What is the process to develop this update?

KIPDA staff followed a structured process to develop this plan. This process included reviewing existing plans and studies, researching successful hazard mitigation plans, conducting a significant data update, identifying key stakeholders, hosting meetings and interviews, and compiling mitigation goals and actions to reflect these findings. 

This section will describe the processes associated with each of the three initiatives:

  • Reviewing and incorporating existing plans and studies
  • Developing the risk assessment section of the HMP
  • Developing the mitigation strategy section of the HMP

Review and incorporation of existing plans & studies

To craft an effective hazard mitigation plan, KIPDA staff reviewed existing plans and studies that were relevant to the 2021 plan. KIPDA staff also researched successful plans from other regions of the country in order to implement best practices in hazard mitigation planning. Plans and tools reviewed are listed below.

*Please note that this is not an exhaustive list of documents consulted during the planning process. For a list of studies, please see the references tab for each hazard.

Local Planning & Zoning Documents

KIPDA’s HMP intern, Anagha Gore, created an inventory of planning and zoning language related to flooding policies in each county in the KIPDA region. To access this inventory use the button below.

KIPDA Flood Policy Inventory

Development of Risk Assessment Chapter of the HMP

To develop the risk assessment, KIPDA staff followed these steps:

  • Analyzing data choices of 2016 KIPDA HMP
  • Reviewing FEMA Region IV 2020 Multi-Jurisdictional Job Aid
  • Researching best practices in data collection and presentation from other hazard mitigation plans
  • Launching public survey and mitigation feedback map for local stakeholders
  • Interviewing hazard mitigation planning partners
  • Presenting feedback opportunities at meetings for city council, fiscal court, conservation groups, water management council, etc.
  • Analyzing hazards and causes
  • Prioritizing KIPDA Region’s risks for the HMP update

Analyzing past data choices

KIPDA staff analyzed the 2016 plan’s risk assessment and decided to conduct an overhaul of the risk assessment and data collected. First, staff wanted to create interactive maps and graphs that helped community members better understand their risk. Second, staff wanted to locate data – such as property loss claims – that more accurately reflected potential losses and impacts. 

Reviewing FEMA Region IV 2020 Multi-Jurisdictional Job Aid

FEMA Region IV implemented a new job aid in 2020, and KIPDA staff worked with the UK Hazard Mitigation Grants Office to understand how these changes impacted data collection.

Researching best practices in data collection and presentation from other hazard mitigation plans

In the past, KIPDA hazard mitigation plans have been dense, technical documents. The last plan was almost 600 pages long. The primary audience of the hazard mitigation plan is the public, and KIPDA wanted to create a document that the public could use to easily understand their community’s risk and what was being done to address these issues. KIPDA staff conducted extensive research on exemplary hazard mitigation plans from across the county in order to develop a public-centered, online document. Plans that inspired these changes are listed under the review and incorporation of existing plans and studies. 

Launching public survey and mitigation feedback map for local stakeholders

KIPDA staff aimed to develop problem statements for flooding and other highly impactful hazards. In order to create problem statements that reflected local priorities and issues, staff needed significant feedback from stakeholders and members of the public. KIPDA launched a public survey (the results of which can be found here) and created an ArcGIS feedback app in order to solicit local comments on feedback. KIPDA staff thought it was especially important to have these two avenues available online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Interviewing hazard mitigation planning partners

During the 2021 planning process, KIPDA staff evaluated the 2016 planning and strategizing efforts. Staff noticed that one-on-one interviews were limited and significant emphasis was placed on emergency managers rather than other city/county staff. In order to understand the whole community’s risk and identify its problem areas, staff significantly expanded outreach efforts and conducted one-on-one interviews with stakeholders.

Presenting feedback opportunities at meetings for city council, fiscal court, conservation groups, water management council, etc.

Staff advertised the Hazard Mitigation Planning Portal, surveys, and ArcGIS feedback application at the over 50 meetings it attended in order to solicit more localized knowledge for the risk assessment. 

Analyzing hazards and causes

KIPDA staff conducted an extensive search of relevant data to include in the plan. Staff used ArcGIS and Tableau to helps users analyze and understand the risk these hazards pose to their community.

Prioritizing KIPDA Region’s risks for the HMP update

KIPDA decided to maintain the same hazards as the 2016 plan as these hazards continue to pose a significant risk to the KIPDA region. These hazards include dam failure, drought, earthquake, extreme cold, extreme heat, flooding, hail, landslide, karst/sinkhole, severe storm, severe winter storm, tornado, and wildfire. 

