nevada hazard mitigation planning committee glen … hazard mitigation planning committee 10...

1

Minutes of the Nevada Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee

10 February 2011 The Nevada Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (NHMPC) met from 9:30 a.m. until 3:03 p.m. on Thursday, February 10, 2011 at the Lyon County Administrative Building, 27 South Main Street, Yerington, Nevada. These minutes and related documents are posted on the Web site for the committee (http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/nhmpc/nhmpc.htm). Attendees included: Michael Anderson, Division of Water Resources Elizabeth Ashby, Nevada Division of Emergency Management (DEM) Mike Cyphers*, Henderson Emergency Management Glen Daily, City of Reno, Public Works Kim Davis*, Division of Water Resources Rick Diebold*, City of Las Vegas, Office of Emergency Management Mike Dondero*, NV Division of Forestry Gary Dunn*, Carson City of Emergency Management Dick Faber, Lyon County Engineering Robert Fellows*, Carson City Public Works Gary Fried, Lyon County Terri Garside, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Stephanie Hicks, RO Anderson Engineering Karen Johnson, Division of Emergency Management Rob Loveberg, Lyon County Ron Lynn*, Department of Development Services, Clark County Building Department Jeff Page, Lyon County Jonathan Price*, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Jim Reagan*, NV Energy Derek Starkey, City of Fernley Public Works Andrew Trelease*, Clark County Regional Flood Control District Jim Walker*, Nevada Department of Transportation Mike Workman, Lyon County Utilities Jim Youngblood, Lyon County Utilities

* indicates a member of the Board of Directors. Members of the Board of Directors of the Committee who were unable to attend include: Joe Curtis*, Storey County Emergency Management

Welcome and Introductions

Jon Price chaired the meeting. Attendees introduced themselves. A quorum (a majority of the 13 members of the Board of Directors) was present. Jon explained that the NHMPC meeting was being held in Yerington to allow the Committee members to meet the local officials and to receive insight into the County’s hazards.

Approval of Minutes from November 18, 2010

The minutes of the 18 November 2010 were unanimously approved, with one correction. The corrected minutes will be posted on the NHMPC Web site at www.nbmg.unr.edu/nhmpc/nhmpc.htm.

2

Lyon County Presentation Rob Loveberg gave a presentation on the demographics, government, geography, and economy of Lyon County. The county has approximately 2,013 square miles. The county has a population of approximately 53,825. The largest two cities are Fernley, with a population of 18,929, and Yerington, with a population of 3,100. Seventy-five percent of the county is public lands. Most of the population lives north of the Carson River. The county is governed by the Board of Commissioners and the County Manager. The county employs 350, and the median income of county residents is approximately $48,000. Lyon County is the third most economically stressed county in the United States with a population of at least 25,000. In December, the unemployment rate was 18.7%, but it was recently reported that it has increased to 19.2%. The county has seven improved airports, the Union Pacific Railroad, and Interstate 80, highways 50, 50A, 95 A, 208, and 341.

Earthquake Hazards in Lyon County Jon Price reported that earthquake faults occur throughout Nevada. The Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology recently released the map Quaternary Faults in Nevada (NBMG Open-File Report 09-9, available at www.nbmg.unr.edu). The on-line version of the map is searchable, which allows for searching all known large and potentially active faults in the area of a specific address. The map is to be used for approximate fault locations and should not be used as a definitive location of faults. If planning to build in one of the zones shown on the map, it is wise to hire a geological consultant to precisely locate faults and determine their frequency of movement. By using the information icon, and clicking on a specific fault, the known information on the fault appears. There are also layers that show the aerial photography and topography. Due to extension, Nevada is acquiring approximately 1.3 acres of land each year. Salt Lake City and Reno are moving apart about a centimeter a year. Jon distributed Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology’s Open-File Report 09-8, Estimated Losses from Earthquakes near Nevada Communities, available at www.nbmg.unr.edu/dox/of098/Scenarios/OpenFileReport09-8.pdf. The report contains HAZUS runs for 38 communities in Nevada, essentially all towns with a population of at least 500. The report contains runs for magnitudes 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, and 7 earthquakes. The runs were compiled using a fault on the Quaternary fault map that is closest to the center of the community. The fault depth is run at 10 km (the average depth of earthquakes in the Great Basin). Jon reported that he was not able to find evidence of a magnitude 6.0 or greater earthquake occurring in Lyon County in the historical record (the last 150 years), but there have been several large earthquakes in adjacent areas that were felt in Lyon County. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the probability of a magnitude 6.0 earthquake within the next 50 years occurring near (within 31 miles or 50 kilometers) Yerington is approximately 60%. The probability of an earthquake near Dayton is between 70-75%. The total economic loss to Yerington for a magnitude 6 earthquake is estimated at $56 million. If the earthquake occurred near Dayton, the estimated loss is $340 million.

