Help with Assignments

HM502Unit4DQ.docx

Home >Law homework help >Civil homework help >Help with Assignments

HM502

Unit 4 DQ

Topic 1: Emergency Management Strategies

The three hazard mitigation plans examined in this unit each approach the challenge of eliminating or reducing risk somewhat differently. Some of the differences are based on geography and some are based on the assets threatened. A closer look at each plan should also reveal some similarities. The discussion below will enable those divergent and analogous characteristics to emerge.

· Discuss how each plan conducts a threat assessment.

· Describe how vulnerability and consequence assessments were conducted.

· Describe how the risk assessment strategies and methodologies used in one plan could be applied to a different risk scenario.

Topic #1 Student Response #1 (Respond to Skyler)

Skyler Fry

Each plan followed very similar pathways to determining the threat to the area of responsibility in respect to their specific plan. Each plan utilized past data sets such as previous occurrences / historical trends, likelihood of future occurrences, severity, and geographically specific threats. The Charleston plan provided a major advantage that the other plans seemed to miss which was the ability to pool their information and resources from regional participants rather than being restricted to the state or city level (Charleston County, 2019). The Charleston and Anaheim plans both also used surveys to rank what the public viewed as the biggest threat to the area. However, the effectiveness of surveys leaves much to be desired as the City of Anaheim only had 311 respondents (City of Anaheim Hazard Mitigation Task Force, 2017). Each plan utilized a task force or committee to further identify, assess, and rank threats to the geographical area. The vulnerability and consequence assessments varied on how the information was displayed depending on the plan but all included a break down by type of hazard, critical infrastructure, buildings, populations, planned projects, economy, ect.. However, federal level resources were utilized such as HAZUS and GIS floodplain mapping (State of New Jersey, Office of Emergency Management, 2007-2020). The risk assessment strategy and methodology utilized in the plans was directly derived from the Federal Criteria for Risk Assessment (City of Anaheim Hazard Mitigation Task Force, 2017). Therefore, the broad overview that is offered at the federal level can be applied to any risk scenario.

Charleston County. (2019). Charleston regional hazard mitigation plan (2019). . Retrieved from, https://www.charlestoncounty.org/departments/building-inspection-services/files/Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.pdf

City of Anaheim Hazard Mitigation Task Force. (2017). City of Anaheim hazard mitigation plan. Retrieved from http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/13502/13532/13533/13578/13581/2.%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan13581.pdf

State of New Jersey, Office of Emergency Management. (2007-2020). 2019 New Jersey State Hazard Mitigation Plan . Retrieved from http://ready.nj.gov/mitigation/2019-mitigation-plan.shtml

Topic #1 Student Response #2 (Respond to)

Jeffery Bailey

Hello classmates/Prof

When it comes to risk management, there is no cookie cutter risk assessment that fits every city or state the same. What may work for California with its wild- fire high risk potential, may not work for Alabama with its flood potential. In this discussion we talk of three different cities and their approaches to risk assessment.

Charleston County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan.

The county of Charleston based their principal risk program on the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Their aim is to teach communities how to become more hazard resistant. They accomplish by involving the public, private and non-profit sectors in forming partnerships. These partnerships were formed with the goal of reducing the amount of loss associated with in hazard they use a four-phase initiative to achieve this which are build community partnership, assess risk, prioritize needs, build support and communicate on addressing hazard preparedness and response.

ANAHEIM HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Anaheim uses a disaster mitigation act of 2000 known as public law act 2000 known as public 106-390 this act dictates how states and local government are to respond to planning, identifying hazard and potential losses DMA 2000 requires each state and local government to prepare and have a mitigation plan to be eligible for mitigation funds. Their basic plan revolves around promoting public policy designed to protect citizens b promoting public awareness.

NEW JERSEY USES THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

(HMP) which is the corner stone to reducing New Jersey’s vulnerability to disasters. The HMP captures historic disaster experiences and presents to New Jersey potential hazards based on current science and research and through this research helps the city and state mitigate potential future hazard.

