Plan Implementation and Maintenance

Implementation and maintenance of the plan is critical to the overall success of hazard mitigation planning. This is Phase 4 of FEMA’s 4 phase process and Step 10 of the 10-step planning process. This section outlines how this plan will be implemented and updated.

Implementation

Once adopted, the plan faces the truest test of its worth: implementation. While this plan contains many worthwhile projects, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) will need to decide which action(s) to undertake first. Two factors will help with making that decision: 1) the priority assigned the actions in the planning process; and 2) funding availability. Low or no-cost projects most easily demonstrate progress toward successful plan implementation.

Implementation will be accomplished by adhering to the schedules identified for each action (see Section for County actions and the jurisdictional annexes for jurisdiction specific actions) and through constant, pervasive, and energetic efforts to network and highlight the multi-objective, win-win benefits of each project to the Jefferson County community and its stakeholders. These efforts include the routine actions of monitoring agendas, attending meetings, and promoting a safe, sustainable community. The three main components of implementation are:

IMPLEMENT the action plan recommendations of this plan;

UTILIZE existing rules, regulations, policies and procedures already in existence; and

COMMUNICATE the hazard information collected and analyzed through this planning process so that the community better understands what can happen where, and what they can do themselves to be better prepared. Also, publicize the “success stories” that are achieved through the HMPC’s ongoing efforts.

Simultaneously to these efforts, the HMPC will constantly monitor funding opportunities that could be leveraged to implement some of the more costly actions. This will include creating and maintaining a bank of ideas on how to meet required local match or participation requirements. When funding does become available, the HMPC will be in a position to capitalize on the opportunity. Funding opportunities to be monitored include special pre- and post-disaster funds, special district budgeted funds, state and federal earmarked funds, and other grant programs, including those that can serve or support multi-objective applications.

Role of the All-Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee in Implementation and Maintenance

With adoption of this plan, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) will transition into the Jeffco All-Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee (Jeffco AHMAC) as approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). The AHMAC will act as an advisory body tasked with plan implementation and maintenance. Its primary duty is to see the plan successfully carried out and to report to the community governing boards and the public on the status of plan implementation and mitigation opportunities. This will allow for a single point of centralization for all federally focused mitigation information, strategies, efforts and project prioritization for the entire county. The group will seat its authority and report to the BCC on the status of plan implementation and mitigation opportunities. Additionally, the Jeffco AHMAC supports the forecasted annual reporting requirements by both DHSEM and FEMA.

The scope of the AHMAC will primarily focus efforts around FEMA mitigation dollars, though other funding opportunities may be monitored, including those that can serve or support multi-objective applications.

Membership will include, at minimum, the 21 participating agencies that adopted the plan. In adopting the HMP, participating agencies will be eligible for FEMA mitigation dollars. The Chair of the AHMAC will be a rotating position appointed per the group’s bylaws (under development).

The Jeffco AHMAC will:

Act as the County’s central forum for all-hazard mitigation issues;

Disseminate hazard mitigation ideas and activities to all participants;

Pursue the implementation of the HMP and AHMAC recommended actions;

Keep the concepts of mitigation in the forefront of community decision-makers by identifying plan recommendations when other community goals, plans, and activities overlap, influence, or directly affect increased community vulnerability to disasters;

Maintain a vigilant monitoring of multi-objective cost-share opportunities to help the community implement the plan’s recommended actions for which no current funding exists;

Steward implementation and updates of this plan;

Report on plan progress and recommended changes to the Jefferson County BCC;

Inform and solicit input from the public; and

Assess, prioritize, recommend or deny FEMA mitigation grant applications that are not associated with a participating agency that compliment or conflict with the goals, objectives and pre-identified mitigation projects in the HMP.

Other duties include reviewing and promoting mitigation proposals, considering stakeholder concerns about hazard mitigation, passing concerns on to appropriate entities, and posting relevant information on the County website and local newspapers.

