Fill and Sign the Blank Invoice Form

Appendix C – Planning Requirements for Federal Grant Programs Many local plans are currently being produced to meet the requirements for FEMA's hazard mitigation grants. Since the last edition of this workbook (June 2001) this has been one of the largest changes related to hazard mitigation planning in Michigan. This appendix will describe the different programs that have funded, inspired, or required local hazard mitigation plans. It will describe the differences between these programs, for communities in Michigan. It will describe the federal regulations that have recently defined new standards that Michigan and FEMA must consider when reviewing local hazard mitigation plans. Finally, a summary sheet of these regulations will also be included in this appendix. That summary will help your community determine whether it has met federal planning requirements, and shall be filled out and submitted with your completed plan when it is sent to the Michigan State Police Emergency Management Division for review and approval. Even if you are only interested in a specific grant program, it will probably be helpful to read this entire section, since some of the information pertaining to each listed program tends to overlap with or help to explain the nature of other hazard mitigation programs. Federal Grant Programs for Hazard Mitigation All of the grant programs pertinent to hazard mitigation will be summarized briefly in this section, and their varying approaches and standards for local hazard mitigation planning will also be described. (For more information on these grant programs, refer to EMD Publication 920 – Hazard Mitigation Grant Handbook, or visit the publications page of the EMD/MSP web site at http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-1231645_4607_4612-14743--,00.html.) The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) This program has been the most helpful and widely available source of hazard mitigation assistance. It provides funding to Michigan after there has been a federally declared disaster within the state. The amount of money made available varies with the amount of damage that had been caused by the declared disaster. Estimates are made of total recovery costs for the latest declared disaster, and 15% of this total (7.5% for fiscal year 2003) is then made available by FEMA for hazard mitigation activities through this program. FEMA has estimated that for every dollar that is spent on hazard mitigation, about two dollars are saved through reduced damages and costs of disaster response and recovery. Most HMGP funds are directed toward structural projects that are aimed at reducing hazard impacts in a permanent or long-term fashion. The State of Michigan is allowed to use 5% of its HMGP funds in a more flexible manner, for non-structural mitigation activities or other projects that promise to help protect life and property. These "5%" projects have included such diverse activities as engineering research and the installation of public warning systems. Eligible applicants for all of these HMGP project funds include local governments, state government agencies and departments, Indian Tribes and authorized tribal organizations, and private non-profit organizations providing valuable public services. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 brought about a number of significant revisions to the HMGP. Some of these pertain directly to local hazard mitigation planning. The act, and subsequent regulations published in the Federal Register, declared that as of November 1, 2004, applicants for HMGP funds would be required to be covered by an approved hazard mitigation plan in order to be eligible to receive funding from HMGP. Although the State of Michigan had been required to maintain its own hazard mitigation plan, these new changes now require non-State agency applicants to be covered by a local hazard mitigation plan as well. Because of the large and increasing amount of funds going toward hazard mitigation activities, it makes sense that extra validation of these activities would be required in the form of local hazard mitigation plans. The development and adoption of a local hazard mitigation plan, that meets FEMA's new planning standards, would show that a recipient community has taken steps to be aware of hazard issues, and has thought about their hazards and priorities in a way that demonstrates why specific hazard mitigation projects are economically justifiable and politically acceptable within the community. This allows FEMA and the State to comfortably and enthusiastically fund hazard mitigation projects and makes it more likely that selected projects will be effective in protecting life, property, the environment, and quality of life in Michigan. 177 2/03 Because the development of an effective hazard mitigation plan can be a difficult and expensive process for a community, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 also authorized up to 7% of state HMGP funds to be applied to plan development activities. An application was submitted by the Michigan State Police Emergency Management Division to authorize having planning funds from the HMGP disaster 1346 event (flooding in southeast Michigan) passed through to local communities, and this was approved by FEMA on August 22, 2002. It took a bit more time for the accounts to actually be set up and activated, but funding has been made available for counties to develop plans, with up to 75% of the total cost coming from federal funds (and the remaining local share able to be matched using the value of "in-kind" services rather than through hard cash). This arrangement will allow each county in Michigan (and selected larger cities) to have its own local hazard mitigation plan developed in time for the FEMA deadline of November 1, 2004 and thus remain eligible to receive hazard mitigation project funds. Communities should be able to apply for these funds throughout 2003. Details about local hazard mitigation plan requirements are described later in this appendix, but it is advisable to read the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMAP) section below, which contains useful information and suggestions about plan requirements for flood hazards. The Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMAP) The Flood Mitigation Assistance Program involves only a small number of communities so far, because it has involved selecting only one community per year to receive funding for flood mitigation activities. A specific amount of funding is given to the State of Michigan each year, and each community that has agreed to participate is required to develop a detailed flood mitigation plan. Planning and technical assistance funds are available to FMAP communities, which can be used for local plan development purposes. Once a plan has been developed, approved by FEMA, and officially adopted by the community, then that community is eligible to receive FMAP funds for specific mitigation projects. FMAP was the first program to require specific planning requirements for Michigan communities. Some of its requirements were quite detailed, and so it made sense that special funds would be given to participating communities to help them meet those high planning standards. Under FMAP, most of the planning details pertained to community flood hazards, although the plans were also required to also include at least some information about other natural hazards as well. Since the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, FEMA has given indications that planning standards related