LATAH COUNTY, IDAHO MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

period, “Medium” for hazards occurring every 5 to 25 years, or “Low” for hazards occurring more than 25 years apart. 2 The following tables summarize the Phase I Hazard Assessments for Latah County. Latah County Phase I Risk Assessment: Magnitude Low Medium High Frequency Low Medium Extended Power Outage Flood Severe Weather Landslide Terrorism/Civil Unrest High Wildland Fire The inclusion of additional hazards was considered; however, due to funding limitations, participating jurisdictions chose not to assess technological, man‐caused, or other hazards until additional funding becomes available. At such a time, the Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan will be revised to include additional hazards such as hazardous materials, earthquake, and pandemic. Goals and Guiding Principles Federal Emergency Management Agency Philosophy Effective November 1, 2004, a Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is required for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre‐Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM) eligibility. The HMGP and PDM programs provide funding, through state emergency management agencies, to support local mitigation planning and projects to reduce potential disaster damages. The new local Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan requirements for HMGP and PDM eligibility is based on the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which amended the Stafford Disaster Relief Act to promote an integrated, cost effective approach to mitigation. Local Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plans must meet the minimum requirements of the Stafford Act‐Section 322, as outlined in the criteria contained in 44 CFR Part 201. The plan criteria cover the planning process, risk assessment, mitigation strategy, plan maintenance, and adoption requirements. In order to be eligible for project funds under the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program, communities are required under 44 CFR Part 79.6(d)(1) to have a mitigation plan that addresses flood hazards. On 2 Custer County, Idaho. Scoring system partially adapted from the Custer County Multi‐Jurisdiction All Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2008. Pp 165‐168. 9
October 31 st , 2007, FEMA published amendments to the 44 CFR Part 201 at 72 Federal Reg. 61720 to incorporated mitigation planning requirements for the FMA program (44 CFR Part 201.6). The revised Local Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk (July 2008) used by FEMA to evaluate local hazard mitigation plans is consistent with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended by Section 322 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended by the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 and 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 201 – Mitigation Planning, inclusive of all amendments through October 31, 2007 was used as the official guide for development of a FEMA‐compatible Latah County Local Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plan. 3 FEMA will only review a local Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan submitted through the appropriate State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO). Draft versions of local Multi ‐ Hazard Mitigation Plans will not be reviewed by FEMA. FEMA will review the final version of a plan prior to local adoption to determine if the plan meets the criteria, but FEMA will be unable to approve it prior to adoption. In Idaho the SHMO is: Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security 4040 Guard Street, Bldg 600 Boise, ID 83705 A FEMA designed plan will be evaluated on its adherence to a variety of criteria. • Adoption by the Local Governing Body • Multi‐jurisdictional Plan Adoption • Multi‐jurisdictional Planning Participation • Documentation of Planning Process • Identifying Hazards • Profiling Hazard Events • Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Assets • Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses • Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends • Multi‐jurisdictional Risk Assessment • Local Hazard Mitigation Goals • Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Measures • Implementation of Mitigation Measures • Multi‐jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy • Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan • Implementation Through Existing Programs • Continued Public Involvement 3 Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Local Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance.” July 1, 2008. 10
Page 1 and 2: LATAH COUNTY, IDAHO MULTI HAZARD
Page 4 and 5: Table of Contents Foreword.........
