Hamlin County, SD 2014 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW TOOL The Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool demonstrates how the Local Mitigation Plan meets the regulation in 44 CFR §201.6 and offers States and FEMA Mitigation Planners an opportunity to provide feedback to the community. •

• •

The Multi-jurisdiction Summary Sheet should be used to document contact information for each jurisdiction and if each met the requirements of the Plan, if a multijurisdictional plan. The Regulation Checklist provides a summary of FEMA’s evaluation of whether the Plan has addressed all requirements. The Plan Assessment identifies the plan’s strengths as well as documents areas for future improvement.

The FEMA Mitigation Planner must reference this Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide when completing the Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool. Jurisdiction: Hamlin County

Title of Plan: Date of Plan: Hamlin County Pre-Disaster June 23, 2014 Mitigation Plan, 2014-2018 Local Point of Contact: Address: David Schaefer PO Box 237 Hayti, SD 57241 Title: Hamlin County Emergency Management Director Agency: Hamlin County Emergency Management Phone Number: E-Mail: 605-783-7831 [email protected] State Reviewer: Martin Christopherson

Title: Mitigation

Date:

FEMA Reviewer: Julie Baxter Margaret Doherty Date Received in FEMA Region VIII Plan Not Approved Plan Approvable Pending Adoption Plan Approved

Title: Senior Community Planner Community Planner July 7, 2014 August 21, 2014

Date: August 18, 2014 August 21, 2014

Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool

1

Hamlin County, SD 2014 SECTION 1: MULTI-JURISDICTION SUMMARY SHEET MULTI-JURISDICTION SUMMARY SHEET Requirements Met (Y/N) #

Jurisdiction Name

Jurisdiction Type

Jurisdiction Contact

Email

A. Planning Process

B. HIRA

C. Mitigation Strategy

D. Update Rqtms.

E. Adoption Resolution

1

Hamlin County

County

David Schaefer EM Director

[email protected]

Y

N

N

Y

N

2

City of Bryant

Municipality

Terry Isler Finance Officer

[email protected]

Y

N

Y

Y

N

3

City of Castlewood

Municipality

Sheila Gerhold Finance Officer

[email protected]

Y

N

Y

Y

N

4

City of Estelline

Municipality

Mary Saathoff Finance Officer

www.estelinesd.com

Y

N

Y

Y

N

5

City of Hayti

Municipality

Carol Reuer Finance Officer

605-783-7839

Y

N

Y

Y

N

6

Town of Hazel

Municipality

Jasmine DeSmet Finance Officer

605-628-2250

Y

N

Y

Y

N

7

City of Lake Norden

Municipality

Delores Kangas Finance Officer

[email protected]

Y

N

Y

Y

N

8

Hamlin-Deuel Electric Cooperative

Rural Electric Coop

Matt Hotzler General Manager

[email protected]

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool

2

Hamlin County, SD 2014 SECTION 2: REGULATION CHECKLIST REGULATION CHECKLIST

Location in Plan (section and/or page number)

Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans)

Met

Not Met

ELEMENT A. PLANNING PROCESS A1. Does the Plan document the planning process, including how it was prepared and who was involved in the process for each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(1)) A2. Does the Plan document an opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, agencies that have the authority to regulate development as well as other interests to be involved in the planning process? (Requirement §201.6(b)(2)) A3. Does the Plan document how the public was involved in the planning process during the drafting stage? (Requirement §201.6(b)(1)) A4. Does the Plan describe the review and incorporation of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information? (Requirement §201.6(b)(3)) A5. Is there discussion of how the community(ies) will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process? (Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii)) A6. Is there a description of the method and schedule for keeping the plan current (monitoring, evaluating and updating the mitigation plan within a 5-year cycle)? (Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i)) ELEMENT A: REQUIRED REVISIONS

p. 10-20 Appendix B

X

p. 10-20 Appendix B Appendix C

X

p. 16-17, Table 3.2 Appendix C

X

p. 19 Table 3.3 X p. 121 X p.121-122 X

ELEMENT B. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT B1. Does the Plan include a description of the type, location, and extent of all natural hazards that can affect each jurisdiction(s)? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i)) B2. Does the Plan include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events for each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i)) B3. Is there a description of each identified hazard’s impact on the community as well as an overall summary of the community’s vulnerability for each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)) B4. Does the Plan address NFIP insured structures within the jurisdiction that have been repetitively damaged by floods? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii))

Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool

p. 21-39 X p. 21-39 X Chapter 4 p61-91 X p. 49 X

3

Hamlin County, SD 2014 REGULATION CHECKLIST

Location in Plan

Not (section and/or Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans) Met Met page number) ELEMENT B: REQUIRED REVISIONS B3: For each participating jurisdiction, the plan must describe the potential impacts of each of the identified hazards. The Plan explains on page 78 that the team considered the vulnerability of the County and jurisdictions to each hazard. However, the risk assessment only provides information on vulnerability of specific jurisdictions to flood. Although the plan explains that hazards have a similar probability of occurrence throughout the county (p.70), it does not describe the required analysis of the impacts (defined in the FEMA guidance as the consequence or effect of the hazard on the community and its assets) of hazards other than flood for each jurisdiction. For example, how are assets unique to each jurisdiction, such as critical facilities, vulnerable populations, roads, infrastructure, and major employers affected by each hazard? Worksheets ranking vulnerability fail to describe the actual impacts that resulted in the high, medium, or low designations. The problem statements in Table 5.13 summarize the vulnerability being addressed by the mitigation action but do not describe impacts of the identified hazards for each community. Maps included in Appendix E are illegible but providing this information in a legible format would help meet this requirement for unincorporated Hamlin County.

