Key Code to State Planning Matrices
Matrix 1: General Planning Provisions
Column 1
The guidelines here must specifically be for state land-use plans or plans with land-use elements. Some state land-use plans may be limited to certain critical areas, such as shorelines, and are noted as such.
1A. Coastal resource districts must adopt land-use plans, and the Department of Community and Economic Development provides assistance in developing those plans. The districts must account for areas “of significant hazard due to storms, slides, floods, erosion, or settlement,” among other things.
1B. California does not have a statewide plan as such. “A study done in the early 1990s by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research identified about 40 different state agency plans within California.” Among those are land-use and hazard mitigation plans.
1C. The state has a set of minimum standards and procedures to be followed by local planning units.
1D. Except for erosion and sediment control, under the Soil and Water Conservation Districts Act, 70 ILCS 405.
1E. New Hampshire has a state planning office that is responsible for a state development plan that is largely focused on economic development policy, but amendments passed in 2000 added a provision calling for “policies to protect and preserve farmland and open space land and to maximize smart growth.”
1F. New Mexico’s Executive Planning Act (NMS 9-14-1 to 14-4) creates the Office of Policy and Planning to coordinate the comprehensive planning effort for the state, but it does not focus on land-use policy.
1G. Oregon does not have a statewide plan as such but uses a series of 19 state planning goals to guide planning at the local level under its growth management legislation. These 19 planning goals must be incorporated into local plans, which provide the legal basis for land-use regulations. Local plans are reviewed for compliance by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development.
1H. Washington’s state planning takes place under the superstructure of the Growth Management Act, which establishes goals for high-growth counties and cities and for other jurisdictions that choose to plan within its established framework.
1I. The state plan is primarily a plan for economic development. The authorization for the governor to prepare the plan is found in the regional planning commission enabling legislation, and the plan incorporates the regional plans submitted to the governor.
Column 2
This column addresses whether the state plan has a land-use element. In some cases, states have land-use plans for certain designated areas of special concern.
2A. The state has a land-use planning program that delegates most planning authority to the lowest government level consistent with state purposes.
2B. Louisiana in a 2005 extraordinary session changed the name of its Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority to the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority in Senate Bill No. 71, which amended parts of R.S. 49:213, shifting the emphasis of the prior authority from wetlands to protection from coastal hazards, clearly in the wake of the immense damage from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The primary mandate of this new legislation was that the new authority, with power to draw upon personnel from other state agencies, “must act to develop, implement, and enforce a comprehensive coastal protection plan. The state must act to ensure that the plan integrates hurricane protection and coastal restoration efforts in order to achieve long-term and comprehensive coastal protection.” The authority also must submit annual plans to the General Assembly consisting of specific proposals for funding mitigation and restoration projects under the Coastal Protection and Restoration Trust Fund.
2C. There are statewide standards and a coastal management policy to “discourage growth and new development in coastal areas where, because of coastal storms, flooding, landslides, or sea-level rise, it is hazardous to human health and safety.”
2D. The state of Michigan has a plan, under Act 451, for the management and use of shorelines along the Great Lakes and connecting waterways, which addresses erosion and flooding. It also requires local zoning ordinances to meet or exceed in strictness the statute’s model zoning ordinance to protect dunes and shorelines.
2E. In addition to a state plan prepared by the State Planning Commission, New Jersey has special areas legislation for the Pinelands, coastal areas, and the Hackensack Meadowlands, in which state agencies directly manage land-use planning to protect those resources and guide local governments within the designated areas to protect those resources.
2F. New York’s Adirondack Park Agency directly governs the Adirondack Park and creates and administers a comprehensive land-use and development plan for all private land in the park and reviews and must approve all land-use laws enacted by municipalities within the park. The Department of Environmental Conservation is involved in the creation and implementation of the master plan for state-owned lands in the park.
2G. The Coastal Resources Commission has special responsibilities under the Coastal Areas Management Act (GSNC 113A-100 to 113A-134.3) to create guidelines for the state’s coastal areas. Local plans must be consistent with these guidelines, and the commission is empowered to create a land-use plan for any coastal county that does not enact and implement its own plan. The commission also may designate certain areas “of critical concern under criteria in the statute and must then require a permit for any development within those areas. CAMA effectively provides North Carolina with its natural hazards planning requirements apart from the state’s general planning enabling legislation. In addition to CAMA, the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (GSNC 113A-50 to 113A-66), implemented by the state Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR) requires anyone engaged in a “land-disturbing activity” to submit to the DEHNR an erosion control plan, which the agency must approve before work can begin. Finally, the Mountain Ridge Protection Act (GSNC 113A-205 to 113A-214) prohibits tall buildings and structures on certain slopes. Although this serves a hazard mitigation purpose, it is also primarily aesthetic in intent.