to all hazard mitigation programs will be merging over time so that, regardless of which federal program has funded them, plans will eventually all be expected to meet the same high standards of quality before they will receive federal approval. These new planning standards require all of a community's significant hazards to be addressed, as described later in this appendix. In this section, the traditional FMAP planning requirements will be described, so that communities that are creating an FMAP plan will know what standards to meet. Communities that have developed an FMAP plan will also be able to compare these standards with those originating in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and see what revisions may be needed for that plan to also receive approval under these new guidelines. A well-written and researched plan (as described throughout this workbook) will already have satisfied many of the FMAP requirements, but there are specific aspects of the flood analysis section may be fairly difficult to complete. These requirements have been described by FEMA, for plan review purposes, and over the next few pages, this section will summarize the information that FEMA looks for in their FMAP plan review process, and give suggestions about how your community can meet these requirements. The following information is applicable to any flood analysis section in a hazard mitigation plan seeking to meet the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. If flooding is one of your community's high-priority hazards, you should study this information in addition to that given in earlier sections of this workbook (including Appendix B). FMAP Standards for Flood Mitigation Plans 1. 2. The plan must include a description of the process used to develop the plan, including information on which community departments were involved. (Communities that participate in the Community Rating System should also note the involvement of professional planners in developing the plan.) FEMA requires public involvement in the planning process, so the plan must include a description of what activities were undertaken for gaining public involvement. This will typically include a list and general description of workshops, meetings, public hearings, surveys, and any other activities in which feedback was obtained about the plan, from citizens and/or local officials, other agencies and organizations. 178 2/03 3. A description of past flood events and an assessment of future flood risks is required, including a description (and maps) relating flood risks, estimated flood depths, and damage potential in terms of the number of structures at risk and, if available, their fair market value. 4. The plan's assessment of flood hazards shall include descriptions of flood impacts on infrastructure, public health and safety. It must identify critical facilities (hospitals, fire stations, chemical storage facilities, etc.) and describe procedures and anticipated needs for warning and evacuating residents and visitors. It shall include an assessment of the impacts of flooding on the overall community and its economy. 5. The plan must include a map and discussion of repetitive-loss properties and potential mitigation activities for them. (Repetitive-loss structures are those identified by the NFIP based on insurance claims that have been filed. Claim information relating to specific addresses is considered confidential. While it is appropriate information to use for planning purposes, it must not be included in copies of the plan that go into general distribution. FEMA has suggested that such information be placed in an appendix that is easily separated from the document, and that widely distributed versions of the plan exclude such an appendix.) 6. The plan shall include a description of development trends including a discussion of redevelopment in the floodplain, associated watersheds and natural resource areas. FMAP assistance is only available to NFIP participating communities, and the plan shall include a strategy for continued compliance with NFIP regulations. 7. The plan shall include descriptions and maps of other natural hazards. 8. Once problems have been identified in a hazard analysis, the plan must address these problems through a community strategy for reducing flood risk, describing more specific flood management objectives, and also proposing specific mitigation strategies. These strategies will be evaluated in terms of cost effectiveness and technical feasibility. Preferred strategies will be listed in an action plan that, to the extent possible, includes detailed implementation information such as who will do what, where, by when, how, and using what partners and funding sources. (CRS requires the action plan to also establish post-disaster mitigation policies and procedures.) Explanations should be provided about how these activities are consistent with the community's overall flood mitigation strategy. An FMAP plan must include a description of at least some mitigation activities for which FMAP funding is appropriate (including a consideration of whether proposed activities duplicate flood prevention activities of other programs or federal agencies). The applicability of each type of project (elevation, acquisition, relocation, demolition, beach nourishment, minor structural projects, etc.) to specific conditions or geographic areas shall be identified. FMAP will only fund hazard mitigation activities that are specified in an approved plan. 9. The plan shall include procedures for ensuring implementation of the mitigation strategies it has selected. 10. The plan shall include procedures for monitoring its implementation and recommending revisions and updates to the plan in the future. 11. A plan must be adopted by the authorized county or municipal authority. A plan submitted for FEMA approval shall include documentation of the plan's formal adoption by the entity submitting the plan. (If the plan has been submitted by an entity other than a community, documents submitted with the plan will include documentation of a formal interagency agreement signed by all parties to the agreement.) Many of these items are self-explanatory, but a few may require some special research to assess. Here are a few extra paragraphs to clarify how some of these plan components can be met. Flood depth and damage potential – The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has been involved in the creation of flood maps for their member communities. These maps are called Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and often are the best information available to a community with which to assess its flood risks and vulnerabilities. There has been much research performed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to estimate flood hazards for specific waterways and shoreline areas throughout the state. Contacting them can determine whether any studies have been performed that relate to your community. If such detailed studies are unavailable, hopefully FIRMs exist and can be used to assess your community's flood hazards. As a last resort, soil survey data can be used to locate areas with hydric soils, along with topographic maps that can identify areas of lower elevation, into which waters can be expected to drain and possibly cause flooding. Once such information has been found with which to estimate flood risks, some estimate of flood depths can either be copied from past research, estimated from past flood events, or estimated from topographic information. Damage potential may include roads or other infrastructure, but