ELEMENT C. MITIGATION STRATEGY C1. Does the plan document each jurisdiction’s existing authorities, p. 19 Table 3.3 policies, programs and resources and its ability to expand on and p. 58-61 X improve these existing policies and programs? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)) C2. Does the Plan address each jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP p. 48 and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate? Table 5.1 X (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii)) C3. Does the Plan include goals to reduce/avoid long-term p. 79 vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? (Requirement X §201.6(c)(3)(i)) C4. Does the Plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of p. 94-102 specific mitigation actions and projects for each jurisdiction being p.106-112 considered to reduce the effects of hazards, with emphasis on new X and existing buildings and infrastructure? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii)) C5. Does the Plan contain an action plan that describes how the p.103-112 actions identified will be prioritized (including cost benefit review), X implemented, and administered by each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv)); (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iii)) C6. Does the Plan describe a process by which local governments will p. 120, 123 integrate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning X mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate? (Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii)) ELEMENT C: REQUIRED REVISIONS C4. This requirement is met for all jurisdictions except Hamlin County. The County does not have actions based on the risk and vulnerabilities identified. For instance, there are no actions to address repetitive loss properties, although the County has the highest number in the State. The Townships identified vulnerabilities and potential mitigation projects, which is documented on maps in the Appendix (although they are not legible) but there are no actions addressing these issues in the Mitigation Strategy.

Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool

4

Hamlin County, SD 2014 ELEMENT D. PLAN REVIEW, EVALUATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION (applicable to plan updates only) D1. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in development? (Requirement §201.6(d)(3)) D2. Was the plan revised to reflect progress in local mitigation efforts? (Requirement §201.6(d)(3)) D3. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in priorities? (Requirement §201.6(d)(3)) ELEMENT D: REQUIRED REVISIONS

p. 61-77 Appendix G p.20, 93, 103-112 Appendix G

X X X

ELEMENT E. PLAN ADOPTION E1. Does the Plan include documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval? (Requirement §201.6(c)(5)) E2. For multi-jurisdictional plans, has each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan documented formal plan adoption? (Requirement §201.6(c)(5)) ELEMENT E: REQUIRED REVISIONS E2. Pending FEMA approval.

X

X

ELEMENT F. ADDITIONAL STATE REQUIREMENTS (OPTIONAL FOR STATE REVIEWERS ONLY; NOT TO BE COMPLETED BY FEMA) F1. F2. ELEMENT F: REQUIRED REVISIONS

Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool

5

Hamlin County, SD 2014 SECTION 3: PLAN ASSESSMENT A. Plan Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement This section describes the strengths of the plan document and includes recommendations for how the plan could be improved as part of the next plan update.

Element A: Planning Process The Hamlin County plan demonstrates a strong planning process that focused on each jurisdiction. The letters sent by the Chairman of the Hamlin County Commissioners and the Hamlin County Emergency Management Director to stakeholders to promote the plan’s importance and solicit participation was a successful approach. The plan also describes how Town Board members provided input on the plan during the process. One improvement in the next update could be describing the type of input provided by the general public and elected officials and how it was it informed the plan’s content. Although planning team titles were included in the Plan Review Tool submitted with the plan, as part of the next update, the plan must identify the position or title and agency of person(s) representing each jurisdiction. For some jurisdictions, this is included in the sign-in sheet, but for others it is not included in Chapters 2 and 3 or the Appendix. Additionally, the plan should do more to describe how information from other sources formed the content of the mitigation plan

Element B: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment The risk assessment is one area of improvement for the plan. The hazard profiles are short and concise, which is good. However, a ten-year period is not sufficient for assessing natural hazard risk. The complete range of historic data must be assessed. There is no need to include large tables listing each event. Instead, summarize events of certain magnitude or damages and direct reader to where they could find more complete data if interested, such as an external website or an appendix to the mitigation plan.

Element C: Mitigation Strategy The mitigation strategy does a nice job of considering a comprehensive range of potential actions specifically linked to problem statements, then narrowing down to a prioritized list of actions for implementation for the towns. Consider listing Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) instead of HMGP for a funding source for projects that are also eligible for Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) programs. In some cases, HMGP is listed as a potential funding source for actions that are not eligible activities under the grant program, such as establishing base flood elevations and firefighting training and equipment, and installing a water tank.

Element D: Plan Review, Evaluation, and Implementation (Plan Updates Only) The plan addresses the problems with implementation and integration of the previous plan. The inclusion of a permanent file memo reminder to include review of mitigation actions during budget preparation process is a great idea.

Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool

6

Hamlin County, SD 2014 There are other planning mechanisms, such as a zoning ordinance and site plan review, in place in the participating jurisdictions that could be considered for further integrating mitigation concepts. The next plan update must differentiate between communities with varying capabilities and distinguish jurisdiction’s individual process for integrating mitigation into planning mechanisms.

Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool

7