2H. The state’s Department of Natural Resources is responsible for creating and implementing a coastal zone management plan for the shores of Lake Erie.
2I. The Oklahoma Conservation Commission is responsible for preparing a state wetlands management strategy.
2J. Pennsylvania’s Department of Environment develops a master environmental plan that includes floodplains and geologic areas with development constraints.
2K. Rhode Island’s Coastal Resources Management Council, with assistance from the Department of the Environment’s Planning Branch, directly regulates development in coastal areas below the tidal mean high water mark.
2L. The Coastal Division of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control is responsible for overseeing the state’s comprehensive coastal management plan. State law severely restricts development within the 40-year coastal erosion zone. Like North Carolina, South Carolina also has a Mountain Ridge Protection Act that limits development on protected mountain ridges and forbids local governments to permit tall buildings and structures in these locations.
2M. The statute giving the governor responsibility for submitting a state development plan to the legislature does cite “general land use policies” as one of the considerations to be included in the plan but does not spell out specific elements as such.
Column 3
This column addresses whether the state plan contains some element addressing natural hazards.
3A. The state plan addresses flood-prone areas and flood control.
3B. In 2004, Connecticut passed Public Act No. 04-144, which concerns floodplain management and hazard mitigation. A key provision amended Sec. 16a-27 of the Connecticut General Statutes to provide that any revision of the state plan of conservation and development, overseen by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, must “take into consideration risks associated with all natural hazards, including, but not limited to, flooding, high winds, and wildfires.” It also requires identification of potential impacts of natural hazards as well as siting recommendations for future infrastructure and property development in order to minimize the use of hazard-prone areas.”
Column 4
This is a citation of the code chapter or sections that contain the state’s planning enabling legislation. Depending on the structure of the state code, this may be one section addressing all planning-related issues or separate sections for different classes of local government, for instance, county and municipal, or even different classes of municipalities, almost always based on population.
4A. Delaware has a separate code section on planning for each of its three counties.
4B. 50 ILCS 805 deals with Local Land Resource Management Plans, which the act encourages and for which the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs provides planning grants. Only in the provisions for these plans are hazards mentioned.
4C. See note 7B below. Nebraska’s planning statutes are scattered within separate titles for the various classes of municipalities.
4D. Tennessee’s general planning enabling statutes are found in Title 13 for both counties and cities, but Chapter 6-58 contains the state’s comprehensive growth plan statute, which mandates growth plans by counties with exceptions for metropolitan governments providing joint city/county government (Nashville/Davidson County). The growth plan law basically harnesses municipal annexation authority to the creation of the prescribed growth plans for metropolitan areas. While the law, passed in 1998, is too complex to summarize here, it is a major step in the evolution of Tennessee planning law.
4E. Section 66.1001 details the contents of comprehensive plans for all types of local government, while the other sections cited provide the authority for specific categories of jurisdictions.
Column 5
Strength of state role in planning is a judgment call on the part of the author, using the following rating:
1 Weak
2 Significant
3 Substantial
A weak role would be that played by a state whose planning enabling legislation is basically permissive, that is, simply authorizing local governments to plan without requiring them to do so or providing extensive guidance for the purpose. A significant role would go further in either requiring some types of local governments to plan, being more detailed in its specifications of required elements, or otherwise taking a more active role in determining the content and process of local planning. A substantial role would be that of a state government mandating comprehensive plans by local government and providing detailed guidance on the content of those plans. The last category primarily includes those states that have taken the lead in enacting various kinds of state growth management legislation.
5A. This is a split judgment. Under the Coastal Areas Management Act, North Carolina plays a substantial role in planning for coastal counties, but a weaker role elsewhere.
Column 6
The question here is whether local governments are actually required to plan, as opposed to simply being empowered to plan. The next column then deals with which types of local governments must plan.
6A. Arizona has specific requirements that apply to cities above 250,000, and another set for cities above 50,000 but less than 250,000. For smaller cities, the plans are optional.
