Climate Change Challenge
Local communities are required to complete the “Element G” portion of their Local Hazard Mitigation Plans to comply with High Hazard Potential Dam (HHPD) funding requirements. This program provides funding for eligible communities to update their existing Hazard Mitigation Plan by developing the required “Element G” per FEMA funding requirements.
This funding was originally allocated for the “Tool for Loss Avoidance Studies and Future Mitigation Projects”. After conducting several rounds of procurement with no bids being submitted, the funds were reallocated to this project with permission of the RMAT.
Project Alignment with ResilientMass Plan Priority Actions
This project is consistent with the following goals identified in the 2023 ResilientMass Plan:
- Implement programs to mitigate risk from dams and improve dam safety, including dam removal and repair, and emergency preparedness for downstream communities.
- Priority dam assessments and dam removals.
Climate Resilience Project Scope
Through this project, communities who are designated to receive High Hazard Potential Dam (HHPD) funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will receive an approved Appendix (Element G) to their currently approved Hazard Mitigation Plan with no cost share required for the city/town. With this funding, MEMA procured a vendor to assist communities in developing the appendix for each community which incorporates the following into the existing plan:
- Incorporation of existing plans, studies, reports and technical information for HHPDs.
- Updating the risk assessment to incorporate HHPDs.
- Updating the mitigation goals to reduce long-term vulnerabilities from HHPDs.
- Updating mitigation actions to reduce vulnerabilities from HHPDs.
This project utilized and met existing climate change resilience goals, data, projects, resources, and planning tools through the integration of climate change and future conditions into Local Hazard Mitigation Plans. The vendor, along with community stakeholders, assessed the anticipated effects of climate change on High Hazard Potential Dams and incorporated climate adaptation strategies into the existing Local Hazard Mitigation Plans.
Metrics and Results
The following ResilientMass Metrics are aligned with the project:
- Metric #7 – Number of communities with updated MVP 2.0 or Hazard Mitigation Plans (HMPs). This project continues to increase this metric as more Environmental Justice communities can complete a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan utilizing vendor support at no cost to the community.
- Metric #61 – % of local hazard mitigation plans, comprehensive plans, and/or climate action plans that consider the potential for population changes driven by climate change (in/out migration). Through the planning process for the individual communities, population changes are discussed and inform the actions developed in the LHMP.
- Metric #113 - % of new and existing critical infrastructure facilities that consider projected flooding, heat, wildfire, drought, and wind risks throughout the project’s lifespan.
- Metric #138.2 - $ awarded/budgeted for dam maintenance, repair, or removal that support climate resilience.
Best Practices and Lessons Learned
The list below outlines some of the key challenges and lessons learned.
- Lack of precedent: FEMA did not provide examples of successful Annexes. These may have been the first developed, which made it difficult to interpret and apply written requirements without a proven, FEMA-approved model to follow.
- Data availability and timing: While MEMA and DCR provided rapid turnaround on mitigation plans and Emergency Action Plans (EAPs), Inspection Reports were not available at the outset. Having those reports earlier would have streamlined the process.
- Stakeholder identification and engagement: Determining dam ownership and coordinating outreach with towns, cities, dam owners, and DCR was both time-consuming and complex. Scheduling meetings and encouraging participation presented challenges in some communities.
- GIS limitations: Converting Emergency Action Plan (EAP) and Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) data into GIS posed the greatest challenge. Because EAPs are not digitized, and many communities lacked GIS data for critical facilities, significant time was required to digitize, process, and analyze data for each dam.
- Information synthesis: Developing the Annexes required a thorough review of HMPs, EAPs, Dam Safety Reports, and related documents. The volume of material was extensive. We specifically mined for goal statements connected to HHPDs, critical facility lists and maps, mitigation actions, dam ownership details, participation in the HMP process, and risk assessment information (such as flood-prone areas and dam specifications).
- Condensing into usable Annexes: Converting this large body of information into a concise, functional Annex—nearly 200 pages long—was challenging within the short project timeframe. Additionally, sufficient time was needed for dam owner review and feedback, which further compressed the schedule.
- Lesson learned: Connecting with the “right people” early and often leads to success. These are people with specific data and information and an interest in success of the project.
Further Action
MEMA will encourage all communities with High Hazard Potential Dams to incorporate Element G into their Local Hazard Mitigation Plans during plan development or plan update.