Jurisdictions participating in the plan include all ten counties and twenty-five incorporated cities within the BRADD region as outlined below:

Primary participation from each jurisdiction and citizen involvement is occurring through one of three boards/committees: 1) BRADD Board of Directors, 2) Regional Economic Development Committee, and 3) County Steering Committees.

The BRADD Board of Directors meets monthly and is comprised of each of the ten county judge executives; the mayor of each county seat; the mayor of the largest city within each county, if not the county seat; the mayor of other incorporated cities within each county so long as they pay dues and elect to be a board member; a citizen-member from each county who is selected by the judge/executive and mayor(s) from each county; and at-large members who provide minority representation or representation of unemployed individuals.

The BRADD Economic Development Committee  was reconvened in December 2020 as an advisory committee established under the BRADD Board of Directors to review multiple regional plans including the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. A listing of regional Economic Development Committee members and the jurisdictions they represent can be found  here.

Each county also has a county-level Steering Committee . Information regarding county committees can be found  here.

Stakeholders can participate in the planning process by attending regional  Economic Development Committee Meetings, serving on a   County Steering Committee,  completing regional surveys, and/or providing review for information provided through the planning process. To learn more about how to   get involved, contact planning@bradd.org.

There are many ways you can be involved in the implementation process. From providing information to volunteering on a County Steering Committee, we want as much input and engagement as possible.  Click here for specific options on how you can contribute to the 2022 BRADD Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

To give an initial starting point for each community to build off of, Steering Committees were asked to identify any existing planning efforts and relevant past planning documents. Each county also reviewed their county-level strategic plan (which also covers each jurisdiction within the county) and its goals/objectives around eleven Pillars of Resilient Communities. Special attention was placed on documents that directly impacted one of the eleven categories of resilient communities. These pillars include: Public Facilities & Services; Public Health & Safety; Infrastructure; Transportation; Economic Development; Downtown Development; Workforce Development; Sense of Place; Tourism & Cultural Development; Affordable, Quality Housing; and Civic & Leadership Development.

By asking members to identify any existing planning efforts, BRADD staff was able to pull in those efforts to this planning process in order to keep from duplicating/reinventing the wheel. This also allowed Steering Committee Members to re-evaluate any existing goals/objectives for their community in light of COVID-19 impacts (as many of the existing planning initiatives were completed prior to 2020) and through the lens of Hazard Mitigation in an effort to make each city and county more resilient overall.

In conjunction with a plan maintenance process that integrates with economic development (and CEDS) and, generally, with any planning mechanism that is the responsibility of or is overseen by the Barren River Area Development District, this is the mechanism by which the hazard mitigation plan was and will be continually integrated into counties’ and their respective cities’ variety of planning mechanisms. For a listing of plans consulted during this effort, click here.

BRADD recognizes the role of public involvement and input throughout the planning processes. By converting the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to a digital platform, it is our goal that the plan will be a true living plan, continually updated with new data.

In that manner, the surveys and digital feedback map will remain active throughout the plan’s lifetime. Additionally, County Steering Committees and the Regional Economic Development Committee will continue to meet quarterly with all meetings being open to the public.

For information on Count Steering Committees, click here.

For information on the Regional Economic Development Committee, click here.

To develop the risk assessment, BRADD staff followed these steps:

• Analyzing data choices of 2017 BRADD HMP
• Researching best practices in data collection and presentation from other hazard mitigation plans
• Launching public survey and mitigation feedback map for local stakeholders
• Interviewing hazard mitigation planning partners
• Presenting feedback opportunities at meetings for city council, fiscal court, conservation groups, water management council, etc.
• Analyzing hazards and causes
• Prioritizing BRADD Region’s risks for the HMP update

Analyzing past data choices

BRADD staff analyzed the 2017 plan’s risk assessment and decided to conduct an overhaul of the risk assessment and data collected. First, staff wanted to create interactive maps and graphs that helped community members better understand their risk. Second, staff wanted to locate data – such as property loss claims – that more accurately reflected potential losses and impacts.

Researching best practices in data collection and presentation from other hazard mitigation plans
In the past, BRADD hazard mitigation plans have been dense, technical documents. The last plan was almost 900 pages long. The primary audience of the hazard mitigation plan is the public, and BRADD wanted to create a document that the public could use to easily understand their community’s risk and what was being done to address these issues. BRADD staff conducted extensive research on exemplary hazard mitigation plans from across the county in order to develop a public-centered, online document. Plans that inspired these changes are listed under the review and incorporation of existing plans and studies.

Launching public survey and mitigation feedback map for local stakeholders
In order to create problem statements that reflected local priorities and issues, staff needed significant feedback from stakeholders and members of the public. BRADD launched a public survey (the results of which can be found here) and created an   ArcGIS feedback app in order to solicit local comments on feedback. BRADD staff thought it was especially important to have these two avenues available online due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Interviewing hazard mitigation planning partners
During the 2022 planning process, BRADD staff evaluated the 2017 planning and strategizing efforts. Staff noticed that one-on-one interviews were limited and significant emphasis was placed on emergency managers rather than other city/county staff. In order to understand the whole community’s risk and identify its problem areas, staff significantly expanded outreach efforts, formed county-level steering committees, and conducted one-on-one interviews with stakeholders.

