Laserfiche WebLink
<br />L <br /> <br />~.i..... <br />i- <br />~;-, \ <br /> <br />I <br />t <br />1,.":. <br />,- <br />i <br />~ <br />f <br />1 <br /> <br />I <br />~ <br />~. <br /> <br />i <br />f <br />t, <br /> <br />~\ <br />, <br /> <br />> <br />if <br /> <br />i <br />i <br />K< <br />~, <br /> <br />]:1j 0 <br /> <br />$'5 <br /> <br />JOINT TASK FORCE REPORT ON THE HAZARD MITIGATION <br />GRANT PROGRAM <br /> <br />Gary L. Sepulvado <br /> <br />Abstract <br /> <br />This paper shows that alert floodplain managers can obtain funds to <br />reduce future flood damages after a disaster declaration. Funds I <br />are available for hazard mitigation projects under the Hazard <br />Mitigation Grant PrClgram (HMGP), a program of the Federal Emergency <br />Management Agency (:F'EMA). The HMGP has funded nearly $40 million <br />in projects to reduc:e the impact of future natural disasters since <br />authorization four years ago. Floodplain managers have garnered <br />only 40% of the grants thus far, even though flooding over the past <br />four years accounts for 80% of the disaster declarations. <br /> <br />According to a recent task force finding, more funds would be <br />provided for floodplain management purposes through the HMGP but <br />for level of awareness among floodplain managers. This observation <br />is one of several outcomes of a cooperative evaluation of the HMGP <br />by the Association of state Floodplain Managers (ASFPM), the <br />National Emergency ]~anagement Association (NEMA), and the Federal <br />Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The evaluation occurred in <br />1992. Where states: and local agency personnel work together to <br />identify flood hazard mitigation projects, the success rate if <br />high. For example, nearly 300 structures are being removed from <br />floodplains in IndLma, Kentucky, and Maine where state and local <br />leadership and coordination runs high in flood hazard mitigation. <br /> <br /> <br />The Task Force found that program delays have occurred because <br />there is (1) a need to forge new partnerships of expertise to <br />support hazard mitigation objectives, (2) a need to <br />insti tutionalize, through planning, a continuous consistent and <br />coherent approach tCl hazard mitigation instead of an intermittent, <br />erratic and disjoint:ed approach, (3) a need to improve guidance on <br />environmental revie.r and cost-effective assessments, and (4) a need <br />to standardize the application process nationwide. <br /> <br />Among its main recommendations, the Joint Task Force strongly <br />suggests that stat:es create teams composed of state agency <br />expertise that would prepare hazard mitigation plans and, with <br />close local agency coordination, shepherd the implementation of <br />projects following a disaster. In other words, knowledge, <br />coordination and leadership are the hallmarks of hazard mitigation. <br />