LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
Instructions for Using the Plan Review Crosswalk for Review of Local 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, dated March
2004. 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.
When reviewing single jurisdiction plans, reviewers may want to put an N/A in the boxes for multi-jurisdictional plan requirements. When reviewing multi-jurisdictional plans,
reviewers may want to put an N/A in the prerequisite box for single jurisdiction plans.
States that have additional requirements can add them in the appropriate sections of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance or create a new section and modify this Plan
Review Crosswalk to record the score for those requirements.
Optional matrices for assisting in the review of sections on profiling hazards, assessing vulnerability, and identifying and analyzing mitigation actions 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: Overview
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description
shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community.
Location in the
SCORE
Plan (section or
N
S
Element
annex and page #)
Reviewer’s Comments
A. Does the plan include an overall
Section II, pp. 4-10
The plan describes the types of assets that are located within geographically defined

summary description of the jurisdiction’s
hazard areas as well as those that would be affected by winter storms.
vulnerability to each hazard?
B. Does the plan address the impact of
Section II, pp. 10The plan does not address the impact of two of the five hazards addressed in the plan.
each hazard on the jurisdiction?
20
Required Revisions:
 Include a description of the impact of floods and earthquakes on the assets.
Recommended Revisions:

 This information can be presented in terms of dollar value or percentages of damage.
SUMMARY SCORE

March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
Jurisdiction:
Local Mitigation Plan Review and Approval Status
Jurisdiction: Douglas County
Local Point of Contact: Harry Raub
Title of Plan: Natural Hazard Disaster
Date of Plan: November 11, 2004
Mitigation Plan
Address: P.O. Box 218, Minden, NV 89423
Title: Emergency Management Technician
Agency: Douglas County Emergency Management
E-Mail: [email protected]
Phone Number: 775 782-6289
State Reviewer: Elizabeth Ashby
Title: State Hazard Mitigation Officer
Date: December 3, 2004
FEMA Reviewer:
Leslie Ames
Title:
Plan Reviewer
Date:
1-11-2005
Date Received in FEMA Region [Insert #]
Plan Not Approved
Plan Approved
Date Approved
NFIP Status*
Jurisdiction:
Y
1. Douglas County
X
N
N/A
CRS
Class
7
2.
3.
4.
5.
[ATTACH PAGE(S) WITH ADDITIONAL JURISDICTIONS]
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
* Notes:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
Jurisdiction:
Y = Participating
N = Not Participating
N/A = Not Mapped
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
LOCAL
MITIGATI ON
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
Jurisdiction:
PL AN
REVI EW
SUMMARY
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(s) (Check Applicable Box)
Adoption by the Local Governing Body:
§201.6(c)(5) OR
NOT MET
MET

Mitigation Strategy
N

Local Hazard Mitigation Goals: §201.6(c)(3)(i)
Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions:
§201.6(c)(3)(ii)
Implementation of Mitigation Actions:
§201.6(c)(3)(iii)
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions:
§201.6(c)(3)(iv)

Plan Maintenance Process
N

N/A
Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan:
§201.6(c)(4)(i)
Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms:
§201.6(c)(4)(ii)
S



Continued Public Involvement: §201.6(c)(4)(iii)
Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption: §201.6(c)(5)
AND
Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation:
§201.6(a)(3)
S
N/A
N/A
Additional State Requirements*
N
S
Local Capability Assessment: §201.4(c)(3)(ii)
Planning Process
N
Documentation of the Planning Process: §201.6(b)
and §201.6(c)(1)

Risk Assessment
N
S
Insert State Requirement
S

Identifying Hazards: §201.6(c)(2)(i)
Profiling Hazards: §201.6(c)(2)(i)

Assessing Vulnerability: Overview: §201.6(c)(2)(ii)

Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures:
§201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A)

Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential
Losses: §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B)

Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development
Trends: §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C)
Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment:
§201.6(c)(2)(iii)