NEW JERSEY USES a hazard mitigation process that can be used by any of the other two states. Their process of researching previous data and using science to predict future hazards is a basic process that can benefit all three states.

The vulnerability of these planes occurs when you take into account the natural hazard proclivity for certain disasters such as New Jersey has an 18% of its land area I located in flood hazard area New Jersey has a high risk of wildfires also.

Retrieved from, https://www.charlestoncounty.org/departments/building-inspection-services/files/Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.pdf

Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/fema-local-mitigation-plan-review-guide_09_30_2011.pdf

Retrieved from, https://www.charlestoncounty.org/departments/building-inspection-services/files/Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.pdf

Topic 2: Emergency Management Strategies: Similarities and Differences

The three risk assessment strategies that have been examined are similar in some respects and different in others. The choice of methodologies and processes used to assess risk are driven by a variety of factors to include geographical issues and asset realities. The similarities and differences found in each strategy reveal much about how planners approached risk assessment in their area of responsibility.

· What are some of the key similarities between the plans?

· Describe why some of the plans use similar processes and procedures.

· What are some of the major differences between the plans?

· Describe why some of the plans utilize different processes and procedures.

Topic #2 Student Response #1 (Respond to Jeffery)

Jeffery Bailey

Hello classmates/Prof

In risk management there are many different ways to go about achieving this goal. Researching the three different risk management styles I noticed that some similarities between them are community involvement, all three states realize that getting the community involved in risk mitigation proves to be very productive. Another similarity that the three states share in their programs is that they take a geographical assessment approach to their risk assessment plans. All three conduct vast studies and research on areas of their cities that are geographically vulnerable and use this information to assess risk probability. They are also similar in that they all look to their local government for leadership and direction. It seems that the old adage of don’t reinvent the wheel, applies because these three states realize that there is a basic formula that works, and they all sample it. Another thing they share is vulnerabilities, these states all have areas that are particularly hazard vulnerable.

One major difference between them is Charleston focuses on their susceptibility to floods and they focus their mitigation on flood risk assessment. Anaheim in their mitigation plan focuses on their vulnerability of earthquakes, earthquakes is a continuous issue in California. Here is a different approach, the state of New Jersey uses land acquisitions as a form of mitigation. This involves a 75% FEMA funded plan that buys property from flood risk citizens to take them out of harm’s way. What a novel approach! All of these states use different approaches to their hazard risk assessment and mitigation. Each process is devised to address their particular problem area. They all use assets that are available from their local governments, they all incorporate the civilian population to get involvement and feedback as to what works and what doesn’t.

Retrieved from, https://www.charlestoncounty.org/departments/building-inspection-services/files/Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.pdf

Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/fema-local-mitigation-plan-review-guide_09_30_2011.pdf

Retrieved from, https://www.charlestoncounty.org/departments/building-inspection-services/files/Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.pdf

Topic #2 Student Response #2 (Respond to Skyler)

Skyler Fry

While taken at face value each plan consists of a multi-hazard approach, however, community input and the way that the input is implemented varies greatly. The Charleston plan utilizes community survey to rand and determine what type of projects should take priority while also adding in additional goals provided by a hazard mitigation and public information committee (Charleston County, 2019). The Anaheim plan relies on their risk and vulnerability assessment to determine the rankings of threats and strategies for mitigation efforts (City of Anaheim Hazard Mitigation Task Force, 2017). The New Jersey plan follows FEMA guidelines pretty closely while allowing the counties and municipalities to format their plans to fit the needs of their geographical area (State of New Jersey, Office of Emergency Management, 2007-2020). The biggest similarity between all of the plans is their reliance on historical trends to determine likelihood of future occurrence. The biggest difference between the plans seems to be the level of which the plan is meant for with the bigger the boundaries the more broad the plan and the more latitude provided towards actionable mitigation efforts.

State of New Jersey, Office of Emergency Management. (2007-2020). 2019 New Jersey State Hazard Mitigation Plan . Retrieved from http://ready.nj.gov/mitigation/2019-mitigation-plan.shtml