Step 1: Assess Community Support

Overview

\[DIAGRAM\]

Much of mitigation planning involves cycles of learning about your
community and then acting on what you have discovered. The more you
understand the issues, important concerns, and capabilities in your
community, the more you can develop a planning process that reflects
community values and thereby generates support for projects and
outcomes.

Among the first steps in the planning process is measuring the level and
source of community support for planning, and working on securing any
needed support where gaps are identified. Step 1 provides questions to
prompt you to identify and obtain appropriate sources of necessary
ingredients for successful planning. Step 1 also discusses how to
determine the appropriate geographic area in which to focus the planning
effort. Step 2 will assist you in seeking answers to the questions posed
in Step 1 so that you can begin to establish the organizational
framework for the planning effort.

The remainder of this section provides guidance on how to deal with
deficiencies in any of these particular areas. If your community is
really ready to go, that is great! If not, as is more frequently the
case, you may need to work hard to build support. This may take a couple
of meetings or many months, depending on the community\'s level of
readiness. Once you have \"primed the pump,\" you can begin enlisting
others to form the planning team, Step 2 of *Getting Started*.

\[READERS' CAUTION:

Mitigation planning is not a linear process. With the exception of the
risk assessment, most tasks can be completed in any order that works for
the community, particularly when you are working on building support in
your community. For example, what would happen if you completed Step 1
and determined that the appropriate level of government for your
mitigation planning efforts was the town, but later on, you realized the
town did not have sufficient resources or the proper authority to
develop and approve the mitigation plan? You may need to revisit this
step after contacting the county. Furthermore, if the community is not
ready to plan (i.e., there is no political support for planning or the
community has inadequate funding), it may be more appropriate in some
cases to begin instead with Step 3, *Engage the Public* to build public
pressure to support mitigation planning. This will allow the community
to build the support for planning before the planning team is
established. It is also possible that you will have to complete a
minimal type of risk assessment in order to obtain support for the
planning process. In that case, you would refer to *Understanding Your
Risks* (FEMA 386-2).

END READERS' CAUTION\]

Procedures and Techniques

Task A. Determine the planning area.

In consultation with the state, identify the areas or jurisdictions to
be included in the mitigation planning process. Local governments most
often create a mitigation plan that covers their entire political
jurisdiction, be it a county, city, township, parish, borough, or
unincorporated community that falls under a county\'s jurisdiction, but
the plan does not usually cross jurisdictional boundaries.

\[DMA NOTE:

Under DMA 2000 regulations, local governments may be defined in many
different ways. A local government may be defined by a political
boundary such as an incorporated city, county, parish, or township, or
it might not have a distinct political boundary, for example a watershed
or metropolitan region.

END DMA NOTE\]

In many instances, however, planning on a broader scale can bring
additional resources, such as staff and experience, to the effort and
can help to address hazards that may originate outside of a community\'s
jurisdictional boundaries. It may be a practical and cost-saving way to
approach hazard reduction for a large number of communities,
particularly if hazards and vulnerabilities are similar across a large
area. An example of a multi-jurisdictional planning area would be
several towns located along the same fault zone whose main hazard is
earthquakes, or communities that lie within the same watershed.

Smaller jurisdictions may also benefit from working together because of
the additional resources and expertise that collaboration can bring.
Many counties with numerous townships and incorporated municipalities
may use a county approach simply for the sake of streamlining, since
counties often provide emergency management services to their
jurisdictions, whether incorporated or not. Communities should also
consider working with an existing regional planning commission or other
regional planning organization.

\[READERS' TIP:

Reasons for Multi-Jurisdictional Planning

-   Creates partnerships.

-   Is practical for addressing issues best dealt with on a larger
    scale, such as watersheds, which do not recognize political
    boundaries.

-   Takes advantage of existing planning mechanisms, such as regional
    planning organizations.

-   Can create economies of scale and enable pooling of limited
    resources.

END READERS' TIP\]

A multi-jurisdictional approach carries with it the increased
opportunity for conflict, however, so if you have the option of choosing
a jurisdiction with which to work, care should be given to selecting
jurisdictions with similar characteristics and goals.

\[DMA NOTE:

While DMA 2000, along with CRS and FMA, allow multi-jurisdictional
plans, you should still check with the State Hazard Mitigation Officer
(SHMO) to determine if this is a viable approach.