3 HAZUS is an excellent tool that city managers, emergency managers, and planners should use in hazard mitigation, planning, and emergency response and recovery exercises. The consequences of earthquakes can be huge in Nevada, particularly if individuals are not prepared. The best thing that can be done to prevent building damage and loss of life or injury is to be prepared to respond; mitigate structural risks, largely through having current building codes; and mitigate nonstructural risks. Jon’s PowerPoint presentation on “Earthquake Hazards in Lyon County” is available online at www.nbmg.unr.edu/Geohazards/Earthquakes/EarthquakeResources.html#Presentations.

Flood Hazard in Lyon County

Rob Loveberg reported that Lyon County has regular flooding problems. They have recorded history of floods occurring in 1876, 1906, and 1907. The Carson River and Walker River are the main sources of flooding. Although they do not have the Truckee River in Lyon County, the Truckee River Canal does pose a flooding hazard. The Nevada State Hazard Mitigation Plan ranks the Walker River as the 3rd most vulnerable river for flooding, with approximately $83 million in potential losses, and the Carson River at 4th, with approximately $70 million in potential losses. Alluvial-fan flooding is almost an annual event. They also experience potential flooding from debris flows, breaks and failures from irrigation ditches and canals, and dam failures from upstream structures in Mono County and Carson City. The flood maps for the communities show that all the communities in the county have the potential for flooding from rivers, canals, or irrigation ditches. Development encroaching into the floodplains has caused increased flood hazards because of the reduction of the floodplain area. Substantial floods occurred on the Carson River in 1986, 1997, and 2006. Flooding on the Walker River in 1997 destroyed a residence in Smith Valley, washed out State Route 208 in Wilson Canyon, and flooded a significant portion of Yerington. The Fernley Flood of 2008 was caused by a canal breach. Five-hundred eighty-two homes were affected, 121 homes sustained minor to moderate damage, four homes sustained substantial damage, and 457 homes had no apparent damage. The flood was declared a Presidential Disaster. Current flood-mitigation efforts in the county include:

• Preparation of a County Hazard Mitigation Plan • Floodplain Management • Lyon County Comprehensive Master Plan

o Land use designations o Incentives

• Carson River Regional Floodplain Management Plan • Carson Water Subconservancy District Physical Map Revision Project • Ramsey Canyon Water Flood Control Study

http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/Geohazards/Earthquakes/EarthquakeResources.html#Presentations�

4

2011 Unified Hazard Mitigation Grant Cycle Information Elizabeth Ashby reported on FEMA’s Unified Hazard Mitigation Assistance (UHMA) Program. Two programs available to Nevada communities are:

I. HMGP – Post Disaster Mitigation; available after a presidentially declared disaster.

II. PDMC – Pre-disaster Mitigation; nationally competitive grants for pre-disaster projects and planning activities. PDMC project grants require a Benefit-Cost Analysis and documentation that will support the application. Documentation is critical to a successful proposal.

Elizabeth distributed a leaflet on the “Unified Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program in Nevada” (see attached; deadlines are included in the flier). The next deadline is June 16, 2011 when the letter of intent to submit applications is due. Any community that does not have a FEMA-approved Hazard Mitigation Plan by November, 2011, and submits a project application in the 2011 application period, will have the project application held until the Plan is approved.

