STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION [INSERT #] State: Date of Plan: Instructions for Using the Plan Review Crosswalk for Review of Standard State Hazard Mitigation Plans Attached is a Plan Review Crosswalk based on the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, published by FEMA, with revisions dated November 2006. This Plan Review Crosswalk is consistent with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390), enacted October 30, 2000 and 44 CFR Part 201 – Mitigation Planning, Interim Final Rule (the Rule), published February 26, 2002. SCORING SYSTEM N – Needs Improvement: The plan does not meet the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments must be provided. S – Satisfactory: The plan meets the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments are encouraged, but not required. Each requirement includes separate elements. All elements of a requirement must be rated “Satisfactory” in order for the requirement to be fulfilled and receive a summary score of “Satisfactory.” A “Needs Improvement” score on elements shaded in gray (recommended but not required) will not preclude the plan from passing. Optional matrices for assisting in the review of sections on profiling hazards and assessing vulnerability are found at the end of the Plan Review Crosswalk. The example below illustrates how to fill in the Plan Review Crosswalk. Example Assessing Vulnerability by Jurisdiction Requirement §201.4(c)(2)(ii): [The State risk assessment shall include an] overview and analysis of the State’s vulnerability to the hazards described in this paragraph (c)(2), based on estimates provided in local risk assessments … . The State shall describe vulnerability in terms of the jurisdictions most threatened by the identified hazards, and most vulnerable to damage and loss associated with hazard event. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or N S Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments A. Does the plan describe the State’s Section III, pp. 12 The plan includes a description of local vulnerable structures. The plan vulnerability based on information from the 28 presented a vulnerability summary by regions in the state. This information local risk assessments? was collected from the approved plans on file. B. Does the plan present information on those Section III, pp. 30 The vulnerability description did not indicate which jurisdictions were the jurisdictions that face the most risk? 36 most vulnerable. Required Revisions: • Use the information provided in the summaries to determine which jurisdictions are most threatened by the identified hazards. 3 • Identify which jurisdictions have suffered or are likely to suffer the most losses. • If data are not readily available, note these data limitations in the plan. Include actions in the mitigation strategy to obtain these data for the plan update. SUMMARY SCORE January 2008 STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION [INSERT #] State: Date of Plan: Standard State Hazard Mitigation Plan Review and Approval Status State Point of Contact: Address: Title: Agency: Phone Number: E-Mail: FEMA Reviewer: Title: Date: Date Received in FEMA Region [Insert #] Plan Not Approved Plan Approved Date Approved January 2008 STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION [INSERT #] State: Date of Plan: STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN SUMMARY CROSSWALK The plan cannot be approved if the plan has not been formally adopted. Each requirement includes separate elements. All elements of the requirement must be rated “Satisfactory” in order for the requirement to be fulfilled and receive a score of “Satisfactory.” Elements of each requirement are listed on the following pages of the Plan Review Crosswalk. A “Needs Improvement” score on elements shaded in gray (recommended but not required) will not preclude the plan from passing. Reviewer’s comments must be provided for requirements receiving a “Needs Improvement” score. SCORING SYSTEM Please check one of the following for each requirement. N – Needs Improvement: The plan does not meet the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments must be provided. S – Satisfactory: The plan meets the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments are encouraged, but not required. Prerequisite Adoption by the State: §201.4(c)(6) and §201.4(c)(7) NOT MET MET Planning Process N S Documentation of the Planning Process: §201.4(c)(1) Coordination Among Agencies: §201.4(b) Program Integration: §201.4(b) Risk Assessment N S Identifying Hazards: §201.4(c)(2)(i) Profiling Hazards: §201.4(c)(2)(i) Assessing Vulnerability by Jurisdiction: §201.4(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability of State Facilities: §201.4(c)(2)(ii) Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction: §201.4(c)(2)(iii) Estimating Potential Losses of State Facilities: §201.4(c)(2)(iii) Mitigation Strategy N S Hazard Mitigation Goals: §201.4(c)(3)(i) State Capability Assessment: §201.4(c)(3)(ii) Local Capability Assessment: §201.4(c)(3)(ii) Mitigation Actions: §201.4(c)(3)(iii) Funding Sources: §201.4(c)(3)(iv) Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning N S Local Funding and Technical Assistance: §201.4(c)(4)(i) Local Plan Integration: §201.4(c)(4)(ii) Prioritizing Local Assistance: §201.4(c)(4)(iii) Severe