typically emphasizes structures that are located within known floodplain areas, or subject to urban flooding in low-lying areas with inadequate storm sewer systems, or other drainage problems. (More information about 179 2/03 identifying at-risk structures is given in a paragraph below.) FIRMs, and their companion Flood Insurance Studies, may already include information on flood depths, or damage assessment reports from past flood events may give some indication of the potential depths. Combining this depth information with that of a structure's value can yield estimates of damage potential in terms of monetary costs. (For other "costs," see the next paragraph. These sorts of information tend to be linked together.) Map and describe existing flood hazards – Maps are hopefully already available from the sources just mentioned, but a description of the type of flood hazard will also be important. Riverine flooding, shoreline flooding, and urban flooding (from inadequate drainage, unusual conditions, etc.) should be identified for each and all areas known to be at risk. Also, the impacts of flooding on infrastructure, life safety, transportation, critical facilities, the economy, and quality of life may be worth noting in the plan. These have hopefully already been considered during the normal vulnerability assessment pertaining to flood hazards. Estimate the number and type of structures at risk – Zoning and land use maps, as well as plat books, can help identify whether there is vulnerable development or critical facilities in a flood-prone area. Once an area of focus has been identified as possibly being at-risk, the number and type of structures located there will need to be estimated. For rural areas, the U. S. Geological Survey has produced much excellent information. Maps such as those available on the internet at http://www.topozone.com can provide information on the structures that exist in an area, and aerial photographs can also be used to determine whether structures are in a floodplain. Historical data and damage assessment reports are also useful. Finally, actual fieldwork can be undertaken to determine what is at risk. Information about the value of structures (to estimate potential damages) should be specifically available from local municipal offices, or can be more generally obtained from census data. The Community Rating System (CRS) and National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Every year, flooding causes hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage to homes and businesses around the country. Standard homeowners and commercial property insurance policies do not cover flood losses. So, to meet the need for this vital coverage, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) which offers reasonably priced flood insurance in communities that comply with minimum standards for floodplain management. The NFIP’s Community Rating System (CRS) recognizes community efforts beyond those minimum standards by reducing flood insurance premiums for the community’s property owners. Every community with any flood risk at all should join the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to protect their residents and economy from flood losses. One component of the NFIP is the Community Rating System, which allows a participating NFIP community to earn credit for activities that reduce community flood risks. An accumulation of credit can result in reduced insurance costs throughout the community. For every 500 credit points earned by a community, its property owners will receive a 5% discount on their flood insurance premiums. A community that develops a flood mitigation plan through FMAP, or some equivalent hazard mitigation plan through other means, can receive CRS credit for these activities. There are 18 different activities for which a community can receive credit, and many of these activities can be achieved through planning or included as action steps in the plan, for future implementation. Extra credit can be earned when a community coordinates all these CRS activities through the development of a comprehensive floodplain management plan. Even if your hazard mitigation plan has been primarily developed through another agency such as a regional planning office, your community may receive CRS credits (under its "uniform minimum credit" policy). The table on the next page lists credit-gaining activities that could be covered by a plan or included as implementation items within it. The credit points listed in the table are newly updated but still subject to change and should be verified using the current CRS coordinator's manual. Additional activities may be eligible for credit even if they are not listed here. (Additional information on the NFIP may also be found by visiting websites at: www.deq.state.mi.us/lwm/water_mgmt/nfip/nfip.html and www.fema.gov/nfip/.) 180 2/03 The CRS grants credit for 18 different activities that fall into four series. To be eligible for a CRS discount, your community must do Activity 310, Elevation Certificates. If you’re a designated repetitive loss community, you must also do Activity 510, Repetitive Loss Projects. All other activities are optional. Series number CRS activity descriptions 300 series PUBLIC INFORMATION – This series provides credit for programs that advise people about the flood hazard, flood insurance, and ways to reduce flood damage. The activities also provide data that insurance agents need for accurate flood insurance rating. Maintain FEMA Elevation Certificates for new construction in the floodplain. (REQUIRED) Provide Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) information to people who inquire, and publicize this service. Send information about the flood hazard, flood insurance, flood protection measures, and/or the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains to floodprone residents or all residents of a community. Real estate agents disclose flood hazard information to possible purchasers of floodprone property. Also, passage of regulations requiring such disclosure. The public library maintains references on flood insurance and flood protection. Giving inquiring property owners technical advice on how to protect their buildings from flooding, and publicize this service. MAPPING AND REGULATIONS - This series credits programs that provide increased protection to new development. Developing new flood elevations, floodway delineations, wave heights, or other regulatory flood hazard data for an area not mapped in detail by the flood insurance study. Also, having a more restrictive mapping standard. Guaranteeing that currently vacant floodplain parcels will be kept free from development. Higher Regulatory Standards: Requiring freeboard, soil tests or engineered foundations, compensatory storage. Zoning the floodplain for minimum lot sizes of 1 acre or larger. Regulation to protect sand dunes. Regulations tailored to protect critical facilities or areas subject to special flood hazards (for example, alluvial fans, ice jams, or subsidence areas). Keep flood and property data on computer records. Use of better base maps. Maintaining elevation reference marks. Regulating new development throughout the watershed to ensure that postdevelopment runoff is no worse than pre-develop runoff. Regulating new construction to minimize soil erosion and protect or improve water quality. FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION - This series credits programs that reduce the flood risk to existing development. Devote special attention to repetitively flooded areas. (This is a minimum requirement for all repetitive loss communities.) Acquire and/or relocate floodprone buildings so that they are out of the floodplain. Retrofitting structures - Credit is based on the number of floodproofed or elevated buildings (located in the floodplain before the FIRM was made). Conduct periodic inspections of all channels and retention basins, and remove debris as needed. FLOOD PREPAREDNESS - This series credits flood warning, levee safety, and dam safety projects. Providing early flood warnings to the public, and having a detailed flood response plan keyed to flood crest predictions. Maintaining the safety of levees not otherwise credited in the flood insurance rating system. Dam Safety - (All communities in a state with an approved dam safety program receive some credit.) 