Review of the National Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grant Application Process

Jon Price, Kim Davis, and John Pickett attended the National Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grant Review Panel in January 2011. Jon distributed a list of criteria, which he compiled from his experience while serving on the Panel. Jon recommended that the NHMPC review future Nevada proposals based on the National Review Panel’s process. Kim Davis mentioned that she and Elizabeth Ashby are working on developing a training program for future applicants. It was recommended that others who participated in the national review process attend one of the training classes so they can relay their experiences to applicants.

Communicating Dam Safety Issues and Concerns

Michael Anderson gave an overview on the Dam Safety Program. He stated that if someone uses water for any purpose other than in their home, a permit is required, regardless of its source. This requirement includes capturing water from rainfall. The Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers are exempt from having to obtain permits. If the project is for a local operator or owner, permits are required before the project is turned over to the local operator. The Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers are required to provide copies of their plans for future review by the Dam Safety Program. Laws pertaining to dams were enacted in 1951. At that time, anything 10 feet or more in height in embankment or impounding 10 or more acre-feet of water storage, required a permit. Prior to 1951, there were no permit requirements, but water rights were required. There are now approximately 700 dams in the State’s inventory. There are about 200-250 dams currently in the state that are not permitted, but they are monitored. Responsibilities of the Program include:

• Perform periodic safety inspections

5

• Set safe storage levels • Order appropriate restricted levels • Review plans and specifications • Perform periodic constructions inspections • Assist dam owners in investigations with the problems with their structures • Advise dam owners on prudent remedial actions (how to best fix problems)

The threshold for gaining approval to plans and specifications was altered in 1993 because there were numerous small structures, especially in the urban environment, where they were dealing with runoff from subdivisions. The new specifications increase to 20 feet or greater in height, or any structure impounding more than 20 acre-feet of potentially mobile material. The State Engineer has the latitude to require a dam permit for a structure if it would be classified as high-hazard even though it may not meet the above requirement. Some of the issues of dam safety in Nevada include:

• types of dams • dam owners and financial needs • urbanization • emergency action plans • transfer of federal projects to local sponsors • ownership • dam inspections • security

Dam types include:

• vast majority are homogeneous earthen structures • zoned earth fill • rock fill • roller compacted concrete • reverse curvature reinforced concrete • double curvature thin-shell concrete (Wild Horse Dam)

Of the 663 active dams in the state, 153 are mining-related; 67 of which are actual tailings facilities. Dams, like people, don’t improve with age. Why do dams fail?

• inferior design or construction • inferior materials • inferior foundation/abutments • uncontrolled seepage/leakage • natural events – floods, earthquakes, or landslides • mechanical equipment failure • deterioration/lack of maintenance • improper operation of equipment or dam

Dams have an average economic life of 50 years.

6 Dam hazard classifications, based on an evaluation of consequences of dam failure absent of flooding conditions:

• high – loss of human life is expected in the event of failure • significant – significant damage is expected, but no loss of human life • low – no significant damage

The benefits of a safe dam include:

• extended life of the structure • avoid costly repairs • full use of available storage • prevent failure of the dam • peace of mind

Although not a requirement, the Nevada Division of Water Resources does regulate some dams on federal land.

Truckee River Lawton Interceptor Flood Project Presentation Elizabeth Ashby reported that this project was selected as one of FEMA’s showcase projects and will be presented at FEMA’s hazard mitigation assistance summit in March. Glen Daily highlighted the project. The project was deemed necessary after the 1997 Truckee River flood. The flood shifted the river as much as 80 feet to the north in the Oxbow Park area. In the 2006 flood, additional land was lost. The goal of the project was to stabilize the river bank and protect infrastructure. The project was funded by FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the Truckee River Fund. The project came in about $150,000 over budget and FEMA approved DEM’s request for the transfer of funds from the state’s management expenses category to cover the additional costs.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Silver Jackets Program

Kim Davis reported that there was a meeting with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers on January 13, 2011. The Corps wants to establish a Silver Jackets Team in every state. The primary goals of the Silver Jackets program are to:

• Facilitate strategic life-cycle flood risk reduction; • Create or supplement a continuous mechanism to collaboratively solve state-prioritized issues and

implement or recommend those solutions; • Improve processes, identifying gaps and counteractive programs; • Leverage resources and information, learn about programs and how to combine efforts; • Improve and increase flood risk communication and present a unified interagency message; and • Establish close relationships to facilitate integrated post-disaster recovery solutions.

