilities, systems, neighborhoods and resources to those hazards. If the Working Group determines that there are significant shortfalls in the available information, efforts can be made to correct the problems. Otherwise, the Working Group is in a good position to focus its analysis and proceed with preparation of its Local Mitigation Strategy.
An Example
Perhaps a Working Group is examining a specific critical facility, such as a fire station.
Using a GIS-based approach for its hazard analysis, it was shown that the fire station was
in the flood plain. The TAOS data not only provided an indication of the likely flood
levels, and also indicated this fire station was subject to high winds. The potential
impacts of high wind and water levels on the building are then evaluated. The Group
determines that the roof and doors, in their existing condition, would fail under the
predicted wind speeds. In addition, high water would block access to the building, damage
electrical utilities, and put the stations’ sewer service out of operation. If these
damages occurred, the station could not be used and important fire fighting apparatus may
become be inaccessible. The Working Group now recognizes how the station itself is
vulnerable to wind and water damage, and that the safety of the community would be
seriously threatened if it could not be used during or after a disaster. The Working Group
then defines several specific mitigation initiatives to address these vulnerabilities,
such as retrofitting the roof to withstand the predicted wind speeds and flood proofing
the building up to the flood level indicated. These initiatives are incorporated into the
Working Group’s Local Mitigation Strategy.
Step 2
Focusing the vulnerability Assessment