02-25-19-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ramsey County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2018 Page | 105 Mitigation Strategy Description Example Mitigation Actions Mitigation Preparedness and Response This is a State of Minnesota mitigation strategy with the intent of covering preparation and actions that protect life and property during a natural disaster. • Emergency operations plan • Flood fight plans and preparedness • Dam emergency action plans • Warning • Backup power • Emergency capabilities In the review and discussion of selected mitigation strategies and actions, steering committee members and the public were asked to consider the ranking of mitigation actions by priority for implementation. Table 30 provides criteria that were taken into consideration in the process. 5.3.1 Hazard Mitigation Actions Ramsey County and its included municipalities share a common Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and worked closely to develop it. Local leaders worked together with the Ramsey County Emergency Management Coordinator to ensure that the hazards and mitigation actions included in this plan are accurate and addressed in their jurisdictions. The jurisdictions responsible for each action are Ramsey County, Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, Gem Lake, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Maplewood, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, North Saint Paul, Roseville, Shoreview, Vadnais Heights and White Bear Lake. Table 31 lists all mitigation actions for Ramsey County. Appendix G contains separate mitigation action tables for each jurisdiction. Each of these mitigation action charts detail the hazard, the mitigation action to address it, the priority ranking for implementation (1 = High Priority; 2 = Moderate Priority; 3 = Low Priority, see Table 30), its current stage of implementation, the timeframe for implementation going forward, the jurisdictions who have identified they will work to implement the action, the responsible parties to carry through with implementation, and comments on how the plan will be implemented through existing planning mechanisms and potential funding to make implementation happen. Table 30. Criteria for Mitigation Action Ranking Ranking Criteria High Priority (1) • Methods for reducing risk from the hazard are technically reliable. • The County has experience in implementing mitigation measures. • Mitigation measures are eligible under federal grant programs. • There are multiple mitigation measures for the hazard. • The mitigation measure(s) are known to be cost effective. • The mitigation measures protect lives and property for a long period of time, or are permanent risk reduction solutions. Moderate Priority (2) • Mitigation methods are established. • The County has limited experience with the kinds of measures that may be appropriate to mitigate the hazard. • Some mitigation measures are eligible for federal grants. • There is a limited range of effective mitigation measures for the hazard. • Mitigation measures are cost-effective only in limited circumstances. • Mitigation measures are effective for a reasonable period of time.