Presenting feedback opportunities at meetings for city council, fiscal court, conservation groups, water management council, etc.
Staff advertised the Hazard Mitigation Planning Portal, surveys, and  ArcGIS feedback application at the over 100 meetings they attended in order to solicit more localized knowledge for the risk assessment.

Analyzing hazards and causes
BRADD staff conducted an extensive search of relevant data to include in the plan. Staff used ArcGIS and Tableau to helps users analyze and understand the risk these hazards pose to their community.

Prioritizing the BRADD Region’s risks for the HMP update
BRADD decided to maintain the same hazards as the 2017 plan as these hazards continue to pose a significant risk to the BRADD region. These hazards include dam failure, drought, earthquake, extreme cold, extreme heat, flooding, hazardous materials, emerging infectious disease, pandemic, landslide, karst/sinkhole, severe storm, terrorism, tornado, and winter storm.

To develop the mitigation strategy, BRADD staff followed these steps:

• Review past mitigation actions
• Conduct one-on-one interviews with stakeholders
• Review data from mitigation feedback map
• Revise goals to reflect mitigation priorities
• Identify mitigation actions
• Evaluate and prioritize mitigation actions
  

Reviewing past mitigation actions
During the 2022 planning process, BRADD staff evaluated the 2017 planning and strategizing efforts. Staff realized that past actions, while still applicable, focused on improving preparedness rather than building resiliency. Moreover, the previous planning process largely relied on emergency managers and restated actions that many employed in their communities already. While emergency managers play a crucial role in responding to a hazard, other stakeholders such as planners, engineers, public works officials, water and wastewater employees, and road department crews, oversee current and future development in their community, which has a direct impact on resiliency (think floodplain requirements, storm water management, road accessibility, etc.).

BRADD recognized that in order to get the best feedback possible, the planning process would have to go deeper. Thus, BRADD staff, in conjunction with each county’s Judge Executive and Emergency Manager, formed county-level Steering Committees to work through the planning process on a more local level. Additionally, BRADD held several interviews and meetings with community stakeholders in addition to emergency managers which allowed staff to identify key action areas for long-term mitigation projects and efforts that strengthen resiliency, which is the intent of hazard mitigation planning.

Conducting one-on-one interviews with stakeholders
As mentioned above BRADD staff expanded the number of stakeholders and then work with AmeriCorps Members to conduct one-on-one interviews to learn more about hazard issues and potential mitigation actions. These interviews helped inform mitigation actions and made stakeholders aware of potential funding sources. These interviews were held over Zoom.

Reviewing data from mitigation feedback app
BRADD staff created the mitigation feedback app to solicit location-specific hazard issues. Traditionally, staff brought county and city maps to stakeholder meetings; however, this strategy was forced to shift during the COVID-19 pandemic. This mitigation feedback app was highly useful in identifying problem areas and developing mitigation strategies. The map will remain live, so that communities can report issues as they happen.

Revising goals to reflect mitigation priorities
Based on one-on-one interviews, public surveys, and the mitigation feedback app, staff revised the 2017 goals to better reflect the region’s priorities. These goals were approved by the BRADD Economic Development Committee.

Identifying mitigation actions
Data from the mitigation feedback app, interviews, county steering committee meetings, and the public survey, helped staff identify necessary and feasible actions for the region. For each action, BRADD staff identified:

• Goal: goal(s) that the action falls under.
• Hazards covered: the hazards that the action addresses.
• County: county or counties that the action includes.
• Applicable jurisdiction: community that the action applies to. Please note that when the action list states the applicable jurisdictions include “all counties + cities,” each county and its cities are included in the action.
• Priority: this ranking (low, medium, high, very high) reflects BRADD’s benefit-cost analysis of each action. To determine the priority ranking of each action, BRADD staff considered the benefit-cost analysis in terms of:
• Feasibility of the action to address the problem
• Timeline of the action (can it be completed within the 5-year plan timeframe)
• How soon the action could begin
• Contribution of the action to save life or property
• Effectiveness of creating a long-term solution for resiliency
• Lead implementer: organization(s) that is most appropriate to lead the action.
• Other proposed parties: organization(s) that could provide additional assistance or guidance for the action.
• Potential funding sources: grant programs, loans, or other funding options. For actions that require staff time and not additional funding, “staff time” is used instead.
• Status: clarifies the status of the action – whether it is a new action in the 2021 plan or an ongoing activity from the previous plan.
  

Actions vary by county and city; however, many actions apply to all jurisdictions. The BRADD Regional Economic Development Committee, which includes representatives from each county, approved these mitigation actions.

Evaluating and prioritizing mitigation actions
In accordance with FEMA requirements, BRADD staff prioritized mitigation actions to reflect the maximum benefit while considering the potential costs of each action. BRADD developed a prioritization methodology that focuses on the following:

• Feasibility of the action to address the problem
• Timeline of the action (can it be completed within the 5-year plan timeframe)
• How soon the action could begin
• Contribution of the action to save life or property
• Effectiveness of creating a long-term solution for resiliency