By adopting this plan, each participating jurisdiction agrees to engage in the ongoing implementation and maintenance activities described in the plan. Each jurisdiction that also meets State of Colorado and FEMA requirements for mitigation grant programs, will identify one representative for the AHMAC, subject to approval by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners.

Plan Maintenance

Plan maintenance implies an ongoing effort to monitor and evaluate plan implementation and to update the plan as required or as progress, roadblocks, or changing circumstances are recognized.

Monitoring

In order to track progress and update the mitigation strategies identified in the action plan, the HMPC will revisit this plan annually or after a significant hazard event or disaster declaration. Jefferson OEM is responsible for initiating this review and convening members of the AHMAC on a once yearly basis, or more frequently as needed. The annual review will be held in January of each year, beginning in 2022.

This plan will be updated, approved and adopted within a five-year cycle as per Requirement

§201.6(c)(4)(i) of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. With the initial approval of this plan occurring in mid- 2021, the plan will need to be updated, re-approved by the Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHSEM) and FEMA Region VIII, and re-adopted by all participating jurisdictions no later than June of 2026. The County will monitor planning grant opportunities from DHSEM and FEMA for funds to assist with mitigation projects, as well as with the 5-year update. These grants should be pursued as early as 2024, as some grants have a three-year performance period to expend the funds, plus there is no guarantee that the grant will be awarded when initially submitted. This allows time to resubmit the grant in 2025 if needed.

Evaluation

Updates to this plan will follow the latest FEMA and DHSEM planning guidance. Evaluation of progress can be achieved by monitoring changes in vulnerabilities identified in the plan. Changes in vulnerability can be identified by noting:

Decreased vulnerability as a result of implementing recommended actions:

Increased vulnerability as a result of failed or ineffective mitigation actions: and/or

Increased vulnerability as a result of new development (and/or annexation).

The AHMAC will use the following process to evaluate progress and any changes in vulnerability as a result of plan implementation.

A representative from the responsible entity identified in each mitigation measure will be responsible for tracking and reporting on an annual basis to the AHMAC on project status and provide input on

whether the project as implemented meets the defined objectives and is likely to be successful in reducing vulnerabilities.

If the project does not meet identified objectives, the AHMAC will determine what alternate projects may be implemented

New projects identified will require an individual assigned to be responsible for defining the project scope, implementing the project, and monitoring success of the project.

Projects that were not ranked high priority but were identified as potential mitigation strategies will be reviewed as well during the monitoring and update of this plan to determine feasibility of future implementation.

Changes will be made to the plan to accommodate for projects that have failed or are not considered feasible after a review for their consistency with established criteria, the time frame, priorities, and/or funding resources.

Updates

Updates to this plan will:

Consider changes in vulnerability due to project implementation;

Document success stories where mitigation efforts have been completed or proven effective;

Document areas where mitigation actions were not effective;

Document any new hazards that may arise or were previously overlooked;

Document hazard events and impacts that occurred within the five-year period;

Incorporate new data or studies on hazards and risks;

Incorporate new capabilities or changes in capabilities;

Incorporate documentation of continued public involvement;

Incorporate documentation to update the planning process that may include new or additional stakeholder involvement;

Incorporate growth and development-related changes to building inventories;

Incorporate new project recommendations or changes in project prioritization;

Include a public involvement process to receive public comment on the updated plan prior to submitting the updated plan to DHSEM/FEMA;

Align with the latest FEMA and State of Colorado guidance; and

Include re-adoption by all participating entities following DHSEM/FEMA approval.

Integration into Existing Planning Mechanisms

Another important implementation mechanism that is highly effective and low-cost is integrating the hazard mitigation plan recommendations and their underlying principles into other existing or new plans and mechanisms. Mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated into the day-to-day functions and priorities of government and development. The mitigation plan can be considered as the hub of a wheel with spokes radiating out to other related planning mechanisms that will build from the information and recommendations contained herein. Properly implemented, the HMP should serve as one of the foundational documents of the jurisdictions’ emergency management programs, since everything emergency management does should relate back in one way or another to the hazards the jurisdiction faces.