6B. Chapter 136, Section 8-19 of the Connecticut code authorizes but does not require municipalities to create a planning commission. Section 8-23 requires a planning commission to prepare a plan of conservation and development and specifies considerations that must be included. All but one of 169 municipalities has a planning commission, making this a de facto planning mandate. In 2007, moreover, Public Act No. 07-239 amended this section to make a municipality without an amended plan “ineligible for discretionary state funding unless such prohibition is expressly waived” by the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, which oversees compliance with state planning mandates.
6C. Hawaii’s state plan includes a series of mandatory comprehensive plans for all four counties.
6D. Massachusetts requires a plan for cities above 10,000 but makes it optional for towns below that size (Ch. 41, Section 70).
6E. Pennsylvania, under Sec. 10301.4, requires counties to adopt comprehensive plans, which must be updated every 10 years. Cities, boroughs, towns, and townships have no similar requirement, but they must submit their adopted plans to the county planning agency, if one exists.
6F. In coastal areas, local governments must prepare beachfront management plans. If they fail to do so, the state must impose its own plan.
6G. Counties must prepare comprehensive growth plans under a 1998 statute governing municipal annexation. See 4D above.
Column 7
“Jurisdictions covered” in this column refers only to jurisdictions affected by requirements to plan (Column 6) and not to those simply granted authority to do so.
Abbreviations for jurisdiction types*:
B Borough
C County
CT City
G Gore
M Municipality
P Parish
T Town
TP Township
V Village
*As definitions of these entities vary with state law, individual state laws must be consulted for the precise meaning of the term in each case.
7A. Maine’s growth management law does not apply to municipalities under the jurisdiction of the Main Land Use Regulation Commission, which in certain state-defined critical areas handles planning and zoning directly.
7B. State law divides municipalities into several classes, of which those in the metropolitan (300,000 or more) and primary (100,000-300,000) classes must plan. For all others, it is optional. The two mandatory classes consist of one city each—Omaha and Lincoln.
7C. Cities above 25,000 and counties above 40,000 in population must create a planning commission, which must create a plan. Smaller cities and counties have the option to do so.
7D. The statute requires plans in counties defined as “high-growth” and of all cities within them.
Column 8
This column addresses the legal issue of whether state law specifies that the city or county legislative body (county board or city council, e.g.) must legally adopt the comprehensive plan to put it into effect. The common alternative is adoption by the planning commission.
8A. “. . . . [I]t is true there is no explicit requirement in either Ch. 226 or Ch. 46 (relating to counties) that mandated county plans must be formally adopted, although in practice, they are adopted by county councils by either ordinance or resolution.”
Column 9
Internal consistency refers to the requirement that zoning be based upon and consistent with the legally adopted comprehensive plan. Yes, therefore, means that the state imposes such a requirement, and No means that it does not.
9A. If a municipality or county receives technical assistance from the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs under the Local Planning Technical Assistance Act, adopted in the spring of 2002, its land development regulations must be consistent with its comprehensive plan for a period of five years after the effective date of the plan.
9C. The only exception would be those jurisdictions that must comply with the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act.
Column 10
Vertical consistency refers to any requirement that the local comprehensive plan of a city or county not conflict with plans of higher levels of government within the state. For example, a city plan must be consistent with the provisions of county, regional, or statewide plans.
10A. The management plans of the coastal resource districts undergo a review for consistency with plans of state agencies and other coastal resource districts.
10B. County plans must be vertically and horizontally consistent. No vertical consistency requirement appears to apply to municipal comprehensive plans.
10C. In 2005, the Connecticut General Assembly passed Public Act No. 05-205, considerably strengthening the relationship of local plans with the state plan of conservation and development (the Connecticut term of art) and regional plans of conservation and development. However, this falls short of an outright requirement of consistency because, while allowing local and regional inconsistencies with six new stated policies of growth management, it requires that these inconsistencies be noted in the local or regional plan. At the same time, PA 05-205 adds notably to the list of required considerations in the plans at all levels—state, regional, and local.
10D. “The planning act in Georgia has the capability of requiring vertical consistency. However, the truth is in practice it is not required.”