Development of the mitigation strategy

To develop the mitigation strategy, KIPDA staff followed these steps:

  • Reviewing past mitigation actions
  • Conducting one-on-one interviews with stakeholders
  • Reviewing data from mitigation feedback map
  • Revising goals to reflect mitigation priorities
  • Identifying mitigation actions
  • Evaluating and prioritizing mitigation actions

Reviewing past mitigation actions

During the 2021 planning process, KIPDA staff evaluated the 2016 planning and strategizing efforts. Staff realized that past actions, while still applicable, focused on improving preparedness rather than building resiliency. Moreover, the 2016 actions largely relied on emergency managers and restated actions that many employed in their communities already. While emergency managers play a crucial role in responding to a hazard, other stakeholders such as planners, engineers, public works officials, water and wastewater employees, and road department crews, oversee current and future development in their community, which has a direct impact on resiliency (think floodplain requirements, storm water management, road accessibility, etc.). Holding several interviews and meetings with these stakeholders in addition to emergency managers allowed staff to identify key action areas for long-term mitigation projects and efforts that strengthen resiliency, which is the intent of hazard mitigation planning. 

Conducting one-on-one interviews with stakeholders

As mentioned above KIPDA staff expanded the number of stakeholders and then conducted one-on-one interviews to learn more about hazard issues and potential mitigation actions. These interviews helped inform mitigation actions and made stakeholders aware of potential funding sources. These interviews were held over Zoom or in person. Most interviews prior to April of 2021 were conducted over Zoom or the phone.

Reviewing data from mitigation feedback app

KIPDA staff created the mitigation feedback app to solicit location-specific hazard issues. Staff had originally intended to bring county and city maps to stakeholder meetings; however, staff shifted their strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic. This mitigation feedback app was highly useful in identifying problem areas and developing mitigation strategies. The map will remain live, so that communities can report issues as they happen.

Revising goals to reflect mitigation priorities

Based on one-on-one interviews, public surveys, and the mitigation feedback app, staff revised the 2016 goals to better reflect the region’s priorities. These goals were approved by the Regional Hazard Mitigation Council.

Identifying mitigation actions

As mentioned in the reviewing past mitigation paragraph, staff realized that past actions, while still applicable, focused on improving preparedness rather than building resiliency. Therefore, KIPDA staff decided to shift the focus of the region’s plan to resiliency – especially in terms of infrastructure. Data from the mitigation feedback app, interviews, and the public survey, helped staff identify necessary and feasible actions for the region. For each action, KIPDA staff identified:

  • Goal: goal(s) that the action falls under.
  • Hazards covered: the hazards that the action addresses.
  • County: county or counties that the action includes.
  • Applicable jurisdiction: community that the action applies to. Please note that when the action list states the applicable jurisdictions include “all counties + cities,” each county and its cities are included in the action.
  • Priority: this ranking (low, moderate, high) reflects KIPDA’s benefit-cost analysis of each action. To determine the priority ranking of each action, KIPDA staff* considered the benefit-cost analysis in terms of:
    • Ability of the action to address the problem
    • Contribution of the action to save life or property
    • Available technical and administrative resources for implementation
    • Availability of funding and perceived cost-effectiveness
  • Lead implementer: organization(s) that is most appropriate to lead the action. 
  • Other proposed parties: organization(s) that could provide additional assistance or guidance for the action. 
  • Potential funding sources: grant programs, loans, or other funding options. For actions that require staff time and not additional funding, “staff time” is used instead.
  • Status: clarifies the status of the action – whether it is a new action in the 2021 plan or an ongoing activity from the 2016 plan.
  • 2021 Implementation Status Comments: these comments offer further clarification to actions, priority rankings, status, funding sources, etc. 

Actions vary by county and city; however, many actions apply to all jurisdictions. The KIPDA Regional Hazard Mitigation Council, which includes representatives from each county, approved these mitigation actions.

Evaluating and prioritizing mitigation actions

In accordance with FEMA requirements, KIPDA staff prioritized mitigation actions to reflect the maximum benefit while considering the potential costs of each action. 

KIPDA developed a prioritization methodology that focuses on the following: ability of the action to address the problem, contribution of the action to save life or property, available technical and administrative resources for implementation, and availability of funding and perceived cost-effectiveness. The KIPDA Hazard Mitigation Council then approved this methodology and its application to the mitigation strategy.