Kim distributed handouts on FEMA’s Risk Map, US Army Corps of Engineers’ Flood Plain Management Services Program, and the Silver Jackets Program. (See attached.) Kim’s understanding is that the funding for the Silver Jackets Program will be used to fund the expenses for the core group to meet.

7

Update on the 2013 Version of the State Hazard Mitigation Plan and Submission to FEMA Jim Walker reported that the State Hazard Mitigation Plan was approved by FEMA as an enhanced plan. The enhanced plan will allow for up to 20% in additional funding for mitigation efforts after a Presidential declaration of disaster (instead of the current 15%). The 2013 update will include climate change as a hazard to Nevada.

Current Vacancies on the NHMPC Board

Postponed to the April meeting.

Report on the Status of Grants

Karen distributed forms to be used for reporting hazard mitigation plans and reports that are not funded by FEMA. Karen reported on the status of the following funded projects (see attached): Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)

• HMGP1540, Waterfall Fire funding - Pending FEMA closure • HMGP 1583, S. Nevada Floods - Pending FEMA closure • HMGP 1629, N. NV Flood – mostly completed • HMGP 1738, Fernley Floods – Lyon Co. plan in process; Dant Wash improvement pending

environmental review. PDM (Pre-Disaster Mitigation) Grant Program

• PDM 04/05, HAZUS Date Base Update – Closed • PDM 06, Elko Band Council Plan – Closed • PDM 07, awards for plans for Storey, Esmeralda, and Washoe Counties and the Henderson Sewer

Project; • PDM 08, Sky Tavern Wildfire water storage tank, Clark County Mitigation Plan Update • PDM 09, Funding requests from Douglas County Emergency Management are under - FEMA

NEPA Review • PDM 10, City of Reno received a Congressional earmark, Lincoln Co. Plan Update,

Churchill/Mineral County Plan, White Pine County Plan, Nye County Plan Update are all funded and in process; Douglas Co. - 395 Culvert Project, TRFP - Demo Edison Way and Storey - 6 Mile Canyon are in the environmental review process.

Public Comments

No comments received.

Announcements of Future Meetings

Tuesday, April 26, 2011, and Wednesday morning, April 27, 2011, in Elko (this is a change of date and venue from the November minutes) Tuesday, August 23, 2011, in Henderson (depending on proposal submissions) Thursday, August 25, 2011, in Virginia City (depending on proposal submissions)

8 Thursday, November 10, 2011, in southern Nevada

Review of Action Items

An agenda item for strategic planning for the NHMPC will be added to a future meeting.

Adjourn

The meeting adjourned at 3:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Terri Garside April 5, 2011 Nevada Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee c/o Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology University of Nevada, Reno/MS 178 Reno, NV 89557-0178 775-784-4415

1 of 8

C:\Documents and Settings\tgarside\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\CV2Q67B5\Grant Report 1 Feb 2011.xls

DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Hazard Mitigaiton Grant ProgramHMGP 1540 - Waterfall FireAvailable Funding Allowable Allocated Difference12-Month Lock-In 726,541.00$

State Management Costs 226,808.97$ 5% Initiative Public Awareness 36,327.00$ 36,327.00$ Public Awareness -$ 7% Planning Project 50,858.00$ 50,352.00$ Elko Co. 506.00$ Regular Projects 413,053.00$ 271,044.00$ SPWB & State Parks 142,009.00$

Requesting Entity Federal Award Expended Balance Status as of: 1-Feb-11ProposalsState Parks 87,202.03$ 87,202.03$ -$ The request for closure is pending at FEMA Region IX.Elko County 50,352.00$ 50,352.00$ -$ CLOSEDSPWB 325,851.00$ 184,743.00$ 141,108.00$ The request for closure is pending reimbursement of AdminPublic Awareness 36,327.00$ 36,309.92$ 17.08$ CLOSED