310 320 330 340 350 360 400 series 410 420 430 440 450 500 series 510 520 530 540 600 series 610 620 630 All Series Total 181 Maximum Points Average Points 162 70 140 133 315 64 81 11 66 18 71 24 1,373 14 900 97 2,720 78 231 45 670 83 309 11 3,200 13 2,800 2 330 254 225 30 900 1 175 60 14,668 1,008 2/03 Project Impact Project Impact, like FMAP, selected one community per year in Michigan to receive special funds for hazard mitigation, including the development of a local multi-hazard mitigation plan for the selected community. This program was recently discontinued, but did help a few communities put plans in place. The hazard mitigation plans developed through Project Impact were multi-hazard in nature, but only addressed natural hazards (not technological or human-related hazards). During the period when this program was in effect, it was not made explicit what specific requirements were required to gain FEMA approval, but they seemed to include many of the features that became a part of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K), and its associated regulations. Communities that have developed a local plan under Project Impact may wish to consider whether they face significant risks from technological and social/societal hazards. They should then revise their plan to include some analysis of these hazards, as detailed in this workbook. The overall plan can then be reviewed to see if it meets the new FEMA review standards. HMGP funds are available throughout 2003 for communities to use, if needed, to upgrade Project Impact plans to meet new FEMA review standards before November 1, 2004 (described earlier in this appendix, under the section on HMGP). The review standards will eventually all be standardized under the regulations associated with DMA2K, so even though FEMA funding is no longer available through Project Impact, your community may be eligible to receive alternative hazard mitigation funding through the other grant programs described in this appendix. To qualify, review your current plan and revise it as necessary to meet the new standards, then resubmit it for FEMA approval under DMA2K standards. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDMP) This is a new program that originated with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K), and provides an annual source of hazard mitigation funds—for planning and for projects. Since funding for mitigation projects under PDMP requires applicants to have a DMA2K-approved plan, funding is available for the preparation of local hazard mitigation plans. More information on DMA2K planning requirements is given in the next section of this appendix. For fiscal year 2003, Michigan PDMP funding will be applied toward local hazard mitigation planning. In fiscal year 2004, PDMP project grants will be awarded on a national, competitive, basis. It has recently been proposed that fiscal year 2004 funds for HMGP will disappear and be replaced by $300,000,000 in national PDMP funds. 182 2/03 Plan Review Standards Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (PL 106-390) The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K) specifies the components of local hazard mitigation plans that will be required in order to receive FEMA approval and thus make your community eligible to receive hazard mitigation funds from federal grant programs in the future. This section of the appendix will first relate the wording of the local planning regulations that are associated with DMA2K, and then will give additional information about how FEMA is interpreting these regulations. Finally, strategies will be given to help your community fulfill these planning requirements. Regulations Regarding Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Standards In the Federal Register Volume 67, Number 38 (pages 8843 to 8854), dated February 26, 2002, details were given to help explain the planning requirements of DMA2K. The text of these regulations pertinent to local hazard mitigation planning is reprinted below. * NOTE: The dates within this text read November 1, 2003 but this was changed to November 1, 2004 in subsequent regulations published in the October 1, 2002 Federal Register (Vol. 67 No. 190). However, communities must have an approved mitigation plan by November 1, 2003 to be eligible for FY04 PDMP project funds. Sec. 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans. The local mitigation plan is the representation of the jurisdiction's commitment to reduce risks from natural hazards, serving as a guide for decision makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of natural hazards. Local plans will also serve as the basis for the State to provide technical assistance and to prioritize project funding. (a) Plan requirement. (1) For disasters declared after November 1, 2003*, a local government must have a mitigation plan approved pursuant to this section in order to receive HMGP project grants. Until November 1, 2003*, local mitigation plans may be developed concurrent with the implementation of the project grant. (2) Regional Directors may grant an exception to the plan requirement in extraordinary circumstances, such as in a small and impoverished community, when justification is provided. In these cases, a plan will be completed within 12 months of the award of the project grant. If a plan is not provided within this timeframe, the project grant will be terminated, and any costs incurred after notice of grant's termination will not be reimbursed by FEMA. (3) Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g. watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process and has officially adopted the plan. State-wide plans will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional plans. (b) Planning process. An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. (c) Plan content. The plan shall include the following: (1) Documentation of the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved. (2) A risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards. The risk assessment shall include: (i) A description of the type, location, and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events. 