Repetitive Loss Mitigation Strategy (only required for 90/10 under FMA & SRL) N S Repetitive Loss Mitigation Strategy: §201.4(c)(3)(v) Coordination with Repetitive Loss Jurisdictions §201.4(c)(3)(v) Plan Maintenance Process N S Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan: §201.4(c)(5)(i) Monitoring Progress of Mitigation Activities: §201.4(c)(5)(ii) and (iii) STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN APPROVAL STATUS PLAN NOT APPROVED PLAN APPROVED See Reviewer’s Comments January 2008 STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION [INSERT #] State: Date of Plan: PREREQUISITE Adoption by the State Requirement §201.4(c)(6): The plan must be formally adopted by the State prior to submittal to [FEMA] for final review and approval. Requirement §201.4(c)(7): The plan must include assurances that the State will comply with all applicable Federal statutes and regulations in effect with respect to the periods for which it receives grant funding, in compliance with 44 CFR 13.11(c). The State will amend its plan whenever necessary to reflect changes in State or Federal laws and statutes as required in 44 CFR 13.11(d). Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE NOT MET MET A. Has the State formally adopted the new or updated plan? B. Does the plan provide assurances that the State will continue to comply with all applicable Federal statutes and regulations during the periods for which it receives grant funding, in compliance with 44 CFR 13.11(c), and will amend its plan whenever necessary to reflect changes in State or Federal laws and statutes as required in 44 CFR 13.11(d)? SUMMARY SCORE PLANNING PROCESS: §201.4(b): An effective planning process is essential in developing and maintaining a good plan. Documentation of the Planning Process Requirement §201.4(c)(1): [The State plan must include a] description of the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how other agencies participated. Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the plan provide a narrative description of how the new or updated plan was prepared? B. Does the new or updated plan indicate who was involved in the current planning process? C. Does the new or updated plan indicate how other agencies participated in the current planning process? D. Does the updated plan document how the planning team reviewed and analyzed each section of the plan? E. Does the updated plan indicate for each section whether or not it was revised as part of the update process? SUMMARY SCORE January 2008 STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION [INSERT #] State: Date of Plan: Coordination Among Agencies Requirement §201.4(b): The [State] mitigation planning process should include coordination with other State agencies, appropriate Federal agencies, interested groups, and … . Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the new or updated plan describe how Federal and State agencies were involved in the current planning process? Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from passing. B. Does the new or updated plan describe how interested groups (e.g., businesses, non-profit organizations, and other interested parties) were involved in the current planning process? Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from passing. C. Does the updated plan discuss how coordination among Federal and State agencies changed since approval of the previous plan? SUMMARY SCORE Program Integration Requirement §201.4(b): [The State mitigation planning process should] be integrated to the extent possible with other ongoing State planning efforts as well as other FEMA mitigation programs and initiatives. Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the new or updated plan describe how the State mitigation planning process is integrated with other ongoing State planning efforts? Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from passing. B. Does the new or updated plan describe how the State mitigation planning process is integrated with FEMA mitigation programs and initiatives? Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from passing. SUMMARY SCORE January 2008 STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION [INSERT #] State: Date of Plan: RISK ASSESSMENT: §201.4(c)(2): [The State plan must include a risk assessment] that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy portion of the mitigation plan. Statewide risk assessments must characterize and analyze natural hazards and risks to provide a statewide overview. This overview will allow the State to compare potential losses throughout the State and to determine their priorities for implementing mitigation measures under the strategy, and to prioritize jurisdictions for receiving technical and financial support in developing more detailed local risk and vulnerability assessments. Identifying Hazards Requirement §201.4(c)(2)(i): [The State risk assessment shall include an] overview of the type … of all natural hazards that can affect the State … . Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the new or updated plan provide a description of the type of all natural hazards that can affect the State? If the hazard identification omits (without explanation) any hazards commonly recognized as threats to the State, this part of the plan cannot receive a Satisfactory score. SUMMARY SCORE Profiling Hazards Requirement §201.4(c)(2)(i): [The State risk assessment shall include an overview of the] location of all natural hazards that can affect the State, including information on previous occurrences of hazard events, as well as the probability of future hazard events, using maps where appropriate … . Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., geographic area affected) of each natural hazards addressed in the new or updated plan? B. Does the new or updated plan provide information on previous occurrences of each hazard addressed in the plan? C. Does the new or updated plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the plan? SUMMARY SCORE January 2008 STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION [INSERT #] State: Date of Plan: Assessing Vulnerability Requirement §201.4(c)(2)(ii): [The State risk assessment shall include an] overview and analysis of the State’s vulnerability to the hazards described in this paragraph (c)(2), based on estimates provided in local risk assessments as well as the State risk assessment. The State shall describe vulnerability in terms of the jurisdictions most threatened by the identified hazards, and most vulnerable to damage and loss associated with hazard events. State owned critical or operated facilities located in the identified hazard areas shall also be addressed … . Requirement §201.4(d): Plan must be reviewed and revised to reflect changes in development… Assessing Vulnerability by Jurisdiction Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the new or updated plan describe the State’s vulnerability based on estimates provided in local risk assessments as well as the State risk assessment? B. Does the new or updated plan describe the State’s vulnerability in terms of the jurisdictions most threatened and most vulnerable to damage and loss associated with hazard event(s)? C. Does the updated plan explain the process used to analyze the information from the local risk assessments, as necessary? D. Does the updated plan reflect changes in development for jurisdictions in hazard prone areas? SUMMARY SCORE Assessing Vulnerability of State Facilities Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the new or updated plan describe the types of State owned or operated critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? SUMMARY SCORE January 2008 STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION [INSERT #] State: Date of Plan: Estimating Potential Losses Requirement §201.4(c)(2)(iii): [The State risk assessment shall include an] overview and analysis of potential losses to the identified vulnerable structures, based on estimates provided in local risk assessments as well as the State risk assessment. The State shall estimate the potential dollar losses to State owned or operated buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas. Requirement §201.4(d): Plan must be reviewed and revised to reflect changes in development… Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the new or updatedplan present an overview and analysis of the potential losses to the identified vulnerable structures? B. Are the potential losses based on estimates provided in local risk assessments as well as the State risk assessment? C. Does the updated plan reflect the effects of changes in development on loss estimates? SUMMARY SCORE Estimating Potential Losses of State Facilities Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the new or updatedplan present an estimate of the potential dollar losses to State owned or operated buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities in the identified hazard areas? SUMMARY SCORE January 2008 STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION [INSERT #] State: Date of Plan: MITIGATION STRATEGY: §201.4(c)(3) [To be effective the plan must include a] Mitigation Strategy that provides the State’s blueprint for reducing the losses identified in the risk assessment. Hazard Mitigation Goals Requirement §201.4(c)(3)(i): [The State mitigation strategy shall include a] description of State goals to guide the selection of activities to mitigate and reduce potential losses. Requirement §201.4(d): Plan must be reviewed and revised to reflect changes in development, progress in statewide mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities… Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the new or updated plan provide a description of State mitigation goals that guide the selection of mitigation activities? B. Does the updated plan demonstrate that the goals were assessed and either remain valid or have been revised? SUMMARY SCORE State Capability Assessment Requirement §201.4(c)(3)(ii): [The State mitigation strategy shall include a] discussion of the State’s pre-and post-disaster hazard management policies, programs, and capabilities to mitigate the hazards in the area, including: an evaluation of State laws, regulations, policies, and programs related to hazard mitigation as well as to development in hazard-prone areas [and] a discussion of State funding capabilities for hazard mitigation projects … . Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the new or updated plan include an evaluation of the State’s pre-disaster hazard management policies, programs, and capabilities? B. Does the new or updated plan include an evaluation of the State’s post-disaster hazard management policies, programs, and capabilities? C. Does the new or updated plan include an evaluation of the State’s policies related to development in hazard prone areas? D. Does the new or updated plan include a discussion of State funding capabilities for hazard mitigation projects? E. Does the updated plan address any hazard management capabilities of the State that have changed since approval of the previous plan? January 2008 STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION [INSERT #] State: Date of Plan: SUMMARY SCORE Local Capability Assessment Requirement §201.4(c)(3)(ii): [The State mitigation strategy shall include] a general description and analysis of the effectiveness of local mitigation policies, programs, and capabilities. Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the new or updated plan present a general description of the local mitigation policies, programs, and capabilities? B. Does the new or updated plan provide a general analysis of the effectiveness of local mitigation policies, programs, and capabilities? SUMMARY SCORE Mitigation Actions Requirement §201.4(c)(3)(iii): [State plans shall include an] identification, evaluation, and prioritization of cost-effective, environmentally sound, and technically feasible mitigation actions and activities the State is considering and an explanation of how each activity contributes to the overall mitigation strategy. This section should be linked to local plans, where specific local actions and projects are identified. Requirement §201.4(d): Plan must be reviewed and revised to reflect changes in development, progress in statewide mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities… Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the new or updated plan identify cost-effective, environmentally sound, and technically feasible mitigation actions and activities the State is considering? B. Does the new or updated plan evaluate these actions and activities? C. Does the new or updated plan prioritize these actions and activities? D. Does the new or updated plan explain how each activity contributes to the overall State mitigation strategy? E. Does the mitigation strategy in the newor updatedsection reflect actions and projects identified in local plans? Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from passing. SUMMARY SCORE January 2008 STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION [INSERT #] State: Date of Plan: Funding Sources Requirement §201.4(c)(3)(iv): [The State mitigation strategy shall include an] identification of current and potential sources of Federal, State, local, or private funding to implement mitigation activities. Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the new or updated plan identify current sources of Federal, State, local, or private funding to implement mitigation activities? B. Does the new or updated plan identify potential sources of Federal, State, local, or private funding to implement mitigation activities? C. Does the updated plan identify the sources of mitigation funding used to implement activities in the mitigation strategy since approval of the previous plan? SUMMARY SCORE COORDINATION OF LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING Local Funding and Technical Assistance Requirement §201.4(c)(4)(i): [The section on the Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning must include a] description of the State process to support, through funding and technical assistance, the development of local mitigation plans. Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the new or updated plan provide a description of the State process to support, through funding and technical assistance, the development of local mitigation plans? B. Does the updated plan describe the funding and technical assistance the State has provided in the past three years to assist local jurisdictions in completing approvable mitigation plans? SUMMARY SCORE January 2008 STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION [INSERT #] State: Date of Plan: Local Plan Integration Requirement §201.4(c)(4)(ii): [The section on the Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning must include a] description of the State process and timeframe by which the local plans will be reviewed, coordinated, and linked to the State Mitigation Plan. Requirement §201.4(d): Plan must be reviewed and revised to reflect changes in development, progress in statewide mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities… Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the new or updated plan provide a description of the process and timeframe the State established to reviewlocal plans? B. Does the new or updated plan provide a description of the process and timeframe the State established to coordinate and link local plans to the State Mitigation Plan? SUMMARY SCORE January 2008 STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION [INSERT #] State: Date of Plan: Prioritizing Local Assistance Requirement §201.4(c)(4)(iii): [The section on the Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning must include] criteria for prioritizing communities and local jurisdictions that would receive planning and project grants under available funding programs, which should include consideration for communities with the highest risks, repetitive loss properties, and most intense development