Insert State Requirement
LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN APPROVAL STATUS
PLAN NOT APPROVED

PLAN APPROVED
*States that have additional requirements can add them in the appropriate sections of
the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance or create a new section and modify
this Plan Review Crosswalk to record the score for those requirements.
N/A
See Reviewer’s Comments
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
PREREQUISITE(S)
Adoption by the Local Governing Body
Requirement §201.6(c)(5): [The local hazard mitigation plan shall include] documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of
the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council).
Element
A. Has the local governing body adopted the plan?
B. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution,
included?
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
Pg 5
Appendix A
Pg 5
Appendix A
Reviewer’s Comments
Required Revisions:
When the mitigation planning process is completed, the Board of
County Commissioners must formally adopt the final plan before
it is submitted to FEMA for final review.
Recommended Revisions:
In the main text of the final plan, document when, and by whom,
the plan was formally adopted.
Required Revisions:
Include a copy of the formal resolution in the plan.
SUMMARY SCORE
SCORE
NOT
MET
MET



PLANNING PROCESS: §201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan.
Documentation of the Planning Process
Requirement §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include:
(1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval;
(2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to
regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and
(3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.
Requirement §201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the
process, and how the public was involved.
Element
A. Does the plan provide a narrative description of the
process followed to prepare the plan?
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
Pg 15-19
SCORE
Reviewer’s Comments
Required Revisions:
Describe how the plan was prepared. Describe the outcomes
of the meetings and/or workshops held.
N

March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
S
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
The plan states that it was the result of a collaborative effort
between the citizens, public agencies, non-profit organizations,
the private sector, and State organizations. The plan also
states that there was a strong presence by business and health
care groups. The plan must document the contributions made
by each of these groups or individuals as part of the
collaborative effort.
Recommended Revisions:
Present the narrative in a single, coherent section, rather than
locating bits and pieces throughout the plan.
B. Does the plan indicate who was involved in the
planning process? (For example, who led the
development at the staff level and were there any
external contributors such as contractors? Who
participated on the plan committee, provided
information, reviewed drafts, etc.?)
Pg 16
C. Does the plan indicate how the public was involved?
(Was the public provided an opportunity to comment
on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to the
plan approval?)
Pg 18
Required Revisions:
The plan lists agencies that were on the steering committee.
State who from the agencies (or which positions) participated in
the plan development and what were their roles. List who
participated on the plan committee, provided information,
reviewed drafts etc.
Required Revisions:
Include copies of the questionnaires in the plan. Describe how
the questionnaires were developed and who the questionnaires
targeted. Include the results of the questionnaires and how
these results were used in the development of the plan.
For the public notice that was used to invite the public to
participate, state what type of public notice was posted and
where and when it was posted.
D. Was there an opportunity for neighboring
communities, agencies, businesses, academia,
nonprofits, and other interested parties to be involved
in the planning process?
Pg 19
Recommended Revisions:
Varied and innovative approaches to involving the public for the
plan update should be implemented to ensure public
participation.
Required Revisions:
Discuss how local, State, and Federal agencies, neighboring
jurisdictions, local businesses, community leaders, educators,
and other relevant private non-profit interest groups
participated in the plan development.



Recommended Revisions:
While public hearings provide a minimal opportunity for other
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
parties to be involved, jurisdictions that initiate an outreach
program should describe their efforts.
E. Does the planning process describe the review and
incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies,
reports, and technical information?
Pg 19, Section 9Pgs 69-71
Strong outreach programs should be pursued to encourage
neighboring jurisdictions, agencies, businesses, academia,
nonprofits, and other interested parties to be involved in the
planning process for the update.
Required Revisions:
Describe how the County reviewed and integrated information in
the plan from existing plans, studies, reports, and technical
documents, such as the General Plan, Capital Improvement Plan,
and the County Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
SUMMARY SCORE