183 2/03 (ii) A description of the jurisdiction's vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of: (A) The types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas; (B) An estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate; (C) Providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. (iii) For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment section must assess each jurisdiction's risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. (3) A mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction's blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. This section shall include: (i) A description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. (ii) A section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. (iii) An action plan describing how the actions identified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. (iv) For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan. (4) A plan maintenance process that includes: (i) A section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle. (ii) A process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. (iii) Discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. (5) Documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council). For multijurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted. (d) Plan review. (1) Plans must be submitted to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer for initial review and coordination. The State will then send the plan to the appropriate FEMA Regional Office for formal review and approval. (2) The Regional review will be completed within 45 days after receipt from the State, whenever possible. (3) Plans must be reviewed, revised if appropriate, and resubmitted for approval within five years in order to continue to be eligible for HMGP project grant funding. (4) Managing States that have been approved under the criteria established by FEMA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5170c(c) will be delegated approval authority for local mitigation plans, and the review will be based on the criteria in this part. Managing States will review the plans within 45 days of receipt of the plans, whenever possible, and provide a copy of the approved plans to the Regional Office. * NOTE: The dates within this text read November 1, 2003 but this was changed to November 1, 2004 in subsequent regulations published in the October 1, 2002 Federal Register (Vol. 67 No. 190), except for communities that wish to be eligible to apply for PDMP project funds during fiscal year 2004. Plan Review Sheet On the next two pages, a table summarizes the elements that must be included in your local hazard mitigation plan for it to be approved under the new planning standards of DMA2K. Please include a filled-out copy of this form when submitting your plan to the Michigan State Police Emergency Management Division, using page numbers and comments to indicate where and how your plan fulfills each of the regulatory requirements. 184 2/03 REVIEW SHEETS FOR “LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANS” UNDER SECTION 322 OF THE DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000 (PURSUANT TO 44 CFR 201.6) HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN FOR (PLEASE FILL IN NAME OF JURISDICTION) FEMA PLAN REQUIREMENT Item a (3) Item b (1) Item b (2) Item b (3) Item c (1) Item c (2) (i) Item c (2) (ii) (A) Item c (2) (ii) (B) Item c (2) (ii) (C) DESCRIPTION LOCATION(S) WHERE ITEM IS MET IN PLAN COMMENTS For multi-jurisdictional plans, the plan shall describe how each community has participated in the planning process, and also show that each has officially adopted the plan. The planning process shall include an opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval. The plan will describe what opportunities were provided for public comment, and the results of these opportunities. An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process. The plan shall describe these opportunities and their results. Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. The plan should describe what existing sources were used to inform the plan. The plan shall include documentation of the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved. The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards, including sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards. The risk assessment shall include a description of the type, location, and extent of all hazards that can affect the jurisdiction; information on previous occurrences of hazard events; and information on the probability of future hazard events. The plan shall include a description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in item c (2) (i) above; including an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. Vulnerability will be described in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas; Vulnerability will also be described in terms of an estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in item c (2) (i) (A) above, and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate; and Vulnerability will be described in terms of providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. (The wording of this review sheet differs from the exact wording of the regulations.) 185 2/03 REVIEW SHEET FOR “LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANS” UNDER SECTION 322 OF THE DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000 (PURSUANT TO 44 CFR 201.6) PAGE 2: HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN FOR (PLEASE FILL IN NAME OF JURISDICTION) FEMA PLAN REQUIREMENT Item c (2) (iii) Item c (3) (i) Item c (3) (ii) Item c (3) (iii) Item c (3) (iv) Item c (4) (i) Item c (4) (ii) Item c (4) (iii) Item c (5) MSP/EMD requirement DESCRIPTION LOCATION(S) WHERE ITEM IS MET IN PLAN COMMENTS For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment section must assess each jurisdiction’s risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. The plan must contain a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. This section must include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid longterm vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. The plan must contain a section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. The document must contain an action plan describing how the actions identified in item c (2) (ii) above will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdictions requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan. The plan will contain a plan maintenance process that includes a section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle. The "plan maintenance process" section will also include a process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. The "plan maintenance process" section will also include a discussion of how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. The plan will include documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council). For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted. The plan shall include descriptions and/or maps of the jurisdiction's public warning system coverage, and any known gaps in that coverage. (The wording of this review sheet differs from the exact wording of the regulations.) 