Page 6 and 7: This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 8 and 9: Chapter 1 - Plan Overview Overview
Page 12 and 13: Planning Philosophy and Goals Latah
Page 14 and 15: 12. Mitigation - Provide for quick
Page 16 and 17: Latah County Emergency Operations P
Page 20 and 21: Chapter 2 - Planning Process Docume
Page 22 and 23: strategies. For example, Northwest
Page 24 and 25: Figure 2.1. Press Release #1. Media
Page 26 and 27: Continued Public Involvement Latah
Page 28 and 29: Chapter 3 - Community Profile Latah
Page 30 and 31: Socioeconomics Latah County had a t
Page 32 and 33: wildlife populations. In addition,
Page 34 and 35: The Clean Air Act, passed in 1963 a
Page 36 and 37: Table 3.6. SHELDUS Database For Lat
Page 44 and 45: Chapter 4 - Hazard Risk Assessment
Page 46 and 47: On small drainages, the most severe
Page 48 and 49: the milder slope, it loses its mome
Page 50 and 51: Landslide Landslide is a general te
Page 52 and 53: The primary factors that increase l
Page 54 and 55: is apparently the Gulf of Mexico an
Page 56 and 57: Table 4.1. Weather and Climate for
Page 58 and 59: Wildland Fire The original Latah Co
Page 60 and 61:
(frequency) and fire severity prior
Page 62 and 63:
Table 4.3. Fire Regime Condition Cl
Page 64 and 65:
• High Density Urban Areas - thos
Page 66 and 67:
Extended Power Outages Power is sup
Page 68 and 69:
Rolling blackouts, an intentionally
Page 70 and 71:
Latah County Annex Chapter 5 - Juri
Page 72 and 73:
Most of the structures in the FEMA
Page 74 and 75:
the subtropics (known locally as th
Page 76 and 77:
*does not include policies in incor
Page 78 and 79:
Table 5.3. Landslide Risk Due to Sl
Page 80 and 81:
throughout many parts of the County
Page 82 and 83:
Drought can have a broad effect on
Page 84 and 85:
loss of economic activity. Latah Co
Page 86 and 87:
Fire suppression often depends on t
Page 88 and 89:
Flannigan Creek Fire 2003 ‐ High
Page 90 and 91:
Extended Power Outage Electrical po
Page 92 and 93:
Table 5.5. Record of Latah County P
Page 94 and 95:
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 96 and 97:
The major impacts from both types o
Page 98 and 99:
Value of Resources at Risk It is di
Page 100 and 101:
spread toward Mountain View Trailer
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Figure 5.5. FEMA Flood Insurance Ra
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
piling and burning or by broadcast
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
endanger roads, buildings, and peop
Page 116 and 117:
Although the financial impacts of h
Page 118 and 119:
Extended Power Outage The city of J
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
development is located on a foreste
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
newer ones. Snow plowing within the
Page 130 and 131:
Structural fire protection is provi
Page 132 and 133:
flood plain. Several newer manufact
Page 134 and 135:
Severe Weather The city of Genesee
Page 136 and 137:
Before the development of agricultu
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
of the steep slopes above the commu
Page 144 and 145:
Wildland Fire The community of Kend
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
department personnel, opening of sh
Page 150 and 151:
lighter fuels. However, considering
Page 152 and 153:
Figure 5.10. FEMA Flood Insurance R
Page 154 and 155:
Severe Weather The city of Troy doe
Page 156 and 157:
available to burn. These fuel types
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Value of Resources at Risk The Nort
Page 162 and 163:
Kendrick may be at risk to severe h
Page 164 and 165:
Chapter 6 - Mitigation Strategy Adm
Page 166 and 167:
• Redo risk analysis models incor
Page 168 and 169:
Benefit / Cost (BC) The analysis pr
Page 170 and 171:
Potential to mitigate hazards to fu
Page 172 and 173:
Table 6.1. Latah County Mitigation
Page 174 and 175:
Table 6.1. Latah County Mitigation
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Table 6.2. City of Moscow Mitigatio
Page 180 and 181:
Table 6.3. City of Deary Mitigation
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Table 6.4. City of Juliaetta Mitiga
Page 186 and 187:
Table 6.5. City of Potlatch Mitigat
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Table 6.6. City of Bovill Mitigatio
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Table 6.8. City of Kendrick Mitigat
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Table 6.11. North Latah County High
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Table 6.12. South Latah Highway Dis
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Supporting Information Chapter 7 -
Page 212 and 213:
Latah County Resolution of Adoption
Page 214 and 215:
City of Deary Resolution of Adoptio
Page 216 and 217:
City of Potlatch Resolution of Adop
Page 218 and 219:
City of Genesee Resolution of Adopt
Page 220 and 221:
City of Onaway Resolution of Adopti
Page 222 and 223:
North Latah County Highway District
Page 224 and 225:
January 15 th , 2010 - Latah County
Page 226 and 227:
3. Send committee electronic copies
Page 228 and 229:
Agenda Item #4 - MHMP Map and Data
Page 230 and 231:
Tera reminded the remaining fire di
Page 232 and 233:
committee felt this was justified b
Page 234 and 235:
Slide 9 Slide 10 Slide 11 Slide 12
Page 236 and 237:
Potential Funding Sources Program:
Page 238 and 239:
Program: Source: Description: More
Page 240:
This plan was developed by Northwes
show all

LATAH COUNTY, IDAHO MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?