FLOOD05331 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Assessing Institutional Capacity to Implement Mitigation. To assist in the identification of candidate communities to participate in the IIMPI, the NCEMD and its partners have devel- oped and maintained a statC\\ide Commu- uity Vulnerability database, and an Institutional Capacity database, To gauge institutional capacity, a survey was conducted of communities with a population of 2,000 or more. To assess local planning and mitigation capacity, communities were asked about the availability of: a land use plan, hazard plan, partial zoning, jurisdic- I tion-wide zoniug, extraterritorial jurisdiction area (E'IJ), stormwater management, subdivision control, and flood control ordinance. This infonnalion will be used to prioritize assistance for communities, Those communities with the greatest vulnerability and the least institutional capacity will be given higher priority for assistance under the liMP!. HazardYulnerabilty .Low 1:J..l1 .r.lod,um (3lii .Hig~ (311 Figure 1.2 Community Vulnerability' and adopt a local mitigation plan "ithin one year following the execution of an IIMGP grant agreement. Given the "idespread impact of lIurricane Floyd and the projected demand for IIMGP funding, a significant surge in local requests for mlPI technical assistance is anticipated. INTEGRATING HAZARD MITIGATION AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES: MEASURING SUCCESS One of the long. term goals of the IIMPI is to promote institution building and local capacity to carry out mitigation slrategies, With technical support from the IIMPI partners, CiCE~1D is carefuliy cultivating a planning process in communities across the state, The technical assistance teams help to gauge community needs, identify mitigation priorities, prmide technical training, and exmnine the role and value of risk reduction in the contex1 of other community goals, Ultimalely, it is the responsibility of the communities to develop and implement the plan, Iu examining options and trAde.offs between mitigation strategies, community leaders will consider several factors: cost; compliance with regulations (e.g., land use, environmental); effectiveness of the strategy in reducing future losses; the value of the strategy in achieving other community goals (e,g" natural resource conservation, open space, housing, etc.); and the political risk inherent in the strategy (e,g., will the strategy alienate key constituencies?). To assist community leaders in an,-wering these questions, Measuring Success addresses three fundamental issues: /, How effective are lhe most wide(v used mitigation tools - including acquisition! relocation of hazard prone properties and in-place elevations - in reducing losses? 2, How can communities utilize indicators to measure progress in reducing actual or potential disaster losses? 3. How can communities gauge the progress that is being made toward institutionaliz- ing mitigation in their communities? 10