The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20220200.tiffU.S. Department of Homeland Security Region VIII Denver Federal Center, Building 710 P.O. Box 25267 Denver, CO 80225-0267 FEMA 6�N R8 -MT December 21, 2021 RECEIVED Weld County Board of County Commissioners DEC 272021 11500 Street WELD COUNTY P.O. Box 758 COMMISSIONERS Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners: We are pleased to announce the approval of the Weld County 2021 Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan as meeting the requirements of the Stafford Act and Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations 201.6 for a local hazard mitigation plan. The plan approval extends to Weld County, the Cities of Dacono, Evans, Fort Lupton and Greeley, the Towns of Ault, Eaton, Erie, Firestone, Frederick, Hudson, Johnstown, Keenesburg, LaSalle, Mead, Milliken, Nunn, Pierce, Platteville, Severance and Windsor. The jurisdictions are hereby eligible for FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant programs. All requests for funding will be evaluated individually according to the specific eligibility and other requirements of the particular programs under which the application is submitted. Approved mitigation plans may be eligible for points under the National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System. The plan is approved through December 20, 2026. A local jurisdiction must revise its plan and resubmit it for approval within five years to continue to be eligible for mitigation project grant funding. We have provided recommendations for the next plan update on the enclosed Plan Review Tool. We wish to thank the jurisdictions for participating in the process and commend your continued commitment to mitigation planning. Please contact Mark Thompson, State Hazard Mitigation Officer, Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management at markw.thompson@state.co.us or (720) 630-0770 with any questions on the plan approval or mitigation grant programs. Sincerely, Jeanine D. Petterson Mitigation Division Director Enclosure www.fema.gov CoKfAun - Cci,A- oAS of /17/ CC;OEMCRR t / 10/7.2 2022-0200 F-MOO19 A Weld County, CO 12 021 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW TOOL The Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool demonstrates how the Local Mitigation Plan meets the regulation in 44 CFR §201.6 and offers States and FEMA Mitigation Planners an opportunity to provide feedback to the community. . The Regulation Checklist provides a summary of FEMA's evaluation of whether the Plan has addressed all requirements. The Plan Assessment identifies the plan's strengths as well as documents areas for future improvement. The Multi -jurisdiction Summary Sheet is an optional worksheet that can be used to document how each jurisdiction met the requirements of each Element of the Plan (Planning Process; Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment; Mitigation Strategy; Plan Review, Evaluation, and Implementation; and Plan Adoption). The FEMA Mitigation Planner must reference this Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide when completing the Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool. Jurisdiction: Weld County Title of Plan: 2021 Multi- Date of Plan: 3/4/21 Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Local Point of Contact: Address: Roy Rudisill 1150O St., Greeley, Colorado 80631 Title: Weld County Emergency Manager Agency: Weld County Office of Emergency Management Phone Number: E -Mail: 970-304-6540 rrudisill@weldgov.com State Reviewer: Title: Date: Mark W. Thompson State Hazard Mitigation Officer 3/11/2021; 6/9/2021; 7/8/2021 FEMA Reviewer: Laura Weinstein, IR Logan Sand, QC Emily Alvarez, RR Review Title: CERC Mitigation Planner Community Planner Community Planner Date: 8/11/2021 8/11/2021 10/5/02021 Date Received in FEMA Region VIII 8/4/2021 Plan Not Approved 8/12/2021 Plan Approvable Pending Adoption 10/5/2021 Plan Approved 12/21/2021 Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 1 Weld County, CO 1 2021 SECTION 1: MULTI -JURISDICTION SUMMARY SHEET Requirements Met (Y/N) # Jurisdiction Name Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Contact Email A. & C. D. E. Type Planning HIRA Mitigation Update Adoption Process Strategy R tms. Resolution 1 Weld County County Roy Rudisill rrudisill@weldgov. Y Y Y Y Y com 2 Town of Ault Statutory Rob Piotrowski robs@townofault. Y Y Y Y Y Town or 3 City of Dacono Home Rule Merrie Garner MGarner@fffd.us Y Y Y Y Y Municipality 4 Town of Eaton Statutory Jeff Schreier ieff@eatonco.org Y Y Y Y Y Town 5 Town of Erie Statutory Mike Haefele mhaefele@erieco.g Y Y Y Y Y o Town 6 City of Evans Home Rule Kurt Boudette kboudette@evansc Y Y Y Y Y Municipality olorado.sov 7 Town of Firestone Statutory Merrie Garner MGarner@fffd.us Y Y Y Y Y Town 8 City of Fort Lupton Statutory Zo Stieber mayor@fortlupton Y Y Y Y Y city co.eov 9 Town of Frederick Statutory Merrie Garner MGarner@fffd.us Y Y Y Y Y Town 10 City of Greeley Home Rule Dan Frazen Dan.frazen@greele Y Y Y Y Y Municipality ygov.com 11 Town of Hudson Statutory Matthew LeCerf mhirschinger@hud Y Y Y Y Y soncolorado.ors Town 12 Town of Johnstown Home Rule Brian Phillips BPhillips@townofio Y Y Y Y Y Municipality hnstown.com 13 Town of Keenesburg Statutory Kenneth Gfeller mayor@rtebb.net Y Y Y Y Y Town Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool Weld County, CO 12021 MULTI -JURISDICTION• Requirements Met (YIN) # Jurisdiction Name Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Contact Email A. B. �' D. E. Type Planning HIRA Mitigation Update Adoption Process < Strategy Rg tms. Resolution 14 Town of LaSalle Statutory Andrew Martinez amartinez@lasallet Y Y Y Y Y own.com Town 15 Town of Mead Statutory Colleen Whitlow cwhitlow@townof Y Y Y Y Y Town mead.org 16 Town of Milliken Statutory Pepper McClenahan pmcclenahan@mill Y Y Y Y Y Town ikenco.eov Statutory townofnunn@ezlin 17 Town of Nunn Cathy Payne Y Y Y Y Y Town k.com Town of Pierce Statutory Nanci Crom or@townofpie m18 Y Y Y, Y Y Town caeyorg 19 Town of Platteville Statutory Adrienne Sandoval asondoval@piattev Y Y Y Y Y i l Ieaov.org Town 20 