186 2/03 How to Meet Grant Requirements It is strongly advised that documentation be kept from the beginning of all meetings and costs related to hazard mitigation planning. Not only will much of this information need to be described in the plan, to show the types of coordination and public input that was used, but it may also be essential in calculating the value of in-kind services contributed toward the local match requirements of federal grants. A handy way to assist such documentation is to use sign-in sheets at meetings of local officials and staff. The costs of transportation, printing, meeting rooms, pubic notices, and so on, may also be usable as part of your community's local match for the plan. The keeping of such information may be vital in helping any audit of grant expenditures go smoothly. Most grants for hazard mitigation funding require that some local resources be contributed to "match" the bulk of resources provided by the federal grant program. For example, most Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds work out to about a 75% federal share and 25% local share of the total project budget. The local share does not need to be in the form of cash contributions. Rather, the value of staff time, the expense of travel and meetings, and so on, can be counted as part of the 25% local share as long as these activities are specific to hazard mitigation planning. In addition, the local share does not need to come from a single government agency or jurisdiction. The 25% "local match" can originate from any non-federal source. Thus, state or local programs might contribute to the 25% match amount, so long as they are not using federal dollars as a match. Federal funds can not be used as a match for other federal funds. (The only exception is Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, which lose their federal identity.) Funds and resources can therefore be contributed by many communities, agencies, non-profit organizations, individuals, businesses, foundations, and corporate giving programs, so long as the contributions that are used as a match do not use federal funding. Most emergency management coordinators are funded in-part through federal dollars through the EMPG program, and the non-federal part of their funding is usually already being used as a local match for the federal funds. It is also not allowed to "double match" (i.e. to use the same local funds or resources to simultaneously act as a local match for two different federal grants). Questions have arisen about what equipment might be fundable under federal planning grants. Fairly clear guidelines are already available on this issue from the FMAP and Project Impact grants, but the new PDMP and HMGP planning grant limitations will be described in this paragraph. It must be noted up front that FEMA has not yet offered specific guidelines about what is and isn't potentially fundable under these grants, but some preliminary feedback has been given about the HMGP planning funds. This feedback will be described here and assumed for the present to also be roughly similar to PDMP allowances, until informed otherwise by FEMA. The general rules of thumb to start with are that planning expenses: 1. Must be reasonable and appropriate for developing the community's hazard mitigation plan; 2. Must be incurred after August 22, 2002, which is the date on which the Michigan State Police received official approval for its application to use FEMA mitigation grant funds for hazard mitigation planning purposes; 3. Must not be dramatically more expensive than alternative (but similarly effective) ways of obtaining or presenting the same information; 4. Must not be spent on planning items in ways that are grossly disproportional to the approximate significance that those items have for helping the community's plan to be valid and useful; In addition, questions have arisen about the purchase of software programs to assist with hazard mitigation planning. MSP-EMD has proposed the following guidelines to FEMA, which (at the time this book was printed) have been received favorably, but not yet been officially ruled upon. For software purchases that shall be used specifically (but not necessarily exclusively) for local hazard mitigation plan development purposes: 1. Applicants shall provide a brief written explanation that is sufficient to describe the type of software proposed for purchase, the reasons why such software is appropriate for purchase and justifiable using hazard mitigation planning funds, and any additional considerations such as overall cost savings that are expected to be gained from the use of that software when compared to alternative means of achieving the same ends. Examples of this could include a $200 software purchase for data analysis that might save the community $800 in labor costs that would 187 2/03 otherwise be needed, or a $1500 software purchase that saves money because the community would otherwise have to contract out for services at a greater expense. 2. MSP-EMD will evaluate explanations in consultation with staff or agencies that are knowledgeable about the software that is proposed for purchase, and will consider its expense in terms of the applicant's overall planning budget, and economic or political contexts that might favor its purchase instead of having plan development goals met through some alternative means or outside contractual arrangement. The burden of explaining such considerations will be upon the applicant that proposes the software purchase. The role of MSP-EMD will be to verify the validity of such information and ascertain that the proposal fits into grant requirements, limitations, and budgets. 3. Following such an evaluation, MSP-EMD will either (a) decline the request, (b) ask for a delay while it consults with FEMA and/or assesses the budgetary and other contexts of the request, or (c) concur with the request, and conditionally authorize all or part of the proposed purchase, but with deference to FEMA's authority to reach a different conclusion. FEMA, as the federal agency from which these funds ultimately originate, will have the primary authority to declare particular purchases, or other applications of planning grant funds, to be eligible or ineligible under current and future administrative guidelines for the particular grant program in question. If there are further questions or clarifications on the above issues, feel free to contact Mike Sobocinski at (517) 336-2053 or at sobocinm@michigan.gov. Most federal grants also have quarterly reporting requirements, and these are actually rather easy to meet, but also helpful in that planning progress can be monitored and problems identified so that if assistance is needed, it can be requested from the Michigan State Police Emergency Management Division, or from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Inquiries should be sent to the Michigan State Police, Mitigation Unit at (517) 333-5029. Specific questions about the content of this Planning Workbook can be directed to Mike Sobocinski at (517) 336-2053 (e-mail address sobocinm@michigan.gov). For more information on each of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs briefly described in this appendix, please refer to EMD-PUB 920, "Hazard Mitigation Grant Handbook." How to Deal with Sensitive or Confidential Information Some hazards, such as terrorism, deal with information that would be inappropriate to publish. Analysis of other hazards, such as dam or other infrastructure failures, might also be prone to potential misuse by saboteurs or others who attempt to calculate how to do harm to a community or its members. In other cases, such as the exact locations of pipelines or mineshafts, information may be considered confidential or private. When such information sources need to be included in your local hazard mitigation plan, care needs to be taken to preserve its confidentiality. As mentioned in the section on the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, confidential information may be placed in an appendix that is withheld from public copies of the hazard mitigation plan. A remaining question concerns whether information may be obtained from participating offices through the use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Although certain information may not be made freely available in publicly distributed copies of a plan, it should be considered whether such information might nevertheless be procured by citizens acting under their rights as provided by the Freedom of Information Act, and might then eventually be misused by persons who may