Subtotal 499,732.03$ 358,606.95$ 141,125.08$

State Management Costs

UNR 42,493.20$ 42,492.91$ 0.29$

DEM 184,315.77$ 99,754.10$ 84,561.67$

Subtotal 226,808.97$ 142,247.01$ 84,561.96$

Total 726,541.00$ 500,853.96$ 225,687.04$

2 of 8


Hazard Mitigation Grant ProgramHMGP 1583 - 2005 FloodAvailable Funding12-Month Lock-In

Allowable Allocated Difference533,519.00$

5% Initiative 26,676.00$ 25,851.00$ State Parks 825.00$ State Mgmt7% Planning Project 37,346.00$ 37,346.00$ UNR Risk Ass. -$ Regular Projects 469,497.00$ 328,519.00$ SPWB 140,978.00$

ProposalsRequesting Entity Federal Award Expended Balance Status as of: 1-Feb-11

Proposals 5% Initiatives

State Parks 25,851.00$ 25,851.00$ -$ CLOSED

Proposals Regular ProjectsSPWB 469,497.00$ 328,519.00$ 140,978.00$ The request for closure is pending at reimbursement of admin.Proposal PlanningUNR Risk Assessmt 37,346.00$ 37,346.00$ -$ CLOSED

Subtotal 532,694.00$ 391,716.00$ 140,978.00$

State Management Costs 825.00$ 795.71$ 29.29$

Total 533,519.00$ 392,511.71$ 141,007.29$

3 of 8


Hazard Mitigation Grant ProgramHMGP-1629-New Year's FloodAvailable Funding Allowable Allocated Difference12-Month Lock-In $625,497.00

5% Initiative $31,274.85 22,872.00$ 7% Planning Project $45,675.00 45,248.00$ Regular Projects $548,547.15

Requesting Entity Federal Award Expended Balance Status as of: 1-Feb-11Proposals 5% Initiative

Sparks 25,125.00$ 22,872.00$ 2,253.00$

Proposals Planning

State Plan Update, UNR 45,675.00$ 45,675.00$ -$ Completed.

Proposals Regular Projects

Washoe Co School 444,017.00$ 33,487.99$ 410,529.01$ Closed - $288,024 Transferred to State Mgmt. & Reno - Lawton

(288,024.00)$

Reno- Lawton Interceptor 286,680.00$ 286,680.00$ -$ CompleteSubtotal 513,473.00$ 388,714.99$ 412,782.01$

Management CostsUNR - Planning Sub. Support 150,364.63$ 34,864.31$ 115,500.32$ UNR - NHMPC 45,478.73$ 7,708.03$ 37,770.70$ DEM 67,938.00$ 60,915.11$ 7,022.89$

Subtotal 263,781.36$ 103,487.45$ 160,293.91$

Total 777,254.36$ 492,202.44$ 573,075.92$

Moved to Management Costs

4 of 8


Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

HMGP-1738 - Fernley FloodAvailable Funding Allowable Allocated Difference12-Month Lock-In Allowable 475,538.00$

5% Initiative 23,776.90$ 23,776.90$ State Management 23,253.81$ 7% Planning Project 33,287.66$ 33,287.66$ Regular Projects 418,473.00$

Requesting Entity Federal Grant Expended Balance 1-Feb-11Proposals 5% InitiativeURM inventory - NBMG 23,776.90$ 7,826.00$ 31,602.90$ In process

Proposals PlanningLyon County Plan I 33,287.66$ 33,287.66$

Proposals Regular ProjectsLyon County Plan II - Outreach 14,028.00$ -$ 14,028.00$ SPWB 100,445.00$ 100,445.00$ Reviewing Ely Conservation Seismic RetrofitCity of Reno Dant Wash 304,000.00$ -$ 304,000.00$

Subtotal 475,537.56$ -$ 418,473.00$

State Management Costs 23,253.81$ 5,964.99$ 17,288.82$

Total 555,855.93$ 13,790.99$ 500,652.38$

Status as of:

Contracting w/URS

Pending NEPA & FEMA Funding

Contracting w/URS

5 of 8


DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENTPre-Disaster Mitigation Grants

2004-2005Requesting Entity Federal Grant Expended Balance Status as of: 1-Feb-11

UNR-BMG 60,063.50$ 60,063.50$ -$

2006Requesting Entity Federal Grant Expended Balance Status as of: 1-Feb-11

Elko Band Council 29,115.00 29,115.00 -$ .


