01/08/2007 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Anoka County Multi- Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan 5.2.5 Mitigation Goals and Actions The mitigation actions proposed by each of Anoka County's local governing bodies participating under this Plan are listed in the MAPs on the pages that follow. Each MAP has been designed to address the multi - jurisdictional goals of this Hazard Mitigation Plan, in addition to the particular goals and objectives of each individual jurisdiction. They will be maintained on a regular basis according to the plan maintenance procedures established in the maintenance section of this plan. Below are tables that identify the number of actions that pertain to a given jurisdiction and the number of actions that address structures and infrastructure 44 CFR Requirement 201.6(c)(3)(iv): For multi - jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit for the plan Jurisdiction Mitigation Actions Jurisdiction Mitigation Actions Anoka County 71 East Bethel 72 Andover 82 Fridley 66 Anoka 69 Ham Lake 71 Bethel 66 Hilltop 65 Blaine 76 Lexington 74 Burns Twp 65 Lino Lakes 68 Centerville 71 Linwood Twp 68 Circle Pines 62 Oak Grove 74 Columbia Heights 84 Ramsey 84 Columbus 71 St. Francis 72 Coon Rapids 82 Spring Lake Park 65 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(3)(ii) MITIGATION ACTIONS The mitigation strategy shall include a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effect of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. 82 At first glance, the large number of action items indicated above may seem excessive. However, the Mitigation Committee believes that each of the following goals, objectives, and action items is necessary to begin to address hazard issues in Anoka County. It is important to note that Anoka County's individual Mitigation Action Plans include an array of actions targeting multiple hazards, not just those classified as high risk. It was the intent of the committee to establish realistic, attainable actions that can be accomplished within the present fiscal capabilities of the participating jurisdictions and accepted by the citizens of the county. All members of the Planning Committee agreed that starting with small steps, accomplishing the stated goals, and publicizing the success of the county's mitigation efforts will open the community to accept of larger, more costly, projects in the future. • Many of the goals are interrelated (e.g. providing various categories of preparedness and awareness information to citizens at community events); these will be accomplished under a