END DMA NOTE\]

Consider including localities that you have teamed with in the past.
Your jurisdiction already may be working together with another nearby
jurisdiction, or may work closely with a regional planning district. If
so, it may be a natural fit to become part of a larger planning area.
How your planning area is defined is up to you and the state, but the
one thing that the jurisdictions must have in common is the commitment
and the shared sense that something needs to change. For more detailed
guidance, see *Multi-Jurisdictional Approaches to Mitigation Planning*
(FEMA 386-8).

\[STATE TIP:

Defining the Planning Area

States should help communities to determine the optimal planning areas
in which they will work. This determination may be based on state
planning goals, statewide planning initiatives already underway, and
resource availability.

END STATE TIP\]

\[READERS' TIP:

Consult with the State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO)

The states play an important role in determining the appropriate
planning area for local hazard mitigation planning efforts. Given the
diversity of state and local planning authorities throughout the nation,
the DMA and the Interim Final Rule define \"local government\" broadly
and provide the states with the necessary flexibility to determine how
local governments will be involved in the hazard mitigation planning
process. Some states may encourage a particular level of local
government to have the lead responsibility for \"local\" plan
development -- be it an incorporated municipality, township, county or
regional level of government. Other state mitigation planning programs
may encourage a considerable range of flexibility in how communities can
work together with adjacent jurisdictions, such as the development of
local hazard mitigation plans on a watershed basis. Communities should
contact the state emergency management office and, in particular, the
SHMO, early on to obtain guidance for determining the appropriate
planning area.

END READERS' TIP\]

Task B. Determine if the community is ready to begin the planning
process.

Below is a series of questions designed to help you assess the
availability of key elements necessary for a successful planning
process: KNOWLEDGE, SUPPORT, and RESOURCES. Seeking answers to these
questions will help you determine what you should focus on to ensure
that you have the necessary ingredients in place to begin planning:

\[STATE TIP:

States should assist local jurisdictions in assessing support for
mitigation planning. In addition, states should build their own support
for mitigation planning by educating new state officials and department
heads and seeking to build collaborative relationships.

END STATE TIP\]

Knowledge. Answering the following four questions can help you begin to
determine the level of understanding about hazard mitigation planning
and risk reduction in your community. If you determine that your public
officials are either unfamiliar with hazard mitigation or unconvinced
that investing in mitigation measures before a disaster strikes will
save more money than it would cost to recover from the disaster, you
should consider engaging in the activities related to \"Knowledge\" that
are included later in this step under Task C to help increase knowledge
of hazard mitigation in your community.

1\. How much do elected and/or appointed officials know and understand
about hazards in their area? Do they know what they and the community
can do to reduce their effects? Has there been recent disaster (or
severe weather) activity?

2\. How much do the citizens know about hazards in the community?

3\. Do officials and citizens understand that their actions, behavior,
and decisions affect their vulnerability and that steps can be taken to
reduce risks?

4\. Is there a difference between the risk perceived by the community
and the actual risk (to the extent that risk is currently known)?

Support. Answering the following questions can help you begin to
determine the level of support for hazard mitigation planning and
mitigation project implementation in your community. If you determine
that your local government elected and/or appointed officials or
citizens do not know how they and the private sector can support
mitigation, consider engaging in activities related to \"Support\"
included later in this step under Task C to help identify strategies to
increase the level of support for hazard mitigation. If you are
unfamiliar with other types of planning activities at work in your
community that can help support mitigation planning and activities,
review these examples as well in the \"Support\" section under Task C.

5\. Do elected and appointed officials understand how local, state, and
federal levels each support hazard mitigation and emergency management?

6\. Is there something (not necessarily hazard-related) that citizens
are dissatisfied with that may be located in a hazard area (i.e.,
tourism, economic development, blight, transportation issues) that could
be dealt with in context of mitigation planning? How can the mitigation
plan contribute to other planning initiatives?

7\. How likely is it that there will be an individual to serve as a
champion to provide leadership and/or support for mitigation planning
(individual, organization, or business)?

8\. What would it take to identify or recruit a planning team leader?
How will you capitalize and build on expanding enthusiasm?

9\. Is there an existing FMA or CRS flood mitigation plan or other
single hazard plan?

10\. Is there an existing system for planning in the community? Is there
a planning department? A community plan? Are there local staff with
planning capabilities with whom you can collaborate?

