review the material found here - JoCo Serve

impacts associated with each hazard. In addition, committee members were also tasked to
update the status of each of their prior actions that were provided via handout. The status that
could be assigned was on-going, deferred, completed, deleted, or merged. This status update
was due at the second meeting.
Prior to the second meeting each jurisdiction represented in the plan submitted new action items
which were consolidated, and where there was duplication the actions were merged into one.
The new actions were discussed for their validity and sustainability to be incorporated into the
existing action table.
During the final meeting, the identified actions, new and updated, were presented to the
committee for their final review. These actions can be viewed in Table 4.1 at the end of this
section.
4.3 Implementation of Mitigation Actions
44 CFR Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): The mitigation strategy shall include an action
strategy describing how the actions identified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) will be prioritized,
implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a
special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost
benefits review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.
In order to prioritize the mitigation actions, the planning committee elected to discard the use of
the FEMA recommended STAPLEE criteria. It was decided that STAPLEE does not represent
how the jurisdictions accurately prioritize the actions that they have ranked as high, medium or
low. As such, each jurisdiction was instructed to write down what they use as their criteria for
determining an actions high, medium, or low status. As this process unfolded the planning
committee came to the realization that there is no standard on how each jurisdiction ranks their
actions. What is a high ranking for a hospital may only be a medium ranking for a county. This
in and of itself has created a new action item for the region: to come up with a standardized
ranking system across the board. In order to begin the process, the planning committee came
up with the following criteria that is representative of the majority of the action rankings, albeit
not all inclusive. One element that did stand out with regards to prioritization of the actions was
the cost benefit review. It was agreed that this element would be considered before and during
the prioritization and the implementation of the agreed upon actions. FEMA requires a 1:1 ratio
of cost to benefits, which the planning committee felt was necessary to adhere to. The actual
implementation of the actions by the jurisdictions were dependent on funding availability,
however the planning committee were in agreement that all policies, regulations, and legal
procedures would be utilized once an action was scheduled for implementation.
High – Immediate danger to critical infrastructure and potential death to parts of the population,
with a major loss to economic recovery should a disaster strike.
Medium – Damage to critical infrastructure and injury to the population, with medium impact to
the economy.
Low – Jurisdictions know that the project needs to be addressed. The Population and critical
infrastructure could potentially be affected but it is not imminent. Not a high priority.
4.3