Town of Severance Statutory Nicholas Wharton nwharton@townof Y Y Y Y Y severance.ore Town 21 Town of Windsor Home Rule Rick Klimeck rklimek@windsore Y Y Y Y Y Municipality ov.com Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool Weld County, CO 12021 SECTION 2: REGULATION CHECKLIST uJwl[.1fl:I lull .. . ELEMENT A. PLANNING PROCESS Al. Does the Plan document the planning process, including how it Section 3.2, 3.3 was prepared and who was involved in the process for each X jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(1)) A2. Does the Plan document an opportunity for neighboring Section 3.3 communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, agencies that have the authority to regulate X development as well as other interests to be involved in the planning process? (Requirement §201.6(b)(2)) A3. Does the Plan document how the public was involved in the Section 3.4 planning process during the drafting stage? (Requirement X §201.6(b)(1)) A4. Does the Plan describe the review and incorporation of existing Section 2.1, 3.2.2 plans, studies, reports, and technical information? (Requirement X §201.6(b)(3)) AS. Is there discussion of how the community(ies) will continue Section 2.2 public participation in the plan maintenance process? (Requirement X §201.6(c)(4)(iii)) A6. Is there a description of the method and schedule for keeping Section 2.2 the plan current (monitoring, evaluating and updating the X mitigation plan within a 5 -year cycle)? (Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i)) ELEMENT A: REQUIRED REVISIONS ELEMENT B. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT 81. Does the Plan include a description of the type, location, and Section 5.6- 5.17, extent of all natural hazards that can affect each jurisdiction(s)? Appendix B (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i)) (For applicable X hazards per jurisdiction) B2. Does the Plan include information on previous occurrences of Section 5.3, 5.6 - hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events for 5.17, Appendix B each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i)) (For applicable X hazards per jurisdiction) B3. Is there a description of each identified hazard's impact on the Section 5.6- 5.17, community as well as an overall summary of the community's Appendix B vulnerability for each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)) (For applicable X hazards per jurisdiction) Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool Weld County, CO 12021 B4. Does the Plan address NFIP insured structures within the Section 5.11.8 jurisdiction that have been repetitively damaged by floods? X (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)) ELEMENT B: REQUIRED REVISIONS ELEMENT C. MITIGATION STRATEGY Cl. Does the plan document each jurisdiction's existing authorities, Section 3.1, 1.6, policies, programs and resources and its ability to expand on and Appendix B: 7.x.3 improve these existing policies and programs? (Requirement X §201.6(c)(3)) C2. Does the Plan address each jurisdiction's participation in the Section 5.11.8 NFIP and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as X appropriate? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii)) C3. Does the Plan include goals to reduce/avoid long-term Section 1.2 vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? (Requirement X §201.6(c)(3)(i)) C4. Does the Plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of Appendix A specific mitigation actions and projects for each jurisdiction being considered to reduce the effects of hazards, with emphasis on new X and existing buildings and infrastructure? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii)) C5. Does the Plan contain an action plan that describes how the Section 1.1, 2.2 actions identified will be prioritized (including cost benefit review), implemented, and administered by each jurisdiction? (Requirement X §201.6(c)(3)(iv)); (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iii)) C6. Does the Plan describe a process by which local governments Section 2.1 will integrate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital X improvement plans, when appropriate? (Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii)) ELEMENT C: REQUIRED REVISIONS ELEMENT D. PLAN REVIEW, EVALUATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION (applicable to plan updates only) D1. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in development? Section 4, 5.6-5.17 (Requirement §201.6(d)(3)) (Land Use and Development X subsection within each hazard) D2. Was the plan revised to reflect progress in local mitigation Section 1.3 efforts? (Requirement §201.6(d)(3)) X D3. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in priorities? 1.1, Appendix A (Requirement §201.6(d)(3)) X Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool Weld County, CO 12021 ELEMENT D: REQUIRED REVISIONS ELEMENT E. PLAN ADOPTION El. Does the Plan include documentation that the plan has been NA formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction N/A requesting approval? (Requirement §201.6(c)(5)) E2. For multi -jurisdictional plans, has each jurisdiction requesting Appendix F approval of the plan documented formal plan adoption? (pending) X (Requirement §201.6(c)(5)) ELEMENT E: REQUIRED REVISION OPTIONAL: HIGH HAZARD POTENTIAL DAM RISKS HHPD1. Did Element A4 (planning process) describe the incorporation of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical Section 5.11 X information for high hazard potential dams? HHPD2. Did Element B3 (risk assessment) address HHPDs? Section 5.11 X HHPD3. Did Element C3 (mitigation goals) include mitigation goals Section 1.2 to reduce long-term vulnerabilities from high hazard potential dams X that pose an unacceptable risk to the public? HHPD4. Did Element C4 -05 (mitigation actions) address HHPDs prioritize mitigation actions to reduce vulnerabilities from high X hazard potential dams that pose an unacceptable risk to the public? REQUIRED REVISIONS HHPD4. This is an optional element of the review and will not impact plan approval. It will prevent any high hazard dams in Weld County from being