come across it one it has been released and possibly disseminated by members of the public. This could be a large concern for some communities—particularly if it annoys or harms those who had originally provided information under conditions of confidentiality. These issues are probably not a problem with a plan that addresses only natural hazards. While communities are encouraged to use hazard mitigation grant funds to address technological and human-caused hazards as well, the decision to proceed with that sort of planning should be carefully considered in light of confidentiality concerns. Part of this consideration should include recent amendments to FOIA, which anticipated that undue access to confidential planning information may ultimately interfere with homeland security. The amendments to FOIA took effect on May 1, 2002 (Public Act 130 of 2002 and MCL 15.243) and the text appears on the next page with some of the sections most pertinent to hazard mitigation planning highlighted: 188 2/03 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (EXCERPTS) Amends Public Act 442 of 1976 Section 13 (1) A public body may exempt from disclosure as a public record under this act any of the following: (a) Information of a personal nature if public disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy. (b) Investigating records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that disclosure as a public record would do any of the following: (i) Interfere with law enforcement proceedings. (ii) Deprive a person of the right to a fair trial or impartial administrative adjudication. (iii) Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (iv) Disclose the identity of a confidential source, or if the record is compiled by a law enforcement agency in the course of a criminal investigation, disclose confidential information furnished only by a confidential source. (v) Disclose law enforcement investigative techniques or procedures. (vi) Endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel. (c) A public record that if disclosed would prejudice a public body's ability to maintain the physical security of custodial or penal institutions occupied by persons arrested or convicted of a crime or admitted because of a mental disability, unless the public interest in disclosure under this act outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure. (d) Records or information specifically described and exempted from disclosure by statute. (e) A public record or information described in this section that is furnished by the public body originally compiling, preparing, or receiving the record or information to a public officer or public body in connection with the performance of the duties of that public officer or public body, if the considerations originally giving rise to the exempt nature of the public record remain applicable. (f) Trade secrets or commercial or financial information voluntarily provided to an agency for use in developing governmental policy if: (i) The information is submitted upon a promise of confidentiality by the public body. (ii) The promise of confidentiality is authorized by the chief administrative officer of the public body or by an elected official at the time the promise is made. (iii) A description of the information is recorded by the public body within a reasonable time after it has been submitted, maintained in a central place within the public body, and made available to a person upon request. This subdivision does not apply to information submitted as required by law or as a condition of receiving a governmental contract, license, or other benefit. (g) Information or records subject to the attorney-client privilege. (h) Information or records subject to the physician-patient privilege, the psychologist-patient privilege, the minister, priest, or Christian Science practitioner privilege, or other privilege recognized by statute or court rule. (i) A bid or proposal by a person to enter into a contract or agreement, until the time for the public opening of bids or proposals, or if a public opening is not to be conducted, until the deadline for submission of bids or proposals has expired. (j) Appraisals of real property to be acquired by the public body until either of the following occurs: (i) An agreement is entered into. (ii) Three years have elapsed since the making of the appraisal, unless litigation relative to the acquisition has not yet terminated. (k) Test questions and answers, scoring keys, and other examination instruments or data used to administer a license, public employment, or academic examination, unless the public interest in disclosure under this act outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure. (l) Medical, counseling, or psychological facts or evaluations concerning an individual if the individual's identity would be revealed by a disclosure of those facts or evaluation. (m) Communications and notes within a public body or between public bodies of an advisory nature to the extent that they cover other than purely factual materials and are preliminary to a final agency determination of policy or action. This exemption does not apply unless the public body shows that in the particular instance the public interest in encouraging frank communication between officials and employees of public bodies clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. This exemption does not constitute an exemption under state law for purposes of section 8(h) of the open meetings act, 1976 PA 267, MCL 15.268. As used in this subdivision, “determination of policy or action” includes a determination relating to collective bargaining, unless the public record is otherwise required to be made available under 1947 PA 336, MCL 423.201 to 423.217. (n) Records of law enforcement communication codes, or plans for deployment of law enforcement personnel, that if disclosed would prejudice a public body's ability to protect the public safety unless the public interest in disclosure under this act outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure in the particular instance. 189 2/03 (o) Information that would reveal the exact location of archaeological sites. The department of history, arts, and libraries may promulgate rules in accordance with the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, to provide for the disclosure of the location of archaeological sites for purposes relating to the preservation or scientific examination of sites. (p) Testing data developed by a public body in determining whether bidders' products meet the specifications for purchase of those products by the public body, if disclosure of the data would reveal that only 1 bidder has met the specifications. This subdivision does not apply after 1 year has elapsed from the time the public body completes the testing. (q) Academic transcripts of an institution of higher education established under section 5, 6, or 7 of article VIII of the state constitution of 1963, if the transcript pertains to a student who is delinquent in the payment of financial obligations to the institution. (r) Records of a campaign committee including a committee that receives money from a state campaign fund. (s) Unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure in the particular instance, public records of a law enforcement agency, the release of which would do any of the following: (i) Identify or provide a means of identifying an informant. (ii) Identify or provide a means of identifying a law enforcement undercover officer or agent or a plain clothes officer as a law enforcement officer or agent. (iii) Disclose