Mitigation Action Plan

structure

The mitigation action plan is structured in the following manner:

  • Action: suggested activity to mitigate at least one of the KIPDA region hazards.
  • 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. 

*KIPDA staff determined the priority of each project based on the benefit-cost and then sought the Regional Hazard Mitigation Council’s approval.

Changes since 2016

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.