This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
3. For each of the six steps of the credited planning process, indicate whether it has been
implemented, whether it has been changed, and explain.
Step 1 (Assess vulnerability):
A review of the properties with potential for substantial damage was completed (see
Question 10 a). No edits were deemed necessary.
Step 2 (Identify a substantial damage management team):
No changes deemed necessary.
Step 3 (Identify post-event efforts):
No changes deemed necessary.
Step 4 (Build a property database):
A review of the properties with potential for substantial damage was completed (see
Question 10 a). No edits were deemed necessary.
Step 5 (Identify pre-flood actions):
Minor edits are needed to refine the process of “Communication with Elected Officials”.
The reference to a briefing meeting has been removed.
Step 6 (Implementation steps and updates):
No changes deemed necessary.
4. For each pre-event action item listed in the substantial damage management plan (Step 5),
indicate whether the item was implemented during the past year, describe that
implementation, and explain what change is recommended for that item, if any.
Action item: Annual Training of substantial damage team members
Training did not occur in 2025 however, a training session to step through the plan is
planned for March 2026 with a follow on exercise in April 2026.
Action item: Communication with Elected Official on SD and SI Responsibilities
This progress report will be shared with elected officials along with a copy of the NFIP
Substantial Damage factsheet. No briefing meeting will be held. As noted in Question
3 – Step 5, this represents a change from the approach presented in the original plan.
Substantial Damage Management Plan Annual Evaluation 2 6/20/2025Jump to an indexed page (5 of 5)