Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Community Rating System Crosswalk Starter Kit

Prerequisites:

The CRS requires a Floodplain Management Plan (FMP) committee.

Key Differences:

The FMP committee can be the local hazard mitigation planning committee. It can also be a separate FMP committee that focuses on flooding.

The FMP committee must meet at least five times (at key steps in the planning process - Steps 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8).

For multi-jurisdictional plans, each community that wants to earn CRS points must have two staff representatives on the FMP committee.

At least half of the representatives must attend all meetings of the FMP committee.

Maximize Points (3):

Involve staff from multiple departments; include the community departments that implement or have expertise in activities of the plan. One point is given for each office represented; full credit is given for staff representing all six categories of CRS flood mitigation activities (see Table 2 below).

Formally establish the planning process through the community’s governing body.

A typical local hazard mitigation plan planning committee is different from an FMP committee. CRS requirements are more specific; you cannot go back and "fix" this at the end..

Prerequisites:

The CRS requires a Public Planning Committee. This can also be the local hazard mitigation plan stakeholder group. Key Differences:

A local hazard mitigation plan requires the opportunity for stakeholders to participate; CRS requires active stakeholder/public participation

Maximize Points

Full credit is given if at least half the committee members are from outside the local government.

Hold at least one public information meeting in the affected area(s) within the first 2 months of the planning process. This is separate from the planning committee meetings.

Hold at least one public meeting at least 2 weeks before submitting the plan. Use the meeting to get input on the recommended plan.

- Five points are given for each additional public information activity that explains the planning process and encourages input.

CRS's definition of stakeholder/public involvement is more structured than what the local mitigation plan guidance describes

Review existing studies, reports and technical information

Prerequisites:

Step 3(a) is basically the same as sub-element A4:

  -  Review existing studies, reports and technical information. Review the community's needs, goals and plans for the area.

Coordinate with agencies and organizations

Key Differences:

Step 3(b) is similar to sub-element A2, but it requires more than providing a chance to get involved.

Maximize Points:

Work with agencies and organizations outside the community's governmental structure to get their hazard data and ask for their input and participation in the process.

Prerequisites:

The flood hazard assessment must include the sources, frequencies, extent and causes of flooding. Flood hazard areas that require assessment include:

  - The Special Flood Hazard Area shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).

  - All repetitive loss areas if the community is a Category B or C (CRS communities should have already prepared repetitive loss area maps).

  - Areas not mapped on the FIRM that have flooded in the past (flood insurance claims can help with this).

  - Other surface flooding identified in other studies.

Key Differences:

Most local hazard mitigation plans meet the minimum requirement. Giving more details is an opportunity to get more points.

Maximize Points:

Include the following: discussion of less frequent flooding; areas likely to flood and potentially become worse in the future; and areas of past flooding and other natural hazards.

Prerequisites:

A summary of the jurisdiction's vulnerability to each hazard and the impact (the base criteria are basically the same as those for sub-element B2).

Repetitive Loss (RL) communities must:

Include their RL areas.

Describe the causes of repetitive flooding.

Send an annual mailer with information on ways to protect properties from repetitive flooding.

Key Differences:

Most local hazard mitigation plans meet the minimum requirement. Giving more detail is a way to get more points.

Maximize Points:

Provide further details beyond the overall summary:

  - The impact of all flood-related hazards on various community attributes (including flood warning and evacuation systems; public health; critical facilities and infrastructure; local economy; and buildings).

  - Historical damage to buildings.

  - The area's natural floodplain functions.

  - Future development and redevelopment.

  -  flooding conditions due to climate change.

For a multi-jurisdictional plan, you must describe each item for each community.

Prerequisites:

This is basically the same as sub-element C3: set mitigation goals.

Goals can be broad, but must address all flood-related problems in Step 5.

C1. Capability assessment

C2. NFIP participation and compliance

C4. Mitigation strategy

Review and consider preventive activities.

The plan needs to discuss what was examined and why certain actions were recommended.

Key Differences:

When describing your mitigation strategy, you MUST describe the actions you considered, the actions you chose, and your reasoning for deciding why each activity was appropriate or not for the community and its flood problems.

Mitigation planning and the CRS have lists of six types of mitigation actions/activities. These lists differ.

Maximize Points:

Review whether the community’s floodplain management regulatory standards are sufficient for current and future conditions, as discussed under CRS Steps 4 and 5.

Review if activities protect natural and beneficial floodplain functions. More points are given for reviewing multiple categories of flood mitigation measures. Full credit is given if you identify and discuss measures from all six flood mitigation categories

Missing CRS Step 7 is the most common reason that FEMA-approved mitigation plans are capped at 50 CRS points.

Many hazard mitigation plans omit this discussion. The planning staff may have done such a review, but for CRS credit, the plan document must describe the review. Omitting the review pieces of your process results in no credit for CRS Step 7.

Prerequisites:

There must be an action item for each goal listed in CRS Step 6.

Actions must be prioritized.

Key Differences:

CRS steps are more specific than the local hazard mitigation plan requirements.

Maximize Points:

Full credit is given for an action plan with actions in five of the six flood mitigation categories.

More credit is offered for including policies and procedures for post-disaster redevelopment and mitigation in the action plan, as well as for action items that mitigate the effects of other natural hazards.

F1. Plan adoption

F2. Multi-jurisdictional plans – plan adoption by each participant

Prerequisites:

Adoption must be in the form of a resolution or other formal document. It must be voted on by the community’s governing body.

  - A multi-jurisdictional plan must be adopted by the governing body of each community seeking CRS or multi-hazard mitigation plan credit points.

Key Differences:

Maximize Points:

Implement, evaluate, and revise

D1. Continued public participation

D2. Plan monitoring, evaluation, and update

D3. Integration of the local hazard mitigation plan

Prerequisites:

The plan must describe how, when and by whom the plan will be monitored, evaluated and revised.

Progress toward plan implementation must be evaluated at least every year.

The procedures for doing this must be explained in the plan document. The evaluation report must be made available to the media and the public.

An evaluation report must be prepared and distributed to the governing body, the media and the public. It must be submitted to the ISO with the community’s recertification package.

The plan must be updated every 5 years.

The community must submit a copy of its plan update at least every 5 years.

Key Differences:

Maximize Points:

Once the plan is adopted, more points are given for more frequent committee meetings during the year. These meetings are to review progress and recommend revisions.

Multi-hazard mitigation plans must include a process for how the community will integrate the requirements of the plan in other community plans. These other plans can include capital improvement, zoning ordinance, and the general/comprehensive plan.

Step 4. Assess the hazard

Step 5. Assess the problem

Prerequisites: None

With a plan update, hazard and problem assessments must be reviewed and brought up to date. They must account for:

  - Completed mitigation projects.

  - Increased development in the floodplain or watershed

Step 6. Set goals

Step 7. Review possible activities

Step 8. Draft an action plan

Prerequisites: None

With a plan update, the original plan's goals must be reviewed to determine if they are still appropriate (given the revisions to Steps 4 and 5).

With a plan update, each activity recommended by the previous plan must be discussed, along with the status of implementation.

With a plan update, the action plan must be revised to account for projects that have been completed, dropped or changed. It must also account for changes in the hazard and problem assessments.