11\. Is there a history of community interest and/or involvement in
environmental issues? Recreational issues? Safety issues?

12\. Is there an existing land use map, GIS system, contour map, soils
map, topographic map, or other material that can be used to better
understand the hazards context of the community?

Resources. Answering the following questions can help you begin to
determine the availability of resources and capabilities for hazard
mitigation planning and mitigation measures in your community. If you
determine that you are unfamiliar with programs that may be available in
your community or state, or need financial resources to initiate the
planning process, consider the activities related to \"Resources\" that
are included later in this step under Task C to help identify untapped
resources to support hazard mitigation.

13\. Are you aware of the range of non-FEMA or non-mitigation programs
available to assist in mitigation projects?

14\. What are the major employers, industries, and organizations that
help shape the culture of the community? Are they willing to be
involved?

It may be difficult to obtain these answers. If so, you may wish to go
ahead and begin to build your planning team knowing that you can come
back to this section for guidance on issues related to knowledge,
support, and resources for planning. The answers to these questions
should be compiled and incorporated into your plan document,
particularly in the capability analysis section that you will develop
during Phase 3 of the planning process. This information, coupled with
hazard and vulnerability information you will collect in Phase 2, will
shape the projects and policies adopted in your mitigation plan.

If your community can satisfactorily answer each of the questions above
and is clearly ready to begin a mitigation plan, go to Step 2. If not,
go to the appropriate part of Task C below.

Task C. Remove roadblocks.

Mitigation planning roadblocks related to knowledge, support, and
planning resources, such as lack of interest and limited funding, can be
overcome in several ways:

-   Educating public officials about the benefits of reducing potential
    losses through pre-disaster mitigation planning and about the costs
    of not having a mitigation plan can help convince them of the
    importance of mitigation planning. It can also give them a new
    understanding of what is at stake if they do not develop a plan for
    reducing losses from hazards.

-   Identifying leaders in other communities who were successful in
    developing and/or implementing mitigation plans can help bring peers
    together to benefit from experience.

-   Identifying a team leader in a position of authority, such as a
    community leader, elected official, or influential agency head, can
    help tremendously in convincing elected officials and others to
    support the planning effort.

-   Capitalizing on new regulations such as those implementing the DMA,
    which require states and local communities to have approved plans to
    be eligible for post-disaster mitigation funding, can serve as an
    entry point of discussion with elected officials.

-   Identifying existing processes such as comprehensive planning that
    can be expanded to include the development of a mitigation plan or
    include hazard mitigation elements.

-   Identifying self-interests in mitigation for a variety of sectors of
    the community or state to obtain broad support.

-   Identifying a variety of potential funding and technical resources
    to support the planning process and being ready to provide this
    information to others.

Following are steps you can take to overcome these roadblocks.

Knowledge

1\. Educate public officials on hazards and risks in your area.

a\. Have statistics ready about the last disaster. Many public officials
are unfamiliar with hazard mitigation planning and the mitigation
planning process. Unless your community or state has experienced a
recent disaster, local elected officials might not be very familiar with
local hazards and the associated risks. Before you or others meet with
the officials, make sure you are well prepared and have done your
homework. Know the details of recent hazard events, such as the number
of households that were damaged or destroyed, the number of businesses
that closed, or the reduction in tourism as a result of recent disaster
events. For details on estimating losses, refer to Phase 2 of the
mitigation planning process in *Understanding Your Risks* (FEMA 386-2).

\[STATE TIP:

States can often provide general information to local jurisdictions
about prior disasters within their state. In addition, they should be
speaking with local elected and appointed officials regarding new
regulatory requirements for planning under DMA, as well as assistance
the state will provide for planning. States should also be developing
hazard reduction policies and goals that will become part of local
planning considerations.

END STATE TIP\]

If it has been some time since the last disaster event, you may find it
difficult to convince officials that your community is vulnerable to
hazards. You are likely to get a negative response if you try to scare
these officials into action. Some communities have always relied on the
promise that since disasters happen so infrequently, it is better to
wait until a disaster strikes than to try to change the way the
community conducts its daily business. If this is the case, you may wish
to skip to Step 3, *Engage the Public* first.

\[READERS' TIP:

Go to www.hazardmaps.gov to find multi-hazard mapping information for
your community or state. It is a Web-based collection of natural hazards
information and supporting data.