RISK ASSESSMENT: §201.6(c)(2): The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce
losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate
mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards.
Identifying Hazards
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type … of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction.
Element
A. Does the plan include a description of the types of all
natural hazards that affect the jurisdiction?
If the hazard identification omits (without explanation)
any hazards commonly recognized as threats to the
jurisdiction, this part of the plan cannot receive a
Satisfactory score.
Consult with the State Hazard Mitigation Officer to
identify applicable hazards that may occur in the
planning area.
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
Avalanche – Pg 23
Earthquake – Pg 24
Flood – Pg 28
Landslides - Pg 35
Severe Weather –
Pg 36
Wildland Fire – Pg
40
SCORE
N
Reviewer’s Comments
Recommended Revisions:
Explain how the pertinent hazards were identified and others
were eliminated from consideration.

Page 20 in the plan lists windstorms as a hazard and page 25
lists subsidence. If these are not hazards that affect the
County, explain why they are not considered further.

SUMMARY SCORE
Profiling Hazards
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the … location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the
jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events.
Element
Location in the
S
SCORE
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e.,
geographic area affected) of each natural hazard
addressed in the plan?
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
Avalanche – Pg
23
Earthquake – Pg
24
Flood – Pg 28
Landslides - Pg 35
Severe Weather –
Pg 36
Wildland Fire – Pg
40
Reviewer’s Comments
N
Required Revisions:
One of the HAZUS runs for earthquake is at Stateline,
delineate where this is, and explain which the relevant fault is.
Add a legend to the fault map, and it would be useful to make
the faults distinguishable from the roads.
Reproduce the floodplain maps in three segments, thereby
allowing them to be enlarged and legible. It is not necessary
to include the maps with no mapped flood risk, simply state
that those areas of the County have no mapped flood risk. If
there are known areas with historical problems that are not
mapped as flood zones, then it would be useful to delineate
these areas and what the expected vulnerabilities are.

State explicitly in the plan that all areas in the County are
within the wildland/urban interface and that therefore the
whole County is equally susceptible to wildfire, or if this is not
true, delineate the areas in the County that are at the
urban/wildland interface.
For the Flood Plain Information (p.23) add details explaining
the statistics presented.
Recommended Revisions:
The rapid development in Douglas County along the base of
the mountains in the valley, renders a more detailed
assessment of both avalanche and landslide necessary.
B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e.,
magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in
the plan?
Avalanche – Pg
23
Earthquake – Pg
24
Flood – Pg 28
Landslides - Pg 35
Severe Weather –
Pg 36
Wildland Fire – Pg
40
With the exception of earthquake, the risk assessment for
each hazard was not found to specifically address extent.
Required Revision:
For each hazard, describe the hazard’s extent (i.e.,
magnitude or severity).

The plan states that a M7-8 earthquake is expected on the
Genoa fault. State from where this estimate comes. Also,
explain how the HAZUS run of 6.1 may not account for a M8
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
S
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
seismic event. Explain why the M6.1 event was chosen for
the HAZUS run.
Recommended Revisions:
Extent may be described in terms that include: inches of rain,
diameter of hail, depth of flooding, area of inundation, wind
speed, Richter scale, duration of event, etc.
Include in the hazard profile conditions such as topography,
soil characteristics, and meteorological conditions that may
exacerbate or mitigate the potential effects of a particular
hazard. See Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2), page
2-13 for information on these conditions and their effect on
hazards like floods.
Note any data limitations for profiling hazards and include in
the mitigation strategy actions for collecting the data to
complete and improve future risk analysis efforts
C. Does the plan provide information on previous
occurrences of each hazard addressed in the plan?
Avalanche – Pg
23
Earthquake – Pg
24
Flood – Pg 28
Landslides - Pg 35
Severe Weather –
Pg 36
Wildland Fire – Pg
40
Required Revisions:
Earthquake
For earthquake, the Double Springs Flat earthquake of 1994
was mentioned. State where this occurred, what the
magnitude was, and how typical this event may be.
Include the information from the comprehensive study of
earthquakes by the NDMG in this plan. Ensure that any large
historical quakes and any local quakes are included.
Flood
Provide information on the types of storm events (i.e. how
much rain in how much time), level of events (i.e. 50-year
event etc.), locations of flooding, depth of water in built areas
(and to-be built areas), types of damages (i.e to infrastructure,
residential, etc.). Provide this information specifically for
Douglas County. Suggest revising the Nevada History of
Flooding Table to include much of the information.

