Local Mitigation Plan Review: Seattle, Washington

Section: Element C. Mitigation Strategy

Title of Plan and Date of Plan	Seattle All-Hazards Mitigation PlanJuly 2009
Reviewer’s name andDate of mitigation plan review:	NameApril 2018

REGULATION CHECKLIST
ELEMENT C. Mitigation StrategyRegulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans)	Location in Plan:Section & page number	Met	Not Met
C1. Does the plan document each jurisdiction’s existing authorities, policies, programs and resources and its ability to expand on and improve these existing policies and programs? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3))	Terrorism, pg. 29
C2. Does the Plan address each jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii))	Proposed planning and Policy Actions, pg. 90
C3. Does the Plan include goals to reduce/avoid long‐term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i))	Long-term directions, pg. 86
C4. Does the Plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each jurisdiction being considered to reduce the effects of hazards, with emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii))	University of Washington, pg. 82
C5. Does the Plan contain an action plan that describes how the actions identified will be prioritized (including cost benefit review), implemented, and administered by each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv)); (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iii))	6300-6500 Block Beach Drive SW, pg. 74
C6. Does the Plan describe a process by which local governments will integrate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate? (Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii))	Current and Planned Capital Projects, pg. 93
ELEMENT C: REQUIRED REVISIONS:

Element C: Mitigation Strategy

The Seattle mitigation strategy is detailed in terms of identifying the hazards that the area is prone to. It is prone to floods and has had recent experience with the worth being in 2009, where property worth up to $12 million was destroyed. The problems that have so far been encountered are; lack of a clear plan on what hazards to mitigate first. This goes hand in hand with the need for professional planners and funds to implement the plans. The design and implementation only come after identifying that Seattle is most prone to flooding and appropriate mitigation plans are developed. 

The risk assessment and evaluation of the loss that a disaster would cause is the value of all the properties within the area that is expected to be affected in case a disaster strikes. The risk assessment is the first step in any mitigation plan. This is because it helps to identify what hazards the area is exposed as well as the size of the area that could be affected in the process. The second step is to enlist professionals who have experience in mitigating floods. It is at this point that the cost is drawn up and the implementation begins. The first step of the implementation is to ensure that people understand the need for mitigation. This will also help the planners to get ideas form the member of the community. At the end of the day, people can work with the local government to design and implement a meaningful mitigation plan.

It is important that in any mitigation plan, the NFIP is involved because there is always need for relief food during disasters. This means that all the planning parties have to work hand in hand; that is, the various levels of authority must collaborate to effectively mitigate disasters in Seattle. All these are factors that should be incorporated into a plan to ensure that the minimum expectations are met and exceeded in hazard mitigation actions in the Seattle community.