END READERS' TIP\]

b\. Discuss general options. If you discuss potential mitigation options
that the community currently has under consideration, try to be as
inclusive as possible, without going into too many details. Only
mentioning preventive actions, such as restricting development in hazard
areas and enforcing stricter building codes, may give the officials the
wrong impression about the true range and flexibility of mitigation
options. Be sure to stress to officials that the plan\'s mitigation
goals, objectives, and strategies will be determined with the public\'s
input and support. For more details on developing an implementation
strategy, refer to Phase 3 of the mitigation planning process in
*Developing a Mitigation Plan* (FEMA 386-3).

c\. Remember the bottom line. Elected officials are concerned about the
safety and economic well-being of their constituents. To gain their
support, therefore, you should emphasize how mitigation planning helps
to achieve these goals. In particular, elected officials like to hear
about the economic benefits associated with public actions, so provide
as much information as possible on the costs of a disaster and how
mitigation actions can reduce those costs to individuals, businesses,
communities, states, and the federal government, particularly for a
disaster that recently affected your community or a nearby community.

d\. Be informative but brief. When elected officials hold meetings,
there is usually a multitude of issues before them. These officials will
appreciate and respond positively if you are organized and prepared for
the meeting. Be clear and concise about your needs and activities,
keeping your speaking time to a minimum whenever possible.

e\. Provide examples and success stories from nearby communities. Public
officials like to talk to fellow officials and counterparts, and they
will usually speak with them before contacting state or federal staff.
If you offer them positive examples from nearby communities, there is a
good chance your officials will be interested in pursuing similar
programs, which could give the planning process a big boost. Among the
many sources of information on mitigation successes are FEMA\'s Web site
(www.fema.gov) and CD-ROM, *Mitigation Resources for Success* (FEMA
372), and the Web site for the Association of State Floodplain Managers
(ASFPM) at www.floods.org.

\[READERS' TIP:

Six broad categories of mitigation measures include:

1\. Prevention. Measures such as planning and zoning, open space
preservation, land development regulations, building codes, storm water
management, fire fuel reduction, soil erosion, and sediment control.

2\. Property Protection. Measures such as acquisition, relocation, storm
shutters, rebuilding, barriers, floodproofing, insurance, and structural
retrofits for high winds and earthquake hazards.

3\. Public Education and Awareness. Measures such as outreach projects,
real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, technical
assistance, and school age and adult education programs.

4\. Natural Resource Protection. Measures such as erosion and sediment
control, stream corridor protection, vegetative management, and wetlands
preservation.

5\. Emergency Services. Measures such as hazard threat recognition,
hazard warning systems, emergency response, protection of critical
facilities, and health and safety maintenance.

6\. Structural Projects. Measures such as dams, levees, seawalls,
bulkheads, revetments, high flow diversions, spillways, buttresses,
debris basins, retaining walls, channel modifications, storm sewers, and
retrofitted buildings and elevated roadways (seismic protection).

END READERS' TIP\]

2\. Tout the benefits of hazard mitigation and mitigation planning.

Many of the benefits of hazard mitigation planning are discussed in this
guide, including identifying cost-effective and technically feasible
mitigation measures that will reduce losses from future disasters;
building partnerships with sectors not previously involved; facilitating
funding priorities, especially following a disaster; and creating more
sustainable communities. Improved disaster resistance can also be used
to attract new businesses and residents, which results in an improvement
to the overall economy.

a\. Planning leads to judicious selection of risk reduction actions.
Hazard mitigation planning is the systematic process of learning about
the hazards that can affect your community or state; setting clear
goals; and identifying and implementing policies, programs, and actions
that reduce the effects of losses from future disasters. A hallmark of
the planning approach is the careful selection of these mitigation
activities through continued community participation and technical and
cost analyses.

\[READERS' TIP:

Summary of \"Benefits of Mitigation Planning\"

-   Leads to cost-effective selection of risk reduction actions

-   Builds partnerships

-   Contributes to sustainable communities

-   Establishes funding priorities

END READERS' TIP\]

\[STATE TIP:

States can provide guidance and can assist local communities in the
development of hazard mitigation plans. The states will be working with
FEMA to develop their own mitigation plans and will know what FEMA is
looking for to approve plans under DMA 2000. In turn, states will work
with their communities to help them produce a plan that will meet DMA
2000 criteria.

