Chapter 1 - Hazard Mitigation Web Portal - State of California

State of California Multi‐Hazard Mitigation PlanChapter 2 – State Goals and ObjectivesClick Here ToComment On:Chapter 2Section 4.22.4.2 Federal Hazard Mitigation Funding PrioritiesExamples of Federal Funding PrioritiesCal EMA is responsible for distributing federal mitigation funds from FEMA. The following areexamples of priorities for distributing funds:1. Ensuring communities are eligible for federal programs by supporting local multi‐hazardmitigation planning. FEMA provides states with hazard mitigation grant funding from threeprograms: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), described under the Robert T. StaffordAct, Pre‐Disaster Mitigation Program described in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, andFlood Mitigation Assistance Program described in the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.Each of these programs requires approved projects to be consistent with locally and statedevelopedplans and comprise cost‐effective long‐term mitigation. Also, each programallows some funding to be available for developing local hazard mitigation plans.2. Protecting lives and property at risk from imminent hazards created or exacerbated bydisasters. After disasters, affected communities can be threatened by imminent hazardsrelated to the initial disaster event. The experience from the October 2003 fires in SouthernCalifornia is a clear example. The fires destroyed vegetation and changed the absorptioncharacteristics of the soils on the slopes above many communities. Subsequent winterstorms caused floods, mudflows and landslides that added to the destruction from the fire.Aftershocks, landslides and fires can follow from earthquakes, while the aftermath of amajor flood might include landslides and increased vulnerability to future flooding.Recovery efforts after a disaster have several sources of funding. Some of those sources canhelp in abating or mitigating hazards. The process for making HMGP funds available usuallytakes 180 to 300 days. That time is used to identify sources of funding and the projects forwhich the funding can be used. This assures that funding will be used in a complementaryfashion without duplicating use. Funding projects that will mitigate imminent hazards ishighly cost‐effective and assists in critical efforts to help communities recover fromdisasters. Not all such projects will be identified in local hazard mitigation plans.Establishing this priority provides guidance for local governments to build in flexibility foridentifying critical mitigation needs that may arise from a disaster when there is no time toupdate a local plan.3. Protecting vulnerable critical facilities and infrastructure in high hazard areas of the state.The next most important priority for federal funding is to help with protecting criticalfacilities and infrastructure. Though the state and many communities have ongoing capitalimprovement programs, there remains an almost overwhelming need to retrofit, replace,protect or relocate facilities and infrastructure important to the state’s communities thatare at risk from hazards.4. Reducing repetitive losses. Areas of repetitive loss are high priorities for hazard mitigationfunding. Repetitive losses are a drain on community, state and national disastermanagement resources and are very cost‐effective to mitigate. The current national priorityis the reduction of repetitive flood losses because these translate into a loss to the NationalFlood Insurance Program (NFIP). California has numerous areas of repetitive flood loss.Public Comment Draft – July 2010 30