10E. Regional planning agencies, which towns and cities may join voluntarily, are empowered to provide assistance in coordinating planning with the district, but there is no explicit requirement of vertical or horizontal consistency for local plans. However, the act creating the Cape Cod Commission, a regional planning entity for the towns of Cape Cod, does specify in Section 1(d) that the commission will “review developments which will have impact beyond their local community and determine the comparative benefits and detriments of those projects and their consistency with the regional policy plan and local comprehensive plans and goals . . . .”
10F. Under the Coastal Areas Management Act, coastal counties must have plans consistent with state guidelines issued by the Coastal Resources Commission.
10G. The Oregon land-use management system relies on a set of statewide planning goals. Local plans must be consistent with those state goals. Goal 7 addresses “Areas Subject to Natural Hazards,” which are defined as including: floods, landslides, earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis, coastal erosion, and wildfires.
10H. The verticality requirement applies to local comprehensive beach management plans.
10I. The state, in authorizing technical assistance by the Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations to local governments for planning, states that the agency “shall coordinate such efforts with the state comprehensive development plan,” but the planning enabling statutes do not appear to impose any related requirement on local governments.
10J. Wisconsin’s enabling legislation in 66.1001(2)(g), includes under required elements of a comprehensive plan an intergovernmental cooperation element, which “shall analyze the relationship of the local governmental unit to school districts and adjacent local government units, and to the region, the state and other governmental units.” In addition, the element “shall identify existing or potential conflicts between the local government unit and other governmental units . . . and describe processes to resolve such conflicts.” However, we have listed this as “Assist” instead of require due to the lack of any policing mechanism to govern or ensure conflict resolution.
Column 11
Horizontal consistency means that the state requires intergovernmental coordination among neighboring jurisdictions so that, for example, adjoining municipalities may not have conflicting provisions in their own local plans and must coordinate their planning to avoid this outcome.
11A. The management plans of the coastal resource districts undergo a review for consistency with plans of state agencies and other coastal resource districts.
11B. County and regional master plan elements concerning mass transportation must be coordinated with any adjacent jurisdictions to assure compatibility.
11C. Horizontal consistency is required of county plans where they exist but enforcement is weak.
11D. Any municipality or county that chooses to plan must consider “potential conflicts with adjacent jurisdictions and regional plans or issues.” (Section 6-29-510)
11E. There is a horizontal consistency requirement for regional plans, but not for municipal plans.
11F. Horizontal consistency is required of the high-growth county and city plans, but not of the shoreline municipality plans.
Column 12
Some states clearly specify in their statutes a list of elements that must be included in the local comprehensive plan. In some cases, this list details what each of those elements must contain; other states merely list the topics without being more specific. These are designated as “specify.” Those designated as “suggest” use language such as “may include” with reference to the listed elements, making them suggestive rather than mandatory. A few states say nothing at all in their statutes about what the plan must contain.
12A. The requirements or suggestions are merely a list of items in a single paragraph without any further delineations of what those items should contain, nor any details on how those considerations should be organized into discrete elements.
12B. For municipalities, same as 12A. New Castle County has more detailed specifications for its plan elements.
12C. The Local Planning Technical Assistance Act (20 ILCS 662), passed in 2002, provides technical assistance to local governments for comprehensive planning with the proviso that the government receiving a grant must include listed elements in its comprehensive plan. The act also lists additional options that the jurisdiction may consider including, one of which is natural hazards.
12D. The specifications apply only to coastal counties under the Coastal Areas Management Act. There are no specifications elsewhere.
12E. The specifications of elements appear only in the enabling legislation for cities and townships, but not for counties.
12F. Detailed guidance for both mandatory and optional elements prescribed in the statute can be found in the Washington Administrative Code at WAC Chapter 365-195. Hazard mitigation is not one of them.
Matrix 2: Hazard Mitigation Provisions
Column 1
The code citation is to the specific paragraph or subsection that mentions or requires hazardous areas or natural hazards as a plan element, whether required or optional.
1A. The statute cited merely provides for advisory power for the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission, but it is worth noting that in 2005 its duties were expanded to specifically include tsunami as well as seismic mitigation recommendations. While a tsunami is clearly a seismic event, the legislature apparently felt compelled in the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 24, 2004, to make this area of concern more explicit.
1B. The second statute cited is not part of the planning enabling legislation. MCA Title 76 (Land Resources and Use) contains, in addition to the planning legislation (76-1), Chapter 5, Flood Plain and Floodway Management, which authorizes the state Department of Natural Resources and Conservation to establish guidelines and regulations for development in flood-prone areas, as well as provide technical assistance for local planning and zoning in this regard. The wildfire hazard provisions of 76-1-601 were added in 2007.