END STATE TIP\]

\[READERS' TIP:

Planning Reduces Losses and Facilitates Recovery

Most of the city of Kinston, North Carolina is located in the 50-year
floodplain and is extremely vulnerable to flooding. When Hurricane Floyd
hit in 1999, the city was still recovering from Hurricane Fran that hit
three years earlier. Fran inflicted major damage to the city and
prompted Kinston to undertake a new recovery strategy guided by two
objectives: to substantially or permanently reduce flood hazards in the
county and to revitalize existing neighborhoods and business
developments in a long-term effort to empower citizens to be
self-sufficient, and in the process, improve their quality of life. As
such, the city undertook an acquisition and relocation program to reduce
potential flooding losses from storms. Using federal and state funding,
the city had acquired approximately 100 houses before Hurricane Floyd
hit in 1999. Of these houses, 95% would have flooded and more than 75%
would have been substantially damaged. Estimates for property and
displacement losses exceeded \$6 million. The city\'s investment in this
program paid off. The city spent \$2.1 million on this program.

END READERS' TIP\]

b\. Planning builds partnerships. Hazard mitigation planning is one of
the best ways to enhance collaboration and gain support among the
parties whose interests might be affected by hazard losses. Working side
by side, a broad range of stakeholders can forge partnerships that pool
skills, expertise, and experience to achieve a common vision for the
community or state, helping to ensure that the most appropriate and
equitable mitigation projects are undertaken. The increased
collaboration may also reduce duplication of efforts that results when
stakeholders work in isolation. Hazard mitigation planning is most
successful when the public and elected officials support mitigation
programs and the identified mitigation actions support other community
goals and objectives.

\[READERS' TIP:

Planning Helps Solve Multiple Needs

There were only three unaffected houses available for purchase in the
\$40,000 to \$60,000 range in Louisa County in rural Iowa after terrible
flooding occurred in 1993. As the county has limited affordable housing
opportunities, instead of demolishing 175 flood-damaged homes and
temporarily displacing nearly 5% of the county\'s population, the county
partnered with the Muscatine Center for Social Action (MCSA) to address
the shortage of affordable housing. MCSA has a history of taking on
projects no one else is willing or able to do and, working with the
county, assumed responsibility for relocating the structurally sound
homes out of the floodplain and initiated an outreach campaign to find
potential buyers. The partnership provided a valuable service to the
residents and community by keeping the tax base within the county and
providing affordable and safe housing for county residents.

END READERS' TIP\]

c\. Planning contributes to sustainable communities. There has been an
increasing awareness in the last few years of the concept of
sustainability and its intrinsic link with natural and human-caused
hazard risk reduction. Sustainability is attained when decisions made by
the present generation do not reduce the options of future generations.
The present generation passes on to the next a natural, economic, and
social environment that will provide a continuing high quality of life.
An essential characteristic of a sustainable community is its resilience
to disasters. For more information, see *Planning for a Sustainable
Future: the Link Between Hazard Mitigation and Livability* (FEMA 364)
and *Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework*
(FEMA 365).

\[ADDITIONAL GLOSSARY INFORMATION:\]

A sustainable community considers the following issues when planning for
and with their citizens:

1\. Environmental quality and quality of life;

2\. Disaster resistance;

3\. Economic vitality and a fair legacy for future generations; and

4\. The impact of its actions and policies on adjacent jurisdictions as
well as the greater surrounding region and beyond.

END GLOSSARY INFORMATION\]

Using a planning approach to reduce hazard losses can facilitate the
incorporation of sustainable concepts in both pre- and post-disaster
timeframes. The mitigation planning process can support a more robust
and sustainable planning effort by assuring that land use planning and
development regulations guide development in directions that facilitate
many goals simultaneously.

\[READERS' TIP:

Planning Promotes Sustainability

One of the most widely recognized examples of the connection between
hazard mitigation and sustainability involves the acquisition of
flood-prone properties in low-income areas. In such areas, mitigation
projects can fail if adequate affordable housing cannot be provided for
those who are displaced. When emergency management, planning, and
affordable housing advocates coordinate their activities, the result is
newer, better, and safer housing for the affected residents. Some states
have been successful in using weatherization funds, provided by the U.S.
Department of Energy\'s Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) for
residential structures to retrofit homes against wind and flood damage,
thereby linking energy efficiency and disaster prevention. The result is
safer, more energy efficient homes.