pressures. Further, that for non-planning grants, a principal criterion for prioritizing grants shall be the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of proposed projects and their associated costs. Requirement §201.4(d): Plan must be reviewed and revised to reflect changes in development, progress in statewide mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities… Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the new or updated plan provide a description of the criteria for prioritizing those communities and local jurisdictions that would receive planning and project grants under available mitigation funding programs? B. For the newor updated plan, dothe prioritization criteria include, for non-planning grants, the consideration of the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of proposed projects and their associated cost? C. For the newor updated plan, do the criteria include considerations for communities with the highest risk? Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from passing. D. For the newor updated plan, do the criteria include considerations for repetitive loss properties? Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from passing. E. For the newor updated plan, do the criteria include considerations for communities with the most intense development pressures? Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from passing. SUMMARY SCORE January 2008 STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION [INSERT #] State: Date of Plan: PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan Requirement §201.4(c)(5)(i): [The Standard State Plan Maintenance Process must include an] established method and schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan. Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the new or updated plan describe the method and schedule for monitoring the plan? (e.g., identifies the party responsible for monitoring, includes schedule for reports, site visits, phone calls, and/or meetings) B. Does the new or updated plan describe the method and schedule for evaluating the plan? (e.g., identifies the party responsible for evaluating the plan, includes the criteria used to evaluate the plan) C. Does the new or updated plan describe the method and schedule for updating the plan? D. Does the updated plan include an analysis of whether the previously approved plan’s method and schedule worked, and what elements or processes, if any, were changed? SUMMARY SCORE Monitoring Progress of Mitigation Activities Requirement §201.4(c)(5)(ii): [The Standard State Plan Maintenance Process must include a] system for monitoring implementation of mitigation measures and project closeouts. Requirement §201.4(c)(5)(iii): [The Standard State Plan Maintenance Process must include a] system for reviewing progress on achieving goals as well as activities and projects in the Mitigation Strategy. Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the new or updated plan describe how mitigation measures and project closeouts will be monitored? B. Does the new or updated plan identify a system for reviewing progress on achieving goals in the Mitigation Strategy? C. Does the updated plan describe any modifications, if any, to the system identified in the previously approved plan to track the initiation, status, and completion of mitigation activities? D. Does the new or updated plan identify a system for reviewing progress on implementing activities and projects of the Mitigation Strategy? E. Does the updated plan discuss if mitigation actions were implemented as planned? Note: Related to §201.4 (c)(3)(iii) SUMMARY SCORE January 2008 STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION [INSERT #] State: Date of Plan: SEVERE REPETITIVE LOSS STRATEGY (only required for 90/10 under FMA & SRL) Repetitive Loss Mitigation Strategy Requirement §201.4(c)(3)(v): A State may request the reduced cost share authorized under §79.4(c)(2) of this chapter for the FMA and SRL programs, if it has an approved State Mitigation Plan … that also identifies specific actions the State has taken to reduce the number of repetitive loss properties (which must include severe repetitive loss properties), and specifies how the State intends to reduce the number of such repetitive loss properties. Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE NOT MET MET A. Does the new or updated plan describe State mitigation goals that support the selection of mitigation activities for repetitive loss properties (see also Part 201.4(c)(3)(i))? [Note: Only required for SRL 90/10 under FMA & SRL] B. Does the new or updated plan consider repetitive loss properties in its evaluation of the State’s hazard management policies, programs, and capabilities and its general description of the local mitigation capabilities (see also Part 201.4(c)(3)(ii))? [Note: Only required for SRL 90/10 under FMA & SRL] C. Does the new or updated plan address repetitive loss properties in its risk assessment (see also Part 201.4(c)(2))? [Note: Only required for SRL 90/10 under FMA & SRL] D. Does the new or updated plan identify, evaluate and prioritize cost-effective, environmentally sound, and technically feasible mitigation actions for repetitive loss properties (see also Part 201.4(c)(3)(iii))? [Note: Only required for SRL 90/10 under FMA & SRL] E. Does the new or updated plan describe