1C. Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines are promulgated by the state Land Conservation and Development Commission under the provisions of Chapter 197 of the Oregon code. Goal 7 addresses areas subject to natural hazards.
1D. Provisions for local comprehensive beach management plans apply to all local governments in coastal areas and are mandatory. These provisions are not in the state’s planning enabling legislation, cited in Column 4 of Matrix 1, but in the state’s coastal management legislation, which spells out a detailed set of specified contents for such a plan, including, notably, a post-disaster plan.
Column 2
Abbreviations for jurisdiction types*:
B Borough
C County
CT City
G Gore
M Municipality
P Parish
T Town
TP Township
V Village
*As definitions of these entities vary with state law, individual state laws must be consulted for the precise meaning of the term in each case.
2A. Arizona requires a safety element that includes “geologic hazard mapping in areas of known geologic hazards” in cities of at least 50,000 population.
2B. The requirements apply only to coastal counties.
Column 3
The question in this column is whether a natural hazards element is specifically required as part of the local comprehensive plan. Generally, it stands to reason that, if the state does not require a plan, it also does not require a hazards element, but it is possible for a state to require such an element if the community develops a plan in the first place.
3A. If a community or county chooses to plan, the plan must include recommendations concerning the development of “areas containing steep slopes, geological hazards, . . . floodplains, floodways, and flood risk zones, highly erodible land or unstable soils, and wildfire hazards.”
3B. Iowa has no requirements for local comprehensive plans, and hence no requirements for a hazard element. However, in 2000 Iowa passed new legislation amending its emergency management provisions that now require counties to create emergency management commissions that must develop hazard mitigation plans as part of their statutory responsibility. Because these have no mandated relationship to a comprehensive plan, however, the answer in this column is still “No.”
3C. A provision of the required implementation strategy shall be to “prevent inappropriate development in natural hazard areas, including flood plains and areas of high erosion,” in designated growth areas forecast over the next 10 years.
3D. The safety plan, which covers a variety of natural and industrial hazards, is mandatory for counties of at least 400,000 population. A seismic safety plan is also required but is a suggested element for counties of less than 400,000.
Column 4
The issue addressed in this column is whether the element addressing natural hazards in the local comprehensive plan, whether optional or required, is spelled out as a separate element from all others, or whether natural hazards are simply incorporated as a consideration in some other element, such as a land-use or environmental element. The element need not be labeled “hazards” for a “Yes” to apply, but the contents of the element must clearly be focused on one or more natural hazards, ideally including mitigation in some form.
4A. The term used in the statute is “safety element.” As of January 1, 2009, under new legislation passed in 2007, California cities and counties must identify in their safety elements information regarding flood hazards and goals for protecting the community from flooding. Previously, the safety element dealt primarily with geologic and fire hazards. The same law also requires them to identify rivers and creeks and their floodplains within the land-use element.
4B. Delaware includes the identification and protection of natural resources in floodplains and of “soils and slopes” in a conservation element that is not specifically focused on issues involving natural hazards.
4C. Under the Local Planning Technical Assistance Act (20 ILCS 662), natural hazards is one of several suggested elements that may be included in comprehensive plans prepared by jurisdictions receiving grants under the act. The Illinois element for “Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards” is not part of the comprehensive plan but is found in a list of suggested objectives for Local Land Resource Management Plans under the provisions of the Local Land Resource Management Planning Act, 50 ILCS 805.
4D. Indiana’s code, in the section cited in Column 1, provides additional optional elements, among which is “flood control and irrigation.”
4E. Kentucky lists “flood control” as ones in a series of optional elements.
4F. The cited code section requires a Sensitive Area element whose definition implicitly includes hazardous areas. In addition, the statute mentions “additional plan elements” that may be included, among them, a “flood control” element.
4G. For those municipalities that choose to plan, the code requires certain elements, among which is a land-use plan, “which may include” various provisions among which are “floodplains and other areas of special hazards and other similar uses.” In addition, the statute requires a “plan for the protection of natural and historic resources” that includes steep slopes and floodplains among its considerations.