Recommended Revisions:
Reproduce the maps of the Autumn Hills Fire so that they are
legible. It would be helpful to explain why the 4 + 7 structures
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
burned when others did not (i.e location, defensible space
etc.)
D. Does the plan include the probability of future events
(i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed
in the plan?
Avalanche – Pg
23
Earthquake – Pg
24
Flood – Pg 28
Landslides - Pg 35
Severe Weather –
Pg 36
Wildland Fire – Pg
40
Provide information on the location of the Gondola Fire burn
area. A map of the Gondola Fire burn area and reseeding
efforts is probably available from the BAER Report, NDF, U.S.
Forest Service, TRPA, or the Tahoe Conservancy. Delineate
the circumstances that resulted in no structures being burned
in this fire and what led to that success.
Recommended Revisions:
For the plan update, include detailed information about
landslide and avalanche potential.

SUMMARY SCORE

March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
Assessing Vulnerability: Overview
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community.
Element
A. Does the plan include an overall summary description
of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard?
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
Avalanche – Pg
24
Earthquake – Pg
28
Flood – Pg 34
Landslides - Pg 36
Severe Weather –
Pg 40
Wildland Fire – Pg
44
SCORE
Reviewer’s Comments
With the exception of earthquake, the overall summary
description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard is
not complete for the identified hazards. The plan states that
the necessary information for this analysis has already been
put into a GIS database.
N
Required Revision:


Describe the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each
identified hazard. This summary must include, by type
of hazard, a general description of the types of
structures affected by each hazard.
For earthquake, the HAZUS run does a nice job. The
run on the Genoa fault was for M6.1, so page 7 of the
HAZUS run should be changed from stating that it was
for M7 to stating that it was for M6.1. Also the HAZUS
run for Stateline should note where this is, what fault it
is on, and what historic event it is based on. Note if it is
a M7 scenario or a M6.1, and explain why this run is
pertinent and how it may be compared to the other
HAZUS run. Finally, integrate a summary of the main
points that the HAZUS run elucidates into narrative in
the main body of the plan, because this is the
information needed to develop mitigation actions.

The plan states that a M7-8 earthquake is expected.
Explain from where this information is derived. Explain
how such a large earthquake could change the results
of the HAZUS run that was used for the plan.

The table of Sensitive Facilities on p. 28-30 does not
appear to be complete, there are no listings for facilities
in the Tahoe basin. Provide a complete table.

Recommended Revisions:
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
S
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY

Determine the total number of buildings (structures,
critical facilities, etc) within the jurisdiction. Then,
determine the total number of buildings within each
hazard area. Calculate the proportion of buildings
within each hazard area (by percent or building
count). This can be done by using map overlays.

Summarize findings in a table.
In the next iteration of the plan, amplification and liquefaction
should be considered for an earthquake event, since much of
Douglas County is a sediment filled basin with a high water
table. This type of information on soil type, amplification, and
liquefaction is likely available through the seismo lab at UNR.
It would be useful to distinguish the difference in vulnerability
to sage-country wildfires and pine forest wildfires.
Note any data limitations for assessing vulnerability and
include in the mitigation strategy actions for collecting
the data to improve future vulnerability assessments
efforts.
B. Does the plan address the impact of each hazard on
the jurisdiction?
Pg 46-52
With the exception of earthquake, the plan does not explain
the impact of each hazard on the County. The plan states that
the necessary information for this analysis has already been
put into a GIS database, please include it in the plan.
Required Revision:

Describe each hazard’s impact (e.g., kind and level of
damage to buildings, infrastructure, and critical
facilities) in the County.