the personal address or telephone number of active or retired law enforcement officers or agents or a special skill that they may have. (iv) Disclose the name, address, or telephone numbers of family members, relatives, children, or parents of active or retired law enforcement officers or agents. (v) Disclose operational instructions for law enforcement officers or agents. (vi) Reveal the contents of staff manuals provided for law enforcement officers or agents. (vii) Endanger the life or safety of law enforcement officers or agents or their families, relatives, children, parents, or those who furnish information to law enforcement departments or agencies. (viii) Identify or provide a means of identifying a person as a law enforcement officer, agent, or informant. (ix) Disclose personnel records of law enforcement agencies. (x) Identify or provide a means of identifying residences that law enforcement agencies are requested to check in the absence of their owners or tenants. (t) Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, records and information pertaining to an investigation or a compliance conference conducted by the department of consumer and industry services under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838, before a complaint is issued. This subdivision does not apply to records or information pertaining to 1 or more of the following: (i) The fact that an allegation has been received and an investigation is being conducted, and the date the allegation was received. (ii) The fact that an allegation was received by the department of consumer and industry services; the fact that the department of consumer and industry services did not issue a complaint for the allegation; and the fact that the allegation was dismissed. (u) Records of a public body's security measures, including security plans, security codes and combinations, passwords, passes, keys, and security procedures, to the extent that the records relate to the ongoing security of the public body. (v) Records or information relating to a civil action in which the requesting party and the public body are parties. (w) Information or records that would disclose the social security number of an individual. (x) Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, an application for the position of president of an institution of higher education established under section 4, 5, or 6 of article VIII of the state constitution of 1963, materials submitted with such an application, letters of recommendation or references concerning an applicant, and records or information relating to the process of searching for and selecting an individual for a position described in this subdivision, if the records or information could be used to identify a candidate for the position. However, after 1 or more individuals have been identified as finalists for a position described in this subdivision, this subdivision does not apply to a public record described in this subdivision, except a letter of recommendation or reference, to the extent that the public record relates to an individual identified as a finalist for the position. (y) Records or information of measures designed to protect the security or safety of persons or property, whether public or private, including, but not limited to, building, public works, and public water supply designs to the extent that those designs relate to the ongoing security measures of a public body, capabilities and plans for responding to a violation of the Michigan anti-terrorism act, chapter LXXXIII-A of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.543a to 750.543z, emergency response plans, risk planning documents, threat assessments, and domestic preparedness strategies, unless disclosure would not impair a public body's ability to protect the security or safety of persons or property or unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure in the particular instance. 190 2/03 (2) A public body shall exempt from disclosure information that, if released, would prevent the public body from complying with section 444 of subpart 4 of part C of the general education provisions act, title IV of Public Law 90-247, 20 U.S.C. 1232g, commonly referred to as the family educational rights and privacy act of 1974. A public body that is a local or intermediate school district or a public school academy shall exempt from disclosure directory information, as defined by section 444 of subpart 4 of part C of the general education provisions act, title IV of Public Law 90-247, 20 U.S.C. 1232g, commonly referred to as the family educational rights and privacy act of 1974, requested for the purpose of surveys, marketing, or solicitation, unless that public body determines that the use is consistent with the educational mission of the public body and beneficial to the affected students. A public body that is a local or intermediate school district or a public school academy may take steps to ensure that directory information disclosed under this subsection shall not be used, rented, or sold for the purpose of surveys, marketing, or solicitation. Before disclosing the directory information, a public body that is a local or intermediate school district or a public school academy may require the requester to execute an affidavit stating that directory information provided under this subsection shall not be used, rented, or sold for the purpose of surveys, marketing, or solicitation. (3) This act does not authorize the withholding of information otherwise required by law to be made available to the public or to a party in a contested case under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328. (4) Except as otherwise exempt under subsection (1), this act does not authorize the withholding of a public record in the possession of the executive office of the governor or lieutenant governor, or an employee of either executive office, if the public record is transferred to the executive office of the governor or lieutenant governor, or an employee of either executive office, after a request for the public record has been received by a state officer, employee, agency, department, division, bureau, board, commission, council, authority, or other body in the executive branch of government that is subject to this act. FINAL NOTE ON THE FOIA AMENDMENT: As with other legislation, keep in mind that suits may eventually be brought that challenge the constitutionality of these amendments. It will be up to your community's planners, decision-makers, and possibly legal counsel to determine precisely what information should be obtained, kept in confidentiality, or included in your hazard mitigation plan. It may be advisable to have a separate document that addresses sensitive or confidential information, to make it easier to keep critical safety information protected from possible misuse. Gaining Authorization for Your Local Planning Activities This Planning Workbook now includes two new sections concerning activities that prepare your community for participation in hazard mitigation plan development. For grant receipt purposes, an additional element that needs to be done, in advance of receiving federal funds, is to obtain official authorization from your community to develop a local hazard mitigation plan. This will assure grantors (FEMA and MSP/EMD) that those who develop a plan using federal funds have been authorized to do so on behalf of the community, and that the community intends to officially adopt the final plan. If your jurisdiction is developing its own plan, it will be sufficient to have an authorized person sign the gra