eligible for FEMA's High Hazard Potential Dam Rehabilitation Grant Program. ELEMENT F. ADDITIONAL STATE REQUIREMENTS (OPTIONAL FOR STATE REVIEWERS ONLY; NOT TO BE COMPLETED BY FEMA) Fl. F2. ELEMENT F: REQUIRED REVISIONS Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool Weld County, CO 12021 SECTION 3: PLAN ASSESSMENT A. Plan Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement This section provides a discussion of the strengths of the plan document and identifies areas where these could be improved beyond minimum requirements. Element A: Planning Process Strengths State • This plan succinctly describes the planning process and does a good job of telling the reader how the community adjusted its planning effort to fit the COVID-19 environment. FEMA The Planning Team did a good job of providing opportunities for the public to be informed and involved in the planning process. There were plenty of opportunities for input and the team used multiple different outlets, including a project website, social media networks, newsletters, direct mailers, local press, and email lists, to spread the word. Additionally, the three public input surveys appear well designed, yielded some good input for the planning process, and contributed directly to various portions of the Plan. • Table 10. Organizational Participation is an excellent to way to identify how each jurisdiction met participation requirements throughout plan development. This type of table is easy to read and highlights planning process responsibilities in a transparent manner. The Plan also clearly articulates the roles and responsibilities for participation as members of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC). The participating jurisdictions from the 2016 Plan continued their commitment to hazard mitigation in this Plan update. The Plan continued to have comprehensive representation from County Commissioners, and City and Public Officials during the planning process. This type of long-term collective buy -in to reduce hazard risk will continue to foster a culture of resilience across the County. Opportunities for Improvement State Weld County OEM works closely with the other County OEMs in Northeast Colorado and Section 3.3 described how those neighbors were given the opportunity to participate in this planning process. The next plan update should provide documentation to support those opportunities such as emails and/or meeting agendas or minutes from regional ESF-5 meetings. FEMA Between Section 3.2.2 and the capability assessment, it is clear that a comprehensive list of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information was reviewed and incorporated into the Plan. For the next update, please add more narrative that explicitly states haw each of these resources was used, and where information from the sources may be found in the Plan. While there are some citations throughout, it is not completely clear how each item Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 7 Weld County, CO 12021 listed was used to inform the Plan. Also, aside from the 2018 Milliken Risk Assessment, only state and countywide plans were listed in Section 3.2.2 as reviewed for incorporation into the Hazard Mitigation Plan update. In future updates, please clarify if other types of resources, such as local jurisdiction plans, were reviewed and incorporated. In describing impacts on vulnerable populations, the Plan states "because these factors (social and economic) create unequal conditions outside of disasters too, it is clear that planning with non-traditional community partners who understand everyday community experiences will be critical for planning inclusive emergency responses (pg. 59)." Absolutely! However, it did not appear that non-traditional partners participated in the HMPC. Please consider their inclusion in future updates. An appropriate range of stakeholders were engaged and given the opportunity to become involved in the planning process. However, there could have been greater active participation from several key stakeholders, such as, the Weld County School District, the Department of Health and Environment, and the County Farm Bureau. In the next plan update, consider outreach and engagement tools, techniques, and opportunities that will generate more active participation from educational, medical, historical, and agricultural institutions. For example, are there particular events or guest speaking opportunities for the HMPC to engage special interest groups about mitigation concepts and risk -reduction actions? Membership and attendance of the HMPC is listed in Table 9, including name, title, and jurisdiction. Each participating jurisdiction had at least one, if not several, representatives listed; however, for the jurisdictions with several stakeholders listed, it is unclear who the main point of contact was. Consider adding an asterisk (*) next to the primary point of contact for each participating jurisdiction. Element B: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Strengths State The use of analytics and modeling of composite risk in Section 5.3.2 across hazards and across the County may be the first use of this method in Colorado. It provides a nice visualization tool for the reader leading into the hazard profiles. The analysis that went into the Lifeline assessment in Table 32 may create a best practice in the evolving integration of Lifelines into HMPs. FEMA Overall, the hazard profiles are well done and show the jurisdictions clearly understand the risks facing them. • The Plan's Hazard Ranking methodology is a clear and consistent way to evaluate, describe, and quantify the degree of relative risk for each hazard assessed. The fact that it was applied to determine risk scores/classifications for each hazard specific to each jurisdiction (versus the planning area as a whole) is commendable. • Social vulnerability is incorporated into the Hazard Mitigation Plan, including an overall summary in Section 4.2 as well as into the risk assessments of individual hazards. Through Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 8 Weld County, CO 12021 identification of potential impacts to vulnerable