4H. The Rhode Island Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Act specifies a natural and cultural resources element that includes coastal features and floodplains in its inventory of significant natural areas. The element must include “policies for the protection and management of these areas,” and these policies “and implementation techniques must be identified for inclusion in the implementation program element.”
4I. Municipal plans are to include an environmental element that addresses, among other things, flood control, land use on hillsides, soil erosion, and the mapping of known geological hazards.
4J. The land-use element mentions open spaces reserved for floodplain conservation purposes as one of its considerations.
4K. The statute simply mentions flood plain and drainage as one type of area designation and as part of a land-use study.
4L. The land-use element is to include provisions for the protection of water supplies and review “drainage, flooding, and storm water run-off in the area and nearby jurisdictions. In addition, House Bill 1933 (Chapter 321, Laws of 2003), passed by the Washington legislature in 2003, amended a number of existing statutes both in Washington’s Growth Management Act and in its Shoreline Management Act. Specifically, RCW 36.70A.480 now states that the “goals and policies of a shoreline master program for a city or county approved under Chapter 90.58 RCW shall be considered an element of the county or city’s comprehensive plan.” While a shoreline management element is not specifically a hazards element, parts of it may necessarily address coastal hazards (e.g., tsunami or erosion), depending on the circumstances facing the jurisdiction in question. Shoreline management programs under Chapter 90 RCW are reviewed and approved by the Department of Ecology.
4M. Floodplains are mentioned as one of the listed items to be examined in both the “agricultural, natural and cultural resources element” (66.1001(2)(e)) and in the land-use element (66.1001(2)(h)).
4N. The statute provision cited in Column 1 provides for a “safety” element to recommend programs “to educate and protect the public from disasters, both natural and man-made.”
Column 5
This column describes the geographic extent of any requirements concerning the inclusion of a natural hazards element in local comprehensive plans. Due to the nature of some hazards, some states specify limited areas in which the requirements apply, such as coastal or mountainous areas. It should be noted that the American Planning Association’s Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook, in Chapter 7, deals with this issue by suggesting that states use an opt-out mechanism in which localities would prepare a hazards element unless they could show that no natural hazards were present in the community.
5A. Nevada requires seismic elements in all plans, but the specifications of the safety element apply only in counties of greater than 400,000 population.
Column 6
Planning statutes can either require or specify a natural hazards element generally, without identifying the particular hazards that must be addressed, or they can specify particular hazards that must be addressed in the element. This column indicates those cases where the statutes specify particular hazards that the comprehensive plan must address.
Hazard designations are as follows:
C Coastal storm
E Earthquake
F Floodplain
G Geologic hazards generally
H All hazards generally
S Slope and soil stability hazards, e.g., landslides and avalanches
T Tsunami
V Volcano
W Wildfire
6A. The safety element includes “natural and man-made hazards,” but geologic hazard mapping is specified as a required part of the element “in areas of known geologic hazards.”
6B. The statute merely lists “the promotion of safety from fire and other dangers” as one of the purposes of the plan.
Column 7
Although still exceedingly rare, the requirement of a plan for post-disaster recovery as part of the hazard mitigation plan in local comprehensive plans is an important indicator of a state planning law’s seriousness in addressing natural hazards concerns. APA’s Growing Smart Legislative Guide explicitly includes such plans as part of a natural hazards element.
7A. The Florida provisions in this regard are unquestionably the most extensive and detailed anywhere and constitute an entire section of the growth management law.
7B. The post-disaster plan is a required element of the required local beach management plan for all local governments in coastal areas. It must include “plans for cleanup, maintaining essential services, protecting public health, emergency building ordinances, and the establishment of priorities, all of which must be consistent with this chapter.”
Column 8
In general, the aim of this column is to list sources of technical assistance that may be specifically relevant to natural hazards elements in local comprehensive plans. However, some states have state planning offices that offer assistance with such planning generally that may, at local option or where a natural hazards element is required, include such assistance as part of the overall mandate to provide guidance. Agencies providing general planning assistance are noted with an asterisk in the column. The notes below the abbreviations attempt to make these distinctions or to distinguish assistance related to specific types of hazards.
Abbreviations for agencies are as follows:
Alaska: DCED, Dept. of Community and Economic Development.
California: DOC-DMG, Dept. of Commerce, Div. of Mines and Geology; OES, Governor’s Office of Emergency Services.
Colorado: CGS, Colorado Geological Survey; CSFS, Colorado State Forest Service.