An example of this collaboration is Valmeyer, Illinois. After the
Mississippi River flood of 1993, Valmeyer used funds from the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, to
incorporate sustainable technologies into the design and construction of
a new town out of the floodplain.

END READERS' TIP\]

Sustainable communities look for ways to combine policies, programs, and
design solutions to bring about multiple objectives and seek to address
and integrate social and environmental concerns. The planning process
can provide a framework within which state and local governments can
link sustainability and loss reduction to other goals.

For example, sustainable communities often emphasize open space planning
by promoting greenways, parks, and landscaping. Effective use of open
space can prevent development from encroaching into floodplains, active
fault zones, landslide areas, and other disaster-prone areas.

d\. Planning establishes funding priorities. Communities and states that
have up-to-date mitigation plans are better able to identify and
articulate their needs to state and federal officials when funding
becomes available, particularly following a disaster. Communities with
mitigation plans in place can often begin the recovery process more
quickly when a disaster occurs. Such communities can present projects as
an integral part of an overall, agreed-upon strategy, rather than as
projects that exist in isolation. Furthermore, by having established
priorities ahead of time, states and communities are better able to
identify technical and financial resources outside traditional venues.
To encourage planning, only those states and communities with approved
plans that meet the DMA 2000 criteria will be eligible to receive HMGP
funds for mitigation projects. Under the new regulations, states with
enhanced plans can receive funding under HMGP equal to 20% of the total
estimated Stafford Act disaster assistance (Individual and Public
Assistance), rather than the 15% traditionally allocated.

\[READERS' TIP:

Planning Facilitates Funding

In Texas, the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD), a division
of the Harris County Public Infrastructure Department, implements a
progressive and efficient Acquisition/Buyout Program during and between
flooding events. Funding for the HCFCD comes primarily from a dedicated
property tax, specifically an \"ad valorem\" tax. The HCFCD uses other
federal agencies as partners to augment funding, i.e., FEMA, US Army
Corps of Engineers, and Department of Housing and Urban Development. The
HCFCD allocates county and flood control funds for the purchase of homes
in the county\'s floodplain. It sets priorities and provides a ranking
for properties throughout the county that are vulnerable to flooding.
HCFCD maintains an extensive database of every property that has
flooded, including details on property location, floodplain location,
dates of events and inspections, damage amounts, permit information,
substantial damage information, and whether it was referred to a buyout
program. For example, after Tropical Storm Allison hit, FEMA, the HCFCD,
and the State of Texas created a \"fast track\" buyout process which
allowed over 200 houses to be bought in the first ten months after the
flooding. This ongoing planning allowed the HCFCD to quickly leverage
federal funding in the immediate aftermath of Tropical Storm Allison.

END READERS' TIP\]

Support for Planning

Elected officials tend to be more receptive to understanding the
benefits of hazard mitigation planning following a disaster. Many
officials, however, may not be aware of the vulnerabilities to hazards
if disasters have rarely occurred in your area. It is the officials\'
responsibility to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their
constituents, and, in fact, most building, zoning, and subdivision codes
and ordinances begin with such a preamble. Therefore, it is important
for you to be able to explain to state and local government decision
makers, private sector entities, citizens, universities, and nonprofit
organizations why they should support mitigation planning programs.
Equally important to discuss are the benefits they would derive from
such support, and the roles they can play to ensure the success of the
planning process.

To be successful, mitigation planning, just like all community planning,
requires collaboration between, and support from, federal, state, local,
and regional governments; citizens; the private sector; universities;
and non-profit organizations. Many of these entities have specific
statutory authorities; some have funding resources available, and some
can provide technical assistance to support mitigation efforts. Most
importantly, they all contribute toward ensuring that the planning
process results in practicable actions tailored to local needs and
circumstances.

1\. Support from local government.

Local governments are responsible for enacting and/or enforcing zoning
ordinances, land use plans, building codes, and other measures to
protect life and property. They are responsible for informing citizens
of the risks hazards pose to people, property, and the environment, and
the measures they can take to reduce losses from such risks.

Communities are the first to feel the effects of disasters; therefore,
local governments should do everything possible to protect their
citizens from hazard risks and ensure that their community complies with
federal and other regulations designed to reduce disaster costs. Local
governments are responsible for addressing hazard threats within the
community and for following a sound planning process for identifying and
selecting the best solution for the community. They are responsible for
ensuring that each citizen has an opportunity to provide input into the
development of local mitigation projects and activities, in the same
tradition as comprehensive planning for communities.

\[READERS' TIP:

Local Government Powers that Apply to Hazard Reduction

Planning. Although the degree of planning authority of a local
jurisdiction is determined by state legislation, all local governments
can use a planning process to educate, encourage participation, and
reach consensus on promoting hazard mitigation.

