Resolution No. 4814 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The next key step is to determine whether or not the level of risk posed by each of the hazards affecting the Eugene/Springfield Metro Area is acceptable or to~erabie. Only the residents of the Eugene/Springfield Metro Area can make this determination. If the tevel of risk ks deemed acceptable or at least tolerable, then mitigation actions are not necessary or at least not a high priority. On the other hand, if the teve~ of risk is deemed not acceptable or tolerable, then mitigation actions are desired. In this case, the mitigation planning process moves on to more detailed evaluation of specific mitigation alternatives, pdodtization, funding and implementation of mitigation measures. As with the determination of whether or not the level of risk posed by each hazard is acceptable or not, decisions about which mitigation projects to undertake can be made only by the residents of the Eugene/ Springfield Metro Area. For reference, a more detailed discussion of the overall mitigation planning process, including each step in the planning process flow chart shown above in Figure 1.5, is given in Chapter 2 of the Regional A~l Hazard Mitigation Master Plan for Benton, Lane and Linn Counties (in both the Phase One and Phase Two reports). Further, more detailed information for flood mitigation projects is given in Annex I of the Phase One Plan: Flood Hazard Mitigation Planning Template for Loca~ Governments. 1.6 The Role of Benefit-Cost Analysis in IVlitigation Planning Communities, such as the Eugene/Springfield Metro Area that are considering whether or not to undertake mitigation projects must answer questions that don't always have obvious answers, such as: What is the nature of the hazard problem? How frequent and how severe are hazard events? Do we want to undertake mitigation measures? What mitigation measures are feasible, appropriate, and affordable? How do we prioritize between competing mitigation projects? Are our mitigation projects likely to be eligible for FEMA funding? Benefit-cost analysis is a powerful tool that can help communities provide solid, defensible answers to these difficult socio-political-economic-engineedng questions. Benefit-cost analysis is required for a~l l=EMA-funded mitigation projects, under both pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation programs. Thus, communities seeking FEMA funding must understand benefit-cost analysis. However, regardless of whether or not FEMA funding is involved, benefit-cost analysis provides a sound basis for evaluating and prioritizing possible mitigation projects for any natural hazard. Public Review Draft August 6, 2004 1-9