Storey County Plan 26,377.50$ 26,377.50$ -$ ClosedEsmeralda Co. Plan 24,949.50$ 21,785.00$ 3,164.50$ Awaiting adoption sched. 2/15/11Washoe Co. Plan 38,406.75$ 38,406.75$ -$ Awaiting adoption Reno & Sparks, submitted changes for TribesHenderson Sewer 377,853.00$ -$ 377,853.00$ Construction Contract Awarded & Delay for parts

Subtotal 467,586.75$ 86,569.25$ 381,017.50$

Management CostUNR 44,000.00$ 44,000.00$ -$ DEM 2,779.00$ 2,779.00$ -$ Completed

Subtotal 46,779.00$ 46,779.00$ -$

Total 514,365.75$ 133,348.25$ 381,017.50$


Reno - Sky Tavern Wildfire 464,081.50$ -$ 464,081.50$ Awarded to RenoClark Co. Mit Plan update 56,985.42$ -$ 56,985.42$ Consulting Contract to be awarded

Subtotal 521,066.92$

Management Costs (10% of federal funds received) 52,106.69$ -$ 52,106.69$ Pending FEMA funding

Total 573,173.61$ -$ 52,106.69$

Adopted & Approved by FEMA Closed

CLOSED

Completed

6 of 8


Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants

2009 - Pending FundingRequesting Entity Federal Grant Expended Balance Status as of: 1-Feb-11

Douglas County Emerg. Mgmt. 482,580.00$ -$ 482,580.00$ FEMA NEPA Review startedDouglas County Emerg. Mgmt. 488,325.00$ -$ 488,325.00$ FEMA NEPA Review started

Subtotal 970,905.00$ 970,905.00$

Management Costs (10% of federal funds received) 97,090.50$ 97,090.50$ Pending FEMA Funding

Total 1,067,995.50$ -$ 1,067,995.50$

2010 - Pending FundingRequesting Entity Federal Grant Expended Balance Status as of: 1-Feb-11

City of Reno JES Wildland Fuel 500,000.00$ 500,000.00$ Pending FEMA FundingDouglas Co. - 395 Culvert Proj. 1,350,000.00$ 1,350,000.00$ Pending FEMA FundingTRFP - Demo Edison Way 834,597.00$ 834,597.00$ Pending FEMA FundingLincoln Co. Plan Update 30,799.00$ 30,799.00$ FundedChurchill/Mineral County Plan 52,500.00$ 52,500.00$ Funded, In ProcessWhite Pine County Plan 41,250.00$ 41,250.00$ FundedNye County Plan Update 39,001.50$ 39,001.50$ FundedStorey - 6 Mile Canyon 1,239,711.04$ 1,239,711.04$ Pending FEMA Funding

Subtotal 4,087,858.54$ -$ 4,087,858.54$

Management Costs funded 14,006.26$ 14,006.26$ Management Costs pending 336,450.97$ 336,450.97$

Total 4,424,309.51$ -$ 336,450.97$

Special ProjectsRequesting Entity Federal Grant Expended Balance Status as of: 1-Feb-11

My Plan Nevada, UNR 100,000.00$ Portfolio Mgmt. unknown

Funded & Started

7 of 8


Hazard Type FEMA FundingEarthquake 513,262.00$ Flood 3,924,418.25$ Wildfire 2,047,127.29$ Public Awareness 36,310.00$ Total Projects 6,521,117.54$ Planning 566,991.42$ Local PlanningManagement Plannin 178,750.93$ State Plan/NHMPCManagement 717,365.08$ $499,654.42 pendingTotal 7,984,224.97$

Management Costs

6%

49%26%

1%7% 2% 9%

NV Hazard Mitigation Grant $by Hazard Category

Earthquake Flood

Wildfire Public Awareness

Planning Management Planning

Management

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

4000000

4500000

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

PDM Grant $ / Year

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

4000000

4500000

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

PDM & HMGP Grant $/Year

HMGP

PDM

8 of 8


Source Balance PendingHMGP 1540 84,561.67$ HMGP 1583 29.29$ HMGP 1629 7,022.89$ HMGP 1738 17,288.82$