populations, the Planning Team shows a strong commitment to accommodating all members of the community and achieving greater resiliency and social equity. Additionally, the incorporation of spatial analyses (Figures 20 thru 25 and Figure 34) is extremely beneficial to understand where vulnerable populations live and where hazards will occur. This information is extremely useful in guiding creation of targeted mitigation actions and, to that point, it is wonderful to see that several jurisdictions have included actions aimed at reducing risk to vulnerable populations. FEMA's Community Lifeline categories are used in the Plan to classify critical facilities and infrastructure. The Lifelines construct is a growing area of interest in hazard mitigation planning, and it is commendable to see Weld County and the Planning Team thinking ahead at how lifelines are incorporated into the Plan. The Plan's Risk Assessment thoughtfully integrates the lifeline construct by documenting which lifelines, if any, would be disrupted during an event or are at higher risk. The Mitigation Strategy also effectively integrates the lifeline construct by identifying which lifeline(s) each action is associated with. Opportunities for Improvement State • The analysis in this portion of the plan is excellent. We encourage Weld County to incorporate more projections from the FACE:Hazard tool (described in Section 5.6) into the next plan update. Including more information about future conditions may be a catalyst to take specific actions to mitigate flood, drought, and wildfire. FEMA • To help meet the criteria for omitting commonly recognized hazards, it may be helpful to list and briefly describe each of the hazards identified for Colorado in the SHMP, noting the ones that are included/aligned with the HIRA for Weld County and participating jurisdictions. The hazards explicitly identified in the SHMP but not profiled in this Plan should be noted and the rationale for their omission explicitly stated. To better link the HIRA with the Mitigation Strategy, consider establishing more direct connections between key vulnerabilities or similar problem statements in the Risk Assessments with specific mitigation actions proposed in Appendix A. For example, where a mitigation action will address a major issue identified for a hazard, consider adding a footnote or cross-reference to the text noting the relevant Action(s) and/or Action Number(s). • The Plan combines hazard profiles for flood and dam failure, but these hazards are quite different and are not always coupled together. Because each hazard is unique in its origin, frequency, geography, severity, impact, and prevention and response efforts, you may consider profiling each independently. Summarizing the characteristics and risk of each individually will help with the creation of targeted mitigation strategies. • Although county -level and multi jurisdictional map products work well for most hazards, consider using more detailed, jurisdiction -specific maps for hazards such as floods and wildfires, which have more localized spatial extents. The benefit of more discernable hazard areas for each jurisdiction could help in terms of visual risk communication. Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 9 Weld County, CO 12021 Element C: Mitigation Strategy Strengths State • This plan takes a unique approach by leading with the mitigation strategy, which is the most important part of the plan. It allows readers to quickly get to the heart of the matter- what mitigation actions have been done and what would the community like to do in the next five years? FEMA • The inventory and assessment of relevant local capabilities demonstrates that Weld County and the participating jurisdictions are thinking holistically about what already exists throughout the planning area to mitigate each hazard. For the next update, consider building out this discussion by identifying gaps in existing resources and capabilities that should be addressed as part of the Mitigation Strategy. Table 4.2021 Mitigation Actions provides a nicely catalogued summary of each proposed mitigation action/initiative. Mapping each action back to its applicable goal(s) and objective(s) is an excellent way to document how specific actions are designed to support a more coordinated strategy for risk reduction. The Mitigation Action Guides included in Appendix A are valuable in that they are extremely detailed and present a clear path forward to implement each action. Opportunities for Improvement State • Including either an executive summary before the mitigation strategy or a risk summary at the beginning of the mitigation strategy (such as Table 31) would give readers valuable context on the mitigation strategy. FEMA For the next update, please be sure that each high -risk hazard has corresponding actions to mitigate risk. Given the Region's observed and anticipated high rate of population growth, consider adding more actions from the Local Plans and Regulations and Natural Systems Protection categories. Mitigating risk through protecting existing properties and other structural solutions is important, as are emergency services and education and awareness programs. However, local government tools such as master/comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and other land use or nature -based solutions to reduce risk through long-term hazard avoidance can be particularly effective. For Colorado -specific guidance and examples of these types of solutions, visit: www.planningforhazards.com. Consider including more descriptive information on how the Planning Team and Local Planning Committee systematically considered a wide range of mitigation actions for each jurisdiction to ensure they explored all possible measures. This additional documentation would help others understand how and why certain actions were included in the plan and others were not. It would also help maximize credit points for Step 7 ("Review Possible Activities") of CRS Activity 510, which provides credit for plans that review various types of mitigation actions to address their hazard risks. Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 10 Weld County, CO 12021 A nice addition to the Mitigation Action Guides would be a column that identifies the most applicable category for the mitigation actions identified and described in Chapter 1, Section 1.1 (i.e., Structure and Infrastructure Projects; Local Plans and Regulations; Natural Systems Protection; and Education and Awareness Programs). This would help ensure that the team not only considers (as suggested above) but also selects for implementation a good variety of actions across mitigation activity types. • Page 6 of the Plan indicates that mitigation actions were prioritized by each community using a three -tiered High, Medium, or Low methodology. However, this prioritization and scoring criteria is vague and does not provide a clear rationale for low, medium or high project scores. In future updates, please clearly state the criteria and weighting used to evaluate action implementation priority. Element D: Plan Review, Evaluation, and Implementation (Plan Updates Only) Strengths FEMA • The plan clearly identifies and discusses the status for each 2016 HMP project completed, deferred, or still ongoing. The review helped guide more specificity to several actions in the new mitigation strategy. The Plan includes a good discussion of the processes undertaken to update the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan document and clearly describes changes that have been made. Opportunities for Improvement FEMA Development trends are generally discussed, including an overall summary in Section 4.5 as well as incorporation into the risk assessments of individual hazards. The 2020 Weld County Comprehensive Map (Figure 28) highlights where future development can be expected and, given the number of new building permits issued in Weld County over the last 30 years (Table 20), it is clear growth continues to increase exponentially. Although development trends are described, a more detailed description on how changes in development for each jurisdiction, and the relationship to increased hazard risk and vulnerability, could improve the plan. Given the tremendous growth in the County and jurisdictions, the plan update should include more detailed narratives and maps of recent and potential new development that are in proximity to hazard -prone areas. For example, the Plan could first identify recent subdivisions, areas of planned residential growth, or new critical facilities on a map. The plan could then add some narrative about how future development will increase each community's vulnerability. This will strengthen overall vulnerability analyses and will make each community's risk more transparent. • Ideally, the HMPC should have an active role in supporting plan implementation and maintenance. However, their participation is not mentioned in Section 2.2 Plan Maintenance and Implementation. To ensure continued involvement, consider establishing a regular meeting schedule throughout the plan maintenance process. The County Emergency Manager is likely to benefit from convening the Planning Committee at least Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 11 Weld County, CO 12021 once a year for the annual plan review, and preferably more often. Other strategies to engage the HMPC and other selected stakeholders more frequently could include submitting quarterly or biannual tracking reports for mitigation actions to the OEM, or perhaps using a "live" tracker for real-time updates and plan monitoring. • For the next update, consider adding more specifics about how plan monitoring and evaluation will be implemented. B. Resources for Implementing Your Approved Plan FEMA FUNDING SOURCES Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The HMGP is a post -disaster mitigation program. It is made available to states by FEMA after each Federal disaster declaration. The HMGP can provide up to 75 percent funding for hazard mitigation measures. The HMGP can be used to fund cost-effective projects that will protect public or private property in an area covered by a federal disaster declaration or that will reduce the likely damage from future disasters. Examples of projects include acquisition and demolition of structures in hazard prone areas, flood -proofing or elevation to reduce future damage, minor structural improvements and development of state or local standards. Applicants who are eligible for the HMGP are state and local governments, certain nonprofit organizations or institutions that perform essential government services, and Indian tribes and authorized tribal organizations. Individuals or homeowners cannot apply directly for the HMGP; a local government must apply on their behalf. Applications are submitted to your state and placed in rank order for available funding and submitted to FEMA for final approval. Eligible projects not selected for funding are placed in an inactive status and may be considered as additional HMGP funding becomes available. More information: https://www.fema.izov/hazard-mitigation-grant- program Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Grant Program. The BRIC program supports states, local communities, tribes and territories as they undertake hazard mitigation projects, reducing the risks they face from disasters and natural hazards. BRIC is a new FEMA pre - disaster hazard mitigation program that replaces the existing Pre -Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program. The BRIC program guiding principles are supporting communities through capability- and capacity -building; encouraging and enabling innovation; promoting partnerships; enabling large projects; maintaining flexibility; and providing consistency: https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/bu ildi ng-resilient-infrastructure-communities Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dams (HHPD) Grant Program. This program provides technical, planning, design, and construction assistance in the form of grants for rehabilitation of eligible high hazard potential dams. For more information, please visit: https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/da m-safety/grants#hh pd Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Grant