Recommended Revisions:

Using the vulnerability data collected in Element A,
estimate the dollar value or percentage of damage of
the buildings located inside each hazard area. The
plan states that the dollar value information is
available in GIS format. Then assuming a total loss or
other percentage of loss, and calculate the estimated
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
impact of each hazard to the County.
Note any data limitations for assessing vulnerability and
include in the mitigation strategy actions for collecting
the data to improve future vulnerability assessments
efforts.
SUMMARY SCORE

Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure,
and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area. Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from
passing.
Element
A. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the
types and numbers of existing buildings,
infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the
identified hazard areas?
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
Pg 46-52
SCORE
Reviewer’s Comments
Required Revisions (to receive a satisfactory score for this
element)
For each hazard, identify the type and number of existing
buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities within each hazard
area. Good job on earthquake. As the data is already available
through GIS please include it in the plan.
Other Recommended Revisions:
Identify the kinds of buildings (e.g. residential, commercial,
institutional, recreational, industrial, and municipal); infrastructure
(e.g. roadways, bridges, utilities, and communications systems);
and critical facilities (e.g. shelters, hospitals, police and fire
stations).
N

Describe the process or method used for identifying existing
buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities.
B. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the
types and numbers of future buildings, infrastructure,
and critical facilities located in the identified hazard
areas?
Pg 46-52
While not required by the Rule, it is useful to inventory structures
located within areas that have repeatedly flooded and collect
information on past insurance claims. At a minimum, describe
repetitive loss neighborhoods or areas in the plan.
Required Revisions (to receive a satisfactory score for this
element)
For each hazard, identify the type and number of future buildings,
infrastructure, and critical facilities within each hazard area.

Other Recommended Revisions:
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
S
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
Identify the kinds of buildings (e.g. residential, commercial,
institutional, recreational, industrial, and municipal); infrastructure
(e.g. roadways, bridges, utilities, and communications systems);
and critical facilities (e.g. shelters, hospitals, police and fire
stations).
Information on proposed buildings, infrastructure, and critical
facilities, including planned and approved development, may be
based on information in the comprehensive or land use plan and
zoning maps.
Identify buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities that are
vulnerable to more than one hazard.
Describe the process or method used for identifying future
buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities.
Note any data limitations for determining the type and numbers
of future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities and
include in the mitigation strategy actions fir collecting the data
to improve future vulnerability assessment efforts.
SUMMARY SCORE

March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures
identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate … .
Element
A. Does the plan estimate potential dollar losses to
vulnerable structures?
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
Pg 46-52
SCORE
Reviewer’s Comments
Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will
not preclude the plan from passing.
N
Good job on earthquake.
Required Revisions (to receive a satisfactory score for this
element)
Describe vulnerability in terms of potential dollar losses.
Other Recommended Revisions:
Provide an estimate for each identified hazard.
Include, when resources permit, estimates for structure, contents,
and function losses to present a full picture of the total loss for
each building, infrastructure, and critical facility.

Select the most likely event for each identified hazard (e.g. 100year flood) and estimate the likely losses associated with this
event.
Include a composite loss map to locate high potential loss areas to
help the jurisdiction focus its mitigation priorities.
B. Does the plan describe the methodology used to
prepare the estimate?
Pg 46-52
Note any data limitations for estimating losses and include in the
mitigation strategy actions for collecting the data to improve future
loss estimate efforts.
Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will
not preclude the plan from passing.
Required Revisions (to receive a satisfactory score for this
element)
When the loss estimates in element A (above) are made, describe
the methodology used to estimate losses.
SUMMARY SCORE


March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
S
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends
within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.
Element
A. Does the plan describe land uses and development
trends?
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
Pg 52
SCORE
Reviewer’s Comments
Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will
not preclude the plan from passing.
N
S
Required Revisions (to receive a satisfactory score for this
element)
Describe the development trends occurring within the jurisdiction
such as types of development occurring, location, expected
intensity and pace by land use.
Other Recommended Revisions:
Describe existing land use densities in the identified hazard areas.
Describe future land use density. Such information may be
obtained from the regional or local planning office, comprehensive
plan, or zoning maps. Future development information helps to
define appropriate mitigation approaches, and the locations on
which these approaches should be applied. The information can
also be used to reduce development in hazard areas.