Delaware: DA, Department of Agriculture; DNREC, Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
Georgia: DCA, Dept. of Community Affairs; DNR, Dept. of Natural Resources.
Hawaii: HOP, Hawaii Office of Planning.
Idaho: IDOC, Idaho Dept. of Commerce.
Illinois: DCCA, Dept. of Commerce and Community Affairs.
Iowa: IEMD, Iowa Emergency Management Department.
Maine: SPO, State Planning Office.
Maryland: DNR, Dept. of Natural Resources.
Minnesota: OSLP, Office of Strategic and Long-range Planning.
Missouri: MOA, Missouri Office of Administration; MDCA, Missouri Dept. of Community Affairs; SSC, Seismic Safety Commission, Dept. of Public Safety.
Montana: DNRC, Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation.
Nevada: DSL-DCNR, Div. of State Lands, Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources.
New Hampshire: BEM, Bureau of Emergency Management; OEP , Office of Energy and Planning.
New Jersey: SPC, State Planning Commission.
North Carolina: CRC, Coastal Resources Commission; EMC, Emergency Management Commission.
North Dakota: DCS-DOC, Div. of Community Services, Dept. of Commerce.
Ohio: DOD, Dept. of Development.
Oregon: LCDC, Land Conservation and Development Commission.
Pennsylvania: DCED , Dept. of Community and Economic Development, Governor’s Center for Local Government Services; DEP , Dept. of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Watershed Management; DCNR, Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey; PEMA, Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency.
Rhode Island: CRMC, Coastal Resources Management Council; OSP-DA, Office of State Planning, Dept. of Administration.
South Carolina: DDS-DOC, Div. of State Development, Dept. of Commerce; DHEC, Coastal Div., Dept. of Health and Environmental Control.
South Dakota: BIR, Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations.
Tennessee: LPAS, Local Planning Assistance Section, Dept. of Community and Economic Development.
Utah: SPC, State Planning Coordinator.
Washington: DCTED, Dept. of Community, Trade, and Econ. Dev.; DE, Dept. of Ecology.
West Virginia: DEP, Div. of Environmental Protection.
Wisconsin: WEMA, Wisconsin Emergency Management Agency (in Dept. of Military Affairs).
Wyoming: LUC, Land Use Commission.
8A. Alaska’s Department of Community and Economic Development must provide hazard-related technical assistance specifically, under AS Section 44.33.781, to coastal resource districts for district coastal management programs. However, the department’s more general assistance with planning is available to all local governments. Oversight of the Alaska Coastal Management Program was shifted in 2004, under HB 191, from the Alaska Coastal Policy Council to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.
8B. The Colorado Geologic Survey is recommended to local governments as a source of technical assistance for geologic hazards; the Colorado State Forest Service likewise is recommended in connection with planning for wildfire hazards.
8C. The Georgia Department of Natural Resources is mandated to issue and enforce guidelines for all “land-disturbing activity” affecting mountain ridges and “river corridors.” As a result, it is directly implicated in local plans and land-use regulations in communities containing these natural features.
8D. Minnesota’s Office of Strategic and Long-range Planning is designated generally to provide technical assistance with local comprehensive plans, but the statutes make no specific mention of natural hazards elements in those plans. Section 4A.07, however, does specify that the office will provide a model ordinance to guide sustainable development.
8E. The Missouri Office of Administration and Department of Community Affairs are statutorily mandated to provide technical assistance to local planning agencies. The Seismic Safety Commission is an appointed body within the Department of Public Safety that was empowered, among other things, to “undertake a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a comprehensive program of earthquake hazard reduction” that was to include recommendations for hazard control measures and planning for post-earthquake reconstruction and redevelopment. The study was to have been completed and submitted to the General Assembly by June 30, 1997. Since Missouri does not require or even suggest any sort of natural hazards element, it would be up to the local government to avail itself of such assistance on its own initiative.
8F. OEP now administers the National Flood Insurance Program for New Hampshire.
8G. Under South Carolina’s Beachfront Management Act, the Coastal Division of the Department of Health and Environmental Control must develop its coastal management program in cooperation with local governments and provide assistance and grants to local governments to assist them in carrying out their responsibilities under the act.
8H. The Department of Ecology is specifically responsible for overseeing the preparation by coastal counties and municipalities of shoreline management programs under the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58).
|
Request Copy
Printable View