Program. FMA provides funding to assist states and communities in implementing measures to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures insurable under the NFIP. The FMA is funded annually; no federal disaster declaration is required. Only NFIP insured homes and Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 12 Weld County, CO 12021 businesses are eligible for mitigation in this program. Funding for FMA is very limited and, as with the HMGP, individuals cannot apply directly for the program. Applications must come from local governments or other eligible organizations. The federal cost share for an FMA project is 75 percent. At least 25 percent of the total eligible costs must be provided by a non-federal source. Of this 25 percent, no more than half can be provided as in -kind contributions from third parties. FMA funds are distributed from FEMA to the state. More information: https://www.fema.gov/flood-mitigation- assistance-grant-program Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) Program. The FMAG program provides grants to states, tribal governments and local governments for the mitigation, management and control of any fire burning on publicly (non-federal) or privately owned forest or grassland that threatens such destruction as would constitute a major disaster. The grants are made in the form of cost sharing with the federal share being 75 percent of total eligible costs. Grant approvals are made within 1 to 72 hours from time of request. More information: http://www.fema.gov/fire-management- assistance-grant-program Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Post Fire Grant Program. FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) has Post Fire assistance available to help communities implement hazard mitigation measures after wildfire disasters. States, federally -recognized tribes and territories affected by fires resulting in an Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) declaration on or after October 5, 2018, are eligible to apply. More information: https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/post-fire Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Grants. FP&S Grants support projects that enhance the safety of the public and firefighters from fire and related hazards. The primary goal is to target high -risk populations and reduce injury and prevent death. Eligibility includes fire departments, national, regional, state, and local organizations, Native American tribal organizations, and/or community organizations recognized for their experience and expertise in fire prevention and safety programs and activities. Private non-profit and public organizations are also eligible. Interested applicants are advised to check the website periodically for announcements of grant availability: https://www.fema.gov/welcome-assistance-firefighters- rgant-program OTHER MITIGATION FUNDING SOURCES Grant funding is available from a variety of federal and state agencies for training, equipment, and hazard mitigation activities. Several of these programs are described below. Program 15.228: Wildland Urban Interface Community and Rural Fire Assistance. This program is designed to implement the National Fire Plan and assist communities at risk from catastrophic wildland fires. The program provides grants, technical assistance, and training for community programs that develop local capability, including: Assessment and planning, mitigation activities, and community and homeowner education and action; hazardous fuels reduction activities, including the training, monitoring or maintenance associated with such hazardous fuels reduction activities, on federal land, or on adjacent nonfederal land for activities that mitigate the threat of catastrophic fire to communities and natural resources in high risk areas; and, enhancement of Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 13 Weld County, CO 12021 knowledge and fire protection capability of rural fire districts through assistance in education and training, protective clothing and equipment purchase, and mitigation methods on a cost share basis. Secure Rural Schools and Community Self -Determination Act - Title III- County Funds. The Self - Determination Act has recently been reauthorized and now includes specific language regarding the Firewise Communities program. Counties seeking funding under Title III must use the funds to perform work under the Firewise Communities program. Counties applying for Title III funds to implement Firewise activities can assist in all aspects of a community's recognition process, including conducting or assisting with community assessments, helping the community create an action plan, assisting with an annual Firewise Day, assisting with local wildfire mitigation projects, and communicating with the state liaison and the national program to ensure a smooth application process. Counties that previously used Title III funds for other wildfire preparation activities such as the Fire Safe Councils or similar would be able to carry out many of the same activities as they had before. However, with the new language, counties would be required to show that funds used for these activities were carried out under the Firewise Communities program. For more information, click here. Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire. Established in 2015 by Headwaters Economics and Wildfire Planning International, Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire (CPAW) works with communities to reduce wildfire risks through improved land use planning. CPAW is a grant -funded program providing communities with professional assistance from foresters, planners, economists and wildfire risk modelers to integrate wildfire mitigation into the development planning process. All services and recommendations are site -specific and come at no cost to the community. More information: http://planningforwildfire.org/what-we-do/ Urban and Community Forestry (UCF) Program. A cooperative program of the U.S. Forest Service that focuses on the stewardship of urban natural resources. With 80 percent of the nation's population in urban areas, there are strong environmental, social, and economic cases to be made for the conservation of green spaces to guide growth and revitalize city centers and older suburbs. UCF responds to the needs of urban areas by maintaining, restoring, and improving urban forest ecosystems on more than 70 million acres. Through these efforts the program encourages and promotes the creation of healthier, more livable urban environments across the nation. These grant programs are focused on issues and landscapes of national importance and prioritized through state and regional assessments. Information: http://www.fs.fed.us/managing-land/urban-forests/ucf Western Wildland Urban Interface Grants. The National Fire Plan (NFP) is a long-term strategy for reducing the effects of catastrophic wildfires throughout the nation. The Division of Forestry's NFP Program is implemented within the Division's Fire and Aviation Program through the existing USDA Forest Service, State & Private Forestry, State Fire Assistance Program. Congress has provided increased funding assistance to states through the U.S. Forest Service State and Private Forestry programs since 2001. The focus of much of this additional funding was mitigating risk in WUI areas. In the West, the State Fire Assistance funding is available and awarded through a competitive process with emphasis on hazard fuel reduction, information and education, and community and homeowner action. This portion of the National Fire Plan was developed to Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 14 Weld County, CO 12021 assist interface communities manage the unique hazards they find around them. Long-term solutions to interface challenges require informing and educating people who live in these areas about what they and their local organizations can do to mitigate these hazards. The 10 -Year Comprehensive Strategy focuses on assisting people and communities in the WUI to moderate the threat of catastrophic fire through the four broad goals of improving prevention and suppression, reducing hazardous fuels, restoring fire -adapted ecosystems, and promoting community assistance. The Western States Wildland Urban Interface Grant may be used to apply for financial assistance towards hazardous fuels and educational projects within the four goals of: improved prevention, reduction of hazardous fuels, and restoration of fire -adapted ecosystems and promotion of community assistance. More information: https://www.westernforesters.org/wui- rgants U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Rural Fire Assistance Grants. Each year, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) provides Rural Fire Assistance (RFA) grants to neighboring community fire departments to enhance local wildfire protection, purchase equipment, and train volunteer firefighters. Service fire staff also assist directly with community projects. These efforts reduce the risk to human life and better permit FWS firefighters to interact and work with community fire organizations when fighting wildfires. The Department of the Interior (DOI) receives an appropriated budget each year for an RFA grant program. The maximum award per grant is $20,000. The DOI assistance program targets rural and volunteer fire departments that routinely help fight fire on or near DOI lands. More information: http://www.fws.izov/fire/livine with fire/rural fire assistance.shtml U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Community Assistance Program. BLM provides funds to communities through assistance agreements to complete mitigation projects, education and planning within the WUI. More information: https://www.blm.gov/services/financial-assistance- and-grants NOAA Office of Education Grants. The Office of Education supports formal, informal and non -formal education projects and programs through competitively awarded grants and cooperative agreements to a variety of educational institutions and organizations in the United States. More information: http://www.noaa.gov/office-education/grants NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, administered through the NRCS, is a cost -share program that provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers to plan and implement conservation practices that improve soil, water, plant, animal, air and related natural resources on agricultural land and non- industrial private forestland. Owners of land in agricultural or forest production or persons who are engaged in livestock, agricultural or forest production on eligible land and that have a natural resource concern on that land may apply to participate in EQIP. Eligible land includes cropland, rangeland, pastureland, non -industrial private forestland and other farm or ranch lands. EQUIP is another funding mechanism for landowner fuel reduction projects. More information: https://www. nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/main/national/programs/fi nancia l/egip/ Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 15 Weld County, CO 12 021 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Community Facilities Loans and Grants. Provides grants (and loans) to cities, counties, states and other public entities to improve community facilities for essential services to rural residents. Projects can include fire and rescue services; funds have been provided to purchase fire -fighting equipment for rural areas. No match is required. More information: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=GRANTS LOANS General Services Administration, Sale of Federal Surplus Personal Property. This program sells property no longer needed by the federal government. The program provides individuals, businesses and organizations the opportunity to enter competitive bids for purchase of a wide variety of personal property and equipment. Normally, there are no restrictions on the property purchased. More information: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/21045 Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grants. Grant funds are passed through to local emergency management offices and HazMat teams having functional and active LEPC groups. More information: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/grants U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Enhances the ability of states, local and tribal jurisdictions, and other regional authorities in the preparation, prevention, and response to terrorist attacks and other disasters, by distributing grant funds. Localities can use grants for planning, equipment, training and exercise needs. These grants include, but are not limited to areas of Critical Infrastructure Protection Equipment and Training for First Responders, and Homeland Security Grants. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). The U.S. Department of Commerce administers the CDBG program which are intended to provide low and moderate -income households with viable communities, including decent housing, as suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities. Eligible activities include community facilities and improvements, roads and infrastructure, housing rehabilitation and preservation, development activities, public services, economic development, planning, and administration. Public improvements may include flood and drainage improvements. In limited instances, and during the times of "urgent need" (e.g. post disaster) as defined by the CDBG National Objectives, CDBG funding may be used to acquire a property located in a floodplain that was severely damaged by a recent flood, demolish a structure severely damaged by an earthquake, or repair a public facility severely damaged by a hazard event. CDBG funds can be used to match FEMA grants. More Information: https://www.hud.gov/program offices/comm planning/cdbg Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities. The EPA Office of Sustainable Communities sometimes offers grants to support activities that improve the quality of development and protect human health and the environment. When these grants are offered, they will always be announced on www.grants.gov. More information: httos://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/building-blocks- sustainable-communities#2016 Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 16 Weld County, CO 12021 OTHER RESOURCES FEMA: Grant Application Training. Each year, FEMA partners with the State on training courses designed to help communities be more successful in their applications for grants. Contact your State Hazard Mitigation Officer for course offering schedules. Example Courses: • Unified Hazard Mitigation Grant Assistance Application Development Course • Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) Course FEMA: Community Assistance Visit. It may be appropriate to set up a Community Assistance Visit with FEMA to provide technical assistance to communities in the review and/or updating of their floodplain ordinances to meet the new model ordinance. Consider contacting your State NFIP Coordinator for more information. FEMA: Building Science. The Building Science branch develops and produces multi -hazard mitigation publications, guidance materials, tools, technical bulletins, and recovery advisories that incorporate the most up-to-date building codes, floodproofing requirements, seismic design standards, and wind design requirements for new construction and the repair of existing buildings. To learn more, visit: https://www.fema.goy/building-science NOAA/NIDIS: U.S. Drought Portal. NOAA's National Integrated Drought Information System's Drought Portal provides resources for communities to understand their drought conditions, vulnerability, and impacts. The Portal includes data and maps down by city, county, state, zip code, and at watershed global scales. Communities can use this information to inform their hazard mitigation plans with update -to -date data regarding drought conditions, vulnerability, and impacts for sectors such as agriculture, water utilities, energy, and recreation. EPA: Smart Growth in Small Towns and Rural Communities. EPA has consolidated resources just for small towns and rural communities to help them achieve their goals for growth and development while maintaining their distinctive rural character. To learn more, visit: https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-growth-small-towns-and-rural-communities EPA: Hazard Mitigation for Natural Disasters: A Starter Guide for Water and Wastewater Utilities. The EPA released guidance on how to mitigate natural disasters specifically for water and wastewater utilities. For more information, visit: https://www.epa.itov/waterutilityresponse/hazard-mitigation-natural-disasters National Integrated Drought Information System. The National Drought Resilience Partnership may provide some additional resources and ideas to mitigate drought hazards and increase awareness of droughts. Visit: https://www.drought.gov/drought/what-nidis/national-drought-resilience- partnership. Beyond the Basics: Best Practices in Local Mitigation Planning. The product of a 5 -year research study where the Costal Hazards Center and the Center for Sustainable Community Design analyzed local mitigation plans to assess their content and quality. The website features numerous examples and best practices that were drawn from the analyzed plans. Visit: http://mitigationguide.org/ STAR Community Rating System. Consider measuring your mitigation success by participating in the STAR Community Rating System. Local leaders can use the STAR Community Rating System to Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 17 Weld County, CO 12021 assess how sustainable they are, set goals for moving ahead and measure progress along the way. To get started, go to http://www.starcommunities.org/get-started Flood Economics. The Economist Intelligence Unit analyzed case studies and state -level mitigation data in order to gain a better understanding of the economic imperatives for investment in flood mitigation. To learn more, visit: http://floodeconomics.com/ Headwaters Economics. Headwaters Economics is an independent, nonprofit research group that works to improve community development and land management decisions in the West. To learn more, visit: https://headwaterseconomics.org/ Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool 18 Hello