Overlay a land use map with identified hazard areas.
Note any data limitations for determining development trends and
include in the mitigation strategy actions for collecting the data to
complete and improve future vulnerability efforts.
SUMMARY SCORE

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(iii): For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction’s risks where they vary from the risks facing
the entire planning area.
Element
A. Does the plan include a risk assessment for each
participating jurisdiction as needed to reflect unique
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
Not Applicable
SCORE
Reviewer’s Comments
N
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
S
N/A
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
or varied risks?
N/A
SUMMARY SCORE
MITIGATION STRATEGY: §201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses
identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools.
Local Hazard Mitigation Goals
Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to
the identified hazards.
Element
A Does the plan include a description of mitigation
goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to
the identified hazards? (GOALS are long-term;
represent what the community wants to achieve,
such as “eliminate flood damage”; and are based on
the risk assessment findings.)
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
Pg 55-56
SCORE
Reviewer’s Comments
While there are numerous goals and objectives listed in the
plan, it is not apparent that the goals were developed in
response to the assessment of vulnerability.
N
S
Recommended Revisions:
Explain how the goals are intended to reduce or avoid
vulnerability.

Describe how these goals were developed. The goals could be
developed early in the planning process and refined based on
the risk assessment findings, or developed entirely after the
risk assessment is completed. They should also be compatible
with the goals of the jurisdiction as expressed in other
documents.

SUMMARY SCORE
Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation
actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure.
Element
A. Does the plan identify and analyze a
comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions
and projects for each hazard?
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
Pg 56-59
SCORE
Reviewer’s Comments
The plan includes a comprehensive range of mitigation
actions.
N

Required Revisions:
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
S
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
There are windstorm actions included in the plan, but other
than a one word mention of windstorms on p. 20, windstorms
were never considered in the plan. In the hazard profiling
section, discuss windstorms and explain why or why not they
are important to Douglas County.
Describe the Tahoe Basin Fuels Management program, the
Douglas County Defensible Space program, and the Carson
River Flood Control Program. It may be appropriate to
integrate these discussions into the risk analysis component of
the plan.
Move the flood action that is in the Wildfire section into the
Flood section.
Verify that there is a landslide warning system in Douglas
County.
Emergency planning and response projects are not part of
mitigation and would be better developed in an emergency
response plan.
Recommended Revisions:
B Do the identified actions and projects address
reducing the effects of hazards on new buildings
and infrastructure?
Pg 56-59
C. Do the identified actions and projects address
reducing the effects of hazards on existing
buildings and infrastructure?
Pg 56-59
Explain how the TRPA hampers or helps with defensible
space.
Recommended Revisions:
Delineating where landslides and avalanches are likely to
occur will allow zoning ordinances to be developed to
minimize vulnerability.


SUMMARY SCORE

Implementation of Mitigation Actions
Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will
be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are
maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.
Location in the
SCORE
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
Element
A. Does the mitigation strategy include how the actions
are prioritized? (For example, is there a discussion
of the process and criteria used?)
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
Pg 59-65
N
Reviewer’s Comments
All actions must be prioritized.
Required Revision:
Describe the method for prioritizing actions. (In addition to cost
benefit review, considerations may include social impact,
technical feasibility, administrative capabilities, and political and
legal effects, as well as environmental issues.)
B. Does the mitigation strategy address how the
actions will be implemented and administered?
(For example, does it identify the responsible
department, existing and potential resources, and
timeframe?)
S
Pg 59-65
For a detailed description of the development of the mitigation
strategy or action plan, see Developing the Mitigation Plan
(FEMA 386-3), Step 3.
Required Revisions:
Describe how the actions will be implemented and
administered. Include in the description the responsible
party(s)/agency(s), the funding source(s), and the target
completion dates for each action.