specific actions that have been implemented to mitigate repetitive loss properties, including actions taken to reduce the number of severe repetitive loss properties? [Note: Only required for SRL 90/10 under FMA & SRL] F. Does the new or updated plan identify current and potential sources of Federal, State, local, or private funding to implement mitigation activities for repetitive loss properties (see also Part 201.4(c)(3)(iv))? [Note: Only required for SRL 90/10 under FMA & SRL] SUMMARY SCORE January 2008 STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION [INSERT #] State: Date of Plan: Coordination with Repetitive Loss Jurisdictions Requirement §201.4(c)(3(v): In addition, the plan must describe the strategy the State has to ensure that local jurisdictions with severe repetitive loss properties take actions to reduce the number of these properties, including the development of local mitigation plans. Element Location in the Plan (section or annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments SCORE N S A. Does the new or updated plan provide a description of the State process to support, through funding and technical assistance, the development of local mitigation plans in communities with severe repetitive loss properties (see also Part 201.4(c)(4)(i))? [Note: Only required for SRL 90/10 under FMA & SRL] B. Does the new or updated plan include considerations for repetitive loss properties in its criteria for prioritizing communities and local jurisdictions that would receive planning and project grants under available mitigation funding programs (see also Part 201.4(c)(3)(iii))? [Note: Only required for SRL 90/10 under FMA & SRL] SUMMARY SCORE January 2008 STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION [INSERT #] State: Date of Plan: Matrix A: Profiling Hazards This matrix can assist FEMA in scoring each hazard. States may find the matrix useful to ensure that their plan addresses each natural hazard that can affect the State. Completing the matrix is not required. Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.4(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An “N” for any element of any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk. Hazards Identified Per Requirement §201.4(c)(2)(i) A. Location B. Previous Occurrences C. Probability of Future Events Hazard Type Yes N S N S N S Avalanche Coastal Erosion Coastal Storm Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils Extreme Heat Flood Hailstorm Hurricane Land Subsidence Landslide Levee Failure Severe Winter Storm Tornado Tsunami Volcano Wildfire Windstorm Other Other Other Legend: §201.4(c)(2)(i) Profiling Hazards A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., geographic area affected) of each natural hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? B. Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? C. Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? Tocheckboxes,double clickonthe boxandchangethedefaultvalueto“checked.” January 2008 STANDARD STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FEMA REGION [INSERT #] State: Date of Plan: Matrix B: Assessing Vulnerability This matrix can assist FEMA in scoring each hazard. States may find the matrix useful to ensure that their plan addresses each requirement. Note that this matrix only includes items for Requirements §201.4(c)(2)(ii) and §201.4(c)(2)(iii) that are related to specific natural hazards that can affect the State. Completing the matrix is not required. Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.4(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An “N” for any element of any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk. Hazard Type Hazards Identified Per Requirement §201.4(c)(2)(i) 1. Vulnerability by Jurisdiction 2. Vulnerability to State Facilities 3. Loss Estimate by Jurisdiction 4. Loss Estimate of State Facilities Yes N S N S N S N S Avalanche §201.4(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability §201.4(c)(2)(iii) Estimating Potential Losses Coastal Erosion Coastal Storm Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils Extreme Heat Flood Hailstorm Hurricane Land Subsidence Landslide Levee Failure Severe Winter Storm Tornado Tsunami Volcano Wildfire Windstorm Other Other Other Tocheckboxes,double clickonthe boxandchangethedefaultvalueto“checked.” Legend §201.4(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability by Jurisdiction (see element B) §201.4(c)(2)(iii) Estimating Potential Losses by Jurisdiction (see element A) 1. Does the new or updated plan describe the State’s vulnerability in terms of the 3. Does the new or updated plan present an overview and analysis of the potential losses jurisdictions most threatened and most vulnerable to damage and loss associated with to the identified vulnerable structures? hazard event(s)? §201.4(c)(2)(iii) Estimating Potential Losses of State Facilities (see element A) §201.4(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability to State Facilities (see element A) 4. Does the new or updated plan present an estimate of the potential dollar losses to 2. Does the new or updated plan describe the types of State owned or operated critical State owned or operated buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities in the identified facilities located in the identified hazard areas? hazard areas? January 2008