As stated in Section of this plan, implementation through existing plans and/or programs is recommended, where possible. The County and participating entities already have existing policies and programs to reduce losses to life and property from natural hazards. These are summarized in this plan’s capability assessment. This plan builds upon the momentum developed through previous and related planning efforts and mitigation programs and recommends implementing projects, where possible, through these other program mechanisms. These existing mechanisms include those listed in the Section

Capability Assessment, as well as those in Section of the Planning Process. AHMAC members involved in the updates to these mechanisms will be responsible for integrating the findings and recommendations of this plan with these other plans, as appropriate.

The following sections provides some guidance on how Jefferson County and participating jurisdictions may use the updated HMP to inform and improve other plans, procedures, and programs. Additional

detail on how the jurisdictions will integrate the HMP into their planning mechanisms can be found in the Annexes.

Comprehensive Plans

Integrating hazard mitigation into the jurisdiction’s comprehensive or general plan is considered a best practice by both FEMA and the American Planning Association. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2017, and included hazards information from the 2016 HMP, which is cited as a supporting document to the Comprehensive Plan. Jefferson County OEM will work with the Planning Department to ensure that hazards data and mitigation goals and objectives inform the next Comprehensive Plan update.

Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA)

Jefferson County has completed a County-level Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA). CPG201 Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) establishes Step 1 as “Identify the Threats and Hazards of Concern” and lists HIRAs and HMPs as possible sources of threat/hazard information.

The criteria for selecting which Threats/Hazards are “of concern” are defined as:

Factor #1: Likelihood of a Threat or Hazard Affecting a Community

Factor #2: The Impacts of a Threat or Hazard

Each natural and human-caused hazard profiled in the HIRA (Section ) contains a section analyzing the probability of future events, which provides a data-driven answer to Factor #1. Similarly, the vulnerability assessment section of the hazard profiles address what impacts can realistically be expected from both routine and extreme events of each hazard, which specifically addresses Factor #2.

Step 2 of CPG 201 is to “Give the Threats and Hazards Context” by creating a scenario for each hazard of concern, with specifics like time of day, area, and magnitude of the event, which are then used to establish capability targets for each of the 32 core capabilities. All the hazards profiled in the HIRA contain detailed information to ensure the hazard scenarios are plausible. For some hazards, such as flooding, detailed GIS analysis has been done that can easily be incorporated as THIRA scenarios. Other hazards include details on the most extreme historical events on record that can quickly be updated to modern scenarios.

Recovery Plan

The risk and vulnerability data in the HMP should help inform the post-disaster recovery planning process, especially by ensuring that the recovery elements of those plans fully take into account the dangers posed by other hazards, rather than focusing exclusively on the most recent hazard event. The HMP in turn will be revisited during recovery to help identify opportunities to incorporate mitigation in the recovery and rebuilding process, including maximizing FEMA PA and HMGP funding where applicable.

The FEMA publication “Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments” notes:

“…much of the research involved in the development of mitigation plans can be used to inform the pre-disaster recovery planning effort.

“The pre-disaster recovery planning process will benefit from and build upon hazard mitigation as:

The mitigation planning process identifies local hazards, risks, exposures, and vulnerabilities;

Implementation of mitigation policies and strategies will reduce the likelihood or degree of disaster-related damage, decreasing demand on resources post-disaster;

The process will identify potential solutions to future anticipated community problems; and

Mitigation activities will increase public awareness of the need for disaster preparedness. “Pre-disaster recovery planning efforts also increase resilience by:

Establishing partnerships, organizational structures, communication resources, and access to resources that promote a more rapid and inclusive recovery process;

Describing how hazard mitigation will underlie all considerations for reinvestment;

Laying out a process for implementation of activities that will increase resilience; and

Increasing awareness of resilience as an important consideration in all community activities.”

Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP)

All departments and agencies of Jefferson County government are required to maintain a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) that details that agency’s critical functions and how they will protect those functions in order to continue to provide essential services during a disaster or interruption. By defining and describing the hazards facing the county, including frequency and severity, the HIRA informs agency COOP plans by giving context to what types of disasters of interruptions are most likely to occur. Critical facilities and assets located in hazard areas in Section 4.2 should be prioritized for COOP planning.