Recommended Revisions:
C. Does the prioritization process include an emphasis
on the use of a cost-benefit review (see page 3-36
of Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance) to
maximize benefits?
Pg 59-65
Include a cost estimate and/or resources required for each
action, when possible.
Required Revision:
Prioritize the actions and describe the cost benefit review
performed during the prioritization process to identify
actions/projects with the greatest benefits. (If cost and benefit
data are missing, a qualitative assessment of the comparative
benefits will suffice.)

For a detailed description of the development of the mitigation
strategy or action plan, see Developing the Mitigation Plan
(FEMA 386-3),
SUMMARY SCORE

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions
Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv): For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval
or credit of the plan.
Location in the
SCORE
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
Element
A Does the plan include at least one identifiable
action item for each jurisdiction requesting FEMA
approval of the plan?
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
Not Applicable
Reviewer’s Comments
N
S
N/A
N/A
SUMMARY SCORE
PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS
Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan
Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and
updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.
Element
A. Does the plan describe the method and schedule for
monitoring the plan? (For example, does it identify
the party responsible for monitoring and include a
schedule for reports, site visits, phone calls, and
meetings?)
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
Pg 66-67
SCORE
Reviewer’s Comments
The discussion of how the plan will be monitored is not clearly
articulated. Monitoring activities like discussion of the progress
of the action items and maintenance of partnerships is mixed
with discussion of committee composition and meeting
schedule.
N
Recommended Revisions:
Include a description of the method and schedule to monitor the
plan. Include in the description the party(s)/agency(s) responsible
for ensuring that the monitoring process is accomplished, and how
and when the plan will be monitored.
B. Does the plan describe the method and schedule for
evaluating the plan? (For example, does it identify the
party responsible for evaluating the plan and include
the criteria used to evaluate the plan?)
Pg 66-67
Monitoring may include periodic reports by agencies involved in
implementing actions, parameters to measure the progress of
the actions, and action completion dates.
The discussion of how the plan will be evaluated is not clearly
articulated. Evaluation activities like determination of action’s
relevance to changing situations in the city, changes in State or
Federal policy, and consideration of information should be
updated or modified is mixed with discussion of monitoring
activity (report on the status of projects, the success of various
implementation processes, difficulties encountered, success of
coordination efforts).
Recommended Revisions:
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
S


LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
Discuss how the plan will be evaluated in a separate
paragraph. Include who is responsible, what evaluations will
be done and the schedule for this activity.
The plan states that there is a firm schedule and timeline for
evaluation (p.56). Provide the firm schedule and timeline.
C. Does the plan describe the method and schedule for
updating the plan within the five-year cycle?
Pg 66-67
The plan states that it identifies the local agencies and
organizations participating in plan evaluation 9P.56). Identify
these entities.
Recommended Revisions:
Describe the method for the plan update, including how the
designated committee members will determine what the
content of the update will be.


SUMMARY SCORE
Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other
planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate.
Element
A. Does the plan identify other local planning mechanisms
available for incorporating the requirements of the
mitigation plan?
B. Does the plan include a process by which the local
government will incorporate the requirements in other
plans, when appropriate?
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
Pg 67-68
Pg 67-68
SCORE
Reviewer’s Comments
Recommended Revisions:
Prepare a matrix showing the range of other planning
mechanisms and identify which apply to each action.
Required Revisions:
Describe the process to incorporate the mitigation plan
requirements into local planning mechanisms.
SUMMARY SCORE
N
S



Continued Public Involvement
Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the
plan maintenance process.
Element
A. Does the plan explain how continued public
participation will be obtained? (For example, will
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
Pg 68
SCORE
Reviewer’s Comments
Recommended Revisions:
Explain how and when the public comments will be integrated
N
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
S

LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
there be public notices, an on-going mitigation plan
committee, or annual review meetings with
stakeholders?)
into the plan updates.
Varied and innovative approaches to involving the public for the
plan update should be implemented to ensure public

SUMMARY SCORE
The “Local Capability Assessment” is a State of Nevada Requirement. A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from
passing. The information provided will be incorporated into the State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and used to complement Pre-Disaster Mitigation funding
applications.
STATE OF NEVADA REQUIREMENT
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
A. Does the plan present a general description of the local mitigation
policies, programs, and capabilities?
B. Does the plan provide a general analysis of the effectiveness of
local mitigation policies, programs, and capabilities?
Location in the
Plan (section or
annex and page #)
SCORE
N
Reviewer’s Comments
S
Pg 53-54

Pg 53-54

SUMMARY SCORE
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc

LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
Jurisdiction:
Matrix A: Profiling Hazards
This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure that their plan addresses each natural
hazard that can affect the jurisdiction. Completing the matrix is not required.
Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.6(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
§201.6(c)(2)(i)
Yes
A. Location
N
S
C. Previous
Occurrences
B. Extent
N
S
N
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
S
D. Probability of
Future Events
N
S
To c
he
click ck boxe
chan on th s, dou
e bo
ble
ge t
x
he
to “c defaul and
tv
heck
ed.” alue
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other
Other
Other
Legend:
§201.6(c)(2)(i) Profiling Hazards
A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., geographic area affected) of each hazard addressed in the plan?
B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the plan?
C. Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each natural hazard addressed in the plan?
D. Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the plan?
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
Jurisdiction:
Matrix B: Assessing Vulnerability
This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure that their plan addresses each
requirement. Completing the matrix is not required.
Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.6(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.
Note: Receiving an N in the shaded columns will not preclude the plan from passing.
Yes
§201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other
Other
Other
N
S
B. Hazard
Impact
N
S
A. Types and
Number of
Existing
Structures in
Hazard Area
(Estimate)
N
Legend:
§201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview
A. Does the plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to
each hazard?
B. Does the plan address the impact of each hazard on the jurisdiction?
S
B. Types and
Number of
Future
Structures in
Hazard Area
(Estimate)
N
S
A. Loss Estimate
§201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses
A. Overall
Summary
Description of
Vulnerability
§201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures
Hazard Type
Hazards
Identified Per
Requirement
§201.6(c)(2)(i)
N
S
B. Methodology
N
To c
he
clic ck box
cha k on th es, dou
nge
e bo
ble
the
x
to “c default and
heck
valu
ed.”
e
S
B. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of future buildings,
infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
Jurisdiction:
§201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A) Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures
A. Does the plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings,
infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?
§201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses
A. Does the plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures?
B. Does the plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate?
Matrix C: Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions
This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure consideration of a range of actions for
each hazard. Completing the matrix is not required.
Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An
“N” for 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
§201.6(c)(2)(i)
Yes
A. Comprehensive
Range of Actions
and Projects
N
S
Avalanche
Coastal Erosion
Coastal Storm
To c
he
cl i c ck b o
cha k on th xes, do
nge
u
the e box a ble
defa
nd
to “
u
che
cked lt value
.”
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake
Expansive Soils
Extreme Heat
Flood
Hailstorm
Hurricane
Land Subsidence
Landslide
Severe Winter Storm
Tornado
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Other
Other
Other
Legend:
§201.6(c)(3)(ii) Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions
A. Does the plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard?
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc
LOCAL HAZ ARD MITIG ATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSW ALK
Jurisdiction:
FEMA REGION [INSERT #]
DOUGLAS COUNTY
March 2004 - F:\USERS\Shared\Programs Section\Mitigation\Pre-Disaster Mitigation\PDM FY-02 Grants\Douglas\Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Documents\Hazard
Mitigation Plan 03072006\Crosswalk Douglas County 07-Feb-06.doc