PDM 2005 0PDM 2006 0PDM 2007 -$ PDM 2008 (pending) 52,106.69$ May go down $10K with cost underrun of Sky Tavern PDM 2009 (pending) 97,090.50$ PDM 2010 14,006.26$ PDM 2010 (pending) 336,450.97$ PDM 2011 (pending)

122,908.93$ 485,648.16$

Eligible Activities by Program

State Contacts

HMGP & PDM Elizabeth Ashby

NV Division of Emergency Management (DEM) (775) 687-0314 - [email protected]

FMA, RFC, & SRL Kim Groenewold

NV Division of Water Resources (NDWR) (775) 684-2884 - [email protected]

Dates & Deadlines

March 2011 Nevada UHMA Training – locations and dates to be announced

Early June 2011 FEMA application period opens

Jun 16, 2011 Notice of Interest forms due to DEM or NDWR

Jun 30, 2011 Establish eGrants access

Aug 11, 2011 Scope of Work & Benefit Cost Analysis in eGrants

Aug 25, 2011 Northern Nevada NHMPC meeting – Presentations to NHMPC

Aug 26, 2011 Southern Nevada NHMPC meeting – Presentations to NHMPC

Oct 26, 2011 Full Application Package with backup documentation in eGrants

Nov 10, 2011 Southern Nevada NHMPC meeting – final review & ranking

Nov 17, 2011 Final submission of application in eGrants

Early December State submits applications to FEMA, application

period closes

in Nevada

Post-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides grants to States and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. Authorized under Section 404 of the Stafford Act and administered by FEMA, HMGP was created to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters. The program enables mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/hmgp/

Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program The PDM program provides funds to States, Territories, Federally recognized Indian Tribal governments, and communities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. The goal of the PDM Program is to reduce overall risks to the population and structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual disaster declarations. www.fema.gov/government/grant/pdm/index.shtm

Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program The FMA grant program provides funding to States, federally recognized Indian Tribal governments, and communities so that cost-effective measures can be taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).The long-term goal of FMA is to reduce or eliminate claims under the NFIP through mitigation activities.

www.fema.gov/government/grant/fma/index.shtm

Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) Program The RFC grant program was created with the goal of reducing flood damages to individual properties for which one or more claim payments for losses have been made under flood insurance coverage and that will result in the greatest savings to the NFIF (National Flood Insurance Fund) in the shortest period of time.

The RFC program is subject to the availability of appropriation funding. RFC grants will be awarded on a national basis without reference to State allocations, quotas, or other formula-based allocations of funds. The funding source for the RFC grant program is the NFIF.

www.fema.gov/government/grant/rfc/index.shtm

Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Program The SRL program provides funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to severe repetitive residential structures insured under the NFIP. The definition of severe repetitive loss as applied to this program is a residential property that is covered under an NFIP flood insurance policy, and:

(a) That has at least four NFIP claim payments (including building and contents) over $5,000 each, and the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeds $20,000; or

(b) For which at least two separate claims payments (building payments only) have been made with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the market value of the building.

For both (a) and (b) above, at least two of the referenced claims must have occurred within any 1-year period, and must be greater than 10 days apart. The long-term goal of the SRL program is to reduce or eliminate claims under the NFIP through project activities that will result in the greatest savings to the NFIF in the shortest period of time.

www.fema.gov/government/grant/srl/index.shtm

Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) HMA under FEMA’s Mitigation Directorate unifies the pre-disaster grant programs to better support the overall goal of reducing the loss of life and property due to natural hazards.

The HMA programs: Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC), and Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) provide mitigation grants annually on an allocation and competitive basis to State, Territory, Tribal, and local entities. The new unified process achieves economies of scale and portfolio management for Federal, State, and local officials by aligning program requirements in a unified HMA guidance document. The intent of this alignment is to enhance the quality and efficiency of grant awards.

In addition, under the unified process, eligible sub applications submitted but not funded under a specific grant program may also be considered for another mitigation grant program(s).