My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution No. 4814
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Resolutions
>
2004 No. 4782-4819
>
Resolution No. 4814
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 4:49:33 PM
Creation date
11/19/2004 10:26:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Recorder
CMO_Document_Type
Resolutions
Document_Date
11/8/2004
Document_Number
4814
CMO_Effective_Date
11/8/2004
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
257
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The mitigation project list above is not comprehensive and mitigation projects can <br />encompass a broad range of other actions to reduce future damages, ~osses, and <br />casualties. <br /> <br />1.5 The Mitigation Process <br /> <br />The key element for all hazard mitigation projects is that they reduce risk. The <br />benefits of a mitigation project are the reduction in risk (i.e., the avoided damages, <br />~osses, and casualties attributable to the mitigation project). In other words, benefits <br />are simply the difference in expected damages, losses, and casualties before <br />mitigation (asqs conditions) and after mitigation. These important concepts are <br />illustrated below in Figure <br /> <br /> Figure 1,6 <br /> Mitigation Projects Reduce Risk <br /> <br /> RISK <br /> BEFORE <br /> I~ITIGATION <br /> BENEFITS <br /> OF <br /> I~ITIGATION <br /> <br /> REDUCTION <br /> RISK IN RISK <br /> AFTER <br /> MITIGATION <br /> <br />Quantifying the benefits of a proposed mitigation project is an essential step in hazard <br />mitigation planning and implementation. Only by quantifying benefits is it possible to <br />compare the benefits and costs of mitigation to determine whether or not a particular <br />project is worth doing (i.e., is economically feasible). Real world mitigation planning <br />almost always involves choosing between a range of possible alternatives, often with <br />varying costs and varying effectiveness in reducing risk. <br /> <br />Quantitative risk assessment is centrally important to hazard mitigation planning. <br />When the level of risk is high, the expected levels of damages and losses are likely to <br />be unacceptable and mitigation actions have a high priority. Thus, the greater the <br />risk, the greater the urgency of undertaking mitigation. <br /> <br />Conversely, when risk is moderate both the urgency and the benefits of undertaking <br />mitigation are reduced. It is neither technologically possible nor economically feasible <br />to eliminate risk completely. Therefore, when levels of risk are Iow' and/or the cost of <br />mitigation is high relative to the level of risk, the risk may be deemed acceptable (or at <br />least tolerable). Therefore, proposed mitigation projects that address Iow levels of risk <br /> <br />Public Review Draft August 6, 2004 1-7 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.