Integrated Preparedness Plan (IPP)

Hazard mitigation principles and procedures should be included in Integrated Preparedness Planning Workshops. Any training and exercise needs identified in the Capabilities Assessment (Section ) and Mitigation Strategy (Section ) should also be included in the jurisdictions’ IPP.

Public Awareness and Education Programs

The County’s ongoing public education and outreach efforts should reflect the hazards and vulnerabilities described in this Plan. In addition to preparing for disasters, public education should include ways in which the public can reduce their vulnerability to natural and human caused hazards. Furthermore, mitigation activities and success stories should be communicated to the public to show the benefits of effective mitigation planning.

Critical Infrastructure Protection Plan

Critical facilities and assets identified in Section 4.2 should be included in Critical Infrastructure Protection Planning (CIPP), with prioritization given to assets located in hazard-prone areas. Hazardous materials facilities in particular should be viewed both as critical assets in need of protection, and as potential hazards in their own right.

Capital Improvements Plan

Many of the mitigation actions listed in the Mitigation Strategy (Section ) came from the County’s Capital Improvements Plan, and thus have already been identified for funding. Other high-dollar actions listed or identified in the future can also be added to the Capital Improvements Plan to ensure that hazard mitigation projects continue to receive funding. The prioritization of actions listed in while not binding on capital improvement planning, can be used to inform the prioritization of those actions. Even projects for which the county intends to seek grant funding may also need to be addressed in the Capital Improvements Plan, given that most mitigation grants require significant local matching funds.

Sustainability Plans

Sustainability is a separate area of concern from hazard mitigation, but there are areas where the two fields overlap and influence one another positively or negatively.

Sustainability plans should be reviewed to identify where there may be synergy between sustainability and mitigation/resiliency. For example, sustainability efforts aimed at increasing County’s adaptability to climate change can also make the county more resilient to drought and severe weather. Increasing the percentage of food obtained locally could make the county more resilient to supply-chain interruptions or the impacts of disasters in other states. Adding more trees and grass to urban areas to reduce the heat island effect could help mitigate the impact of extreme weather events, as well as reducing flood risk by increasing the amount of permeable surfaces. This may help raise the priority of some sustainability efforts, as well as suggest complimentary mitigation efforts.

It is equally important to identify areas where sustainability efforts may work to reduce the county’s resilience to hazards. For example, a sustainability goal of promoting use of public transit and reducing private car ownership could potentially make it harder to evacuate the public during a disaster if public

transit is damaged and offline (as was observed during Hurricane Sandy). Similarly, reduced production of solid waste could lead to a reduction in the number of public resources such as dump trucks, which means that in a disaster those resources would not be available for debris removal and similar tasks. The intent of this review is not to say that sustainability goals should not be pursued, but rather to identify areas of concern that should be considered during implementation of these goals. For example, evacuation plans may need to be revised to reflect a larger percentage of families without cars; or contracts may need to be put in place to obtain additional dump trucks in a disaster.

Continued Public Involvement

Continued public involvement is also imperative to the overall success of the Plan’s implementation. This updated HMP will be posted on the county’s website for reference and can be used to help inform the county’s ongoing public education and outreach program, such as the completion of mitigation actions that reduce the community’s vulnerability, can be shared with the public through forums like the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), public meetings, and through social media. This helps keep the concept of hazard mitigation alive and helps show the public that their government officials are working to keep them safe.

The update process provides an opportunity to publicize success stories from the Plan implementation and seek additional public comment. When the Planning Team reconvenes for the five-year plan update, they will coordinate with all stakeholders participating in the planning process—including those that joined the committee since the planning process began—to update and revise the plan. The plan maintenance and update process will include continued public and stakeholder involvement and input through participation in designated committee meetings, surveys, web postings, and press releases to local media.

Continued public outreach and education is an aspect of the mitigation strategy Section of this plan. Activities related to public involvement during the 2021 update are documented in Section and Appendix B.