For purposes of development of a Local Mitigation Strategy, the key objectives of the vulnerability assessment process are to help the Working Group identify and justify structural and non-structural mitigation initiatives that should be proposed for implementation through the strategy. This section of the supplement addresses an approach to using the results of the vulnerability assessment process to identify and define specific mitigation initiatives.

The findings of the vulnerability assessment process are likely to be the origin of many of the mitigation initiatives to be included in the Local Mitigation Strategy, or can otherwise demonstrate the need for their implementation. In addition to the vulnerability assessment process itself, a Working Group should identify mitigation initiatives based on its analysis of the plans, policies and programs of the community (i.e., its "guiding principles"), as well as from other sources of local information and past experience with disaster. These three pathways to identifying the need for mitigation initiatives can all be supported by the factual information provided by the vulnerability assessment process, which will be important to justifying their implementation. Overall, the procedures developed by the Working Group for the processing and prioritizing of structural and non-structural initiatives should be capable of fully exploiting all sources of proposals, and be able to demonstrate their justification with the results of the vulnerability assessment process.

The number and type of mitigation initiatives developed from the findings of the vulnerability assessment could vary widely based on the approach taken by the Working Group, the degree to which the process was focused, and the actual vulnerabilities of the community. Nevertheless, the process should identify the specific structural and non-structural mitigation initiatives that are needed to counteract the vulnerabilities identified.

Identifying mitigation initiatives from the assessment

Because the vulnerability assessment process focuses on definition of specific types of vulnerabilities of the facilities, systems and neighborhoods at risk — whether they are existing or to be developed in the future -- the process of developing proposed mitigation initiatives will be significantly facilitated. Understanding the specific vulnerabilities will enable the Working Group to identify specific structural and non-structural initiatives to mitigate those vulnerabilities.

At this point in development of the Local Mitigation Strategy, the identification of specific vulnerabilities and corresponding mitigation initiatives can be most readily and quickly completed by the individual(s) most familiar with the facility, system, neighborhood, plan or code under review. Because Working Groups will have limited resources to conduct the vulnerability assessment process for an entire county, these individuals would need to make estimates or predictions of the specific vulnerabilities based on their own "expert’ knowledge and familiarity with the facility, system, neighborhoods, plans or codes. For complex or unusual situations warranting more detailed analysis, the Working Group could propose an individual, in-depth study as a mitigation initiative to be included in the strategy, as part of the application for funding, or during the actual development phase of the project or program.

To begin the process, the Working Group should ensure that the appropriate individuals are made aware of the hazard identification information available, so that they can understand the types of threats to the facilities, systems, neighborhood plan or policy they are evaluating. Equipped with this information, and their own knowledge of the situation, the individuals can predict the types of operational and structural damage that would occur from the types of events in question. Understanding the types of damage that could occur, to either existing or future development, will enable the individuals doing the assessment to define, in turn, the types of corrective actions that could be taken to avoid or minimize the impact of the damages.

To assist the individuals making the assessment, the Working Group would want to be able to offer ideas and information about the most commonly utilized types of structural and non-structural initiatives needed to address the vulnerabilities being identified by the process. The Department of Community Affairs can assist the Working Group in locating and accessing these information resources.

Through these cooperative efforts, the Working Group can develop one or more suitable structural or non-structural mitigation initiatives to address existing and future vulnerabilities of greatest concern. In this process, the ranking or prioritizing of vulnerabilities, if completed in accord with Step Two, can focus the analysis on those vulnerabilities of greatest concern. When the desired mitigation initiatives have been identified, the Working Group will then need enough information regarding their characteristics to further process and prioritize the proposal for incorporation into the strategy.

Defining and characterizing the proposed initiatives

To be successfully implemented, the Working Group’s Local Mitigation Strategy will need to adequately define the structural and non-structural mitigation initiatives to be included in it. The level of detail of the description needs to be adequate for the decision-makers that will be involved later to understand what is actually proposed and why it is being proposed. If the mitigation initiatives are not explained and justified sufficiently, decision-makers may be less likely to support adoption of the strategy or to authorize implementation of the initiatives contained in it. In addition, too little information makes the prioritization process more difficult and does not provide the type of background information likely to be needed for preparation of funding applications.

Each Working Group will need to identify a level of detail for defining and justifying the proposed mitigation initiative in a manner that reflects its own unique needs and capabilities, as well as the overall cost and available resources. These requirements should be described in its procedures for processing and prioritizing mitigation initiatives that have been developed as a part of the county’s grant agreement with the Department of Community Affairs. The information needs stipulated by the procedures for the prioritization of initiatives, as established by the Working Group, will be a key factor in establishing the information needs for defining the specific mitigation initiatives to be included in the strategy.

With the desired structural and non-structural mitigation initiatives identified, and defined through the activities described in this step, the Working Group will be prepared to proceed to the next step: the development of a detailed description and justification of the proposed initiatives to determine if they warrant continued investigation through the prioritization process.

Step 4
Estimating the Benefits and Costs of an Initiative