Regulatory Power. Local jurisdictions have the authority to regulate
land use development and construction through zoning, subdivision
regulations, design standards, and floodplain regulations (note: many
states have adopted statewide model building codes wherein the local
governments are not allowed to modify or change the code).

Spending Authority. The way in which local jurisdictions use public
funds can influence development in hazard areas. One fiscal management
tool that many communities embrace is the capital improvement program,
which is generally a 5-year plan for funding improvements to public
facilities.

Taxing Power. If the private sector seeks development in hazard areas,
special taxing districts can be created to balance more equitable and
appropriate public investments. Preferential assessments can also be
used as incentives to retain agricultural and open-space uses in high
hazard areas.

Acquisition. Local governments can acquire lands in high hazard areas
through conservation easements, purchase of development rights, or
outright purchase.

END READERS' TIP\]

2\. Support from state government.

State governments play a significant role in supporting mitigation
planning. States administer programs that provide assistance for
mitigation initiatives and act as the liaison between federal and local
governments for all phases of emergency management. In many states, the
Emergency Management Office is assigned these responsibilities. The SHMO
serves as the point of contact and coordinates all matters relating to
hazard mitigation planning and implementation. Planning departments,
environmental agencies, and natural resource agencies may share or
assist in these responsibilities.

The states ensure that local governments uphold federal regulations
intended to reduce losses due to hazards. To do this effectively, the
state should provide technical and/or financial resources to their local
governments to achieve common mitigation goals. States continuously
evaluate their own facilities and resource capabilities and produce and
maintain statewide mitigation plans based on their own priorities, and
on local needs and priorities. The state should educate and inform local
governments, businesses, and citizens about the hazards and risks within
the state, and should assist them in developing plans to reduce the
risk. The state\'s role in coordinating hazard mitigation planning has
become even more important with the passage of DMA 2000.

3\. Support from the federal government.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the lead federal
agency responsible for providing technical and financial assistance to
state and local governments for disaster mitigation planning and the
implementation of mitigation projects. FEMA also promotes mitigation
activities and programs among federal, state, and local governments, as
well as businesses, academic institutions, and non-profit organizations.
FEMA has been given the authority to implement the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000 (DMA 2000); however, other federal agencies implement
programs that may also provide support for mitigation goals, such as the
Department of Housing and Urban Development\'s Community Development
Block Grant program. Examples of federal assistance available for
mitigation are included on the FEMA CD, *Mitigation Resources for
Success* (FEMA 372), available through FEMA\'s publication warehouse.

4\. Support from the private sector.

Businesses and private organizations have much to gain by reducing their
risks to hazards, in terms of their own well-being, as well as
contributing to reducing risks in the community as a whole.
Historically, more than 25% of businesses never reopen after a disaster.
Even if a business is not physically damaged during a disaster, it
cannot operate if its employees cannot get to work, if water and
electricity are unavailable, or if customers fear safety hazards.

\[READERS' TIP:

The ability of businesses to recover after a flood, fire, earthquake, or
other disaster could be the difference between community survival and
failure. When a major company that employs a large percentage of a
community\'s population remains closed following a disaster, employees
may leave town or seek jobs elsewhere.

What happened in Elkins, West Virginia is just one example. The
Kingsford Manufacturing Company\'s charcoal production plant employs
more than 100 residents in this small town. \"The Kingsford plant is an
essential member of its local community, contributing over \$8.5 million
to the economy in direct impact including payroll, taxes, and purchases
of supplies, utilities, and raw materials from local lumber mills.
Additionally, the Kingsford plant\'s total economic impact on this
community is estimated annually at \$23 million.\" (*Protecting Business
Operation*s, FEMA 331.)

In November 1985, the plant sustained \$11 million in damage and 2
months of downtime when it received more than 7 feet of floodwaters.
After it was shut down twice in 1996 due to flooding, resulting in
another \$4 million in damages, the plant developed a mitigation
strategy to reduce its risk from future flood losses. The alternative of
moving the plant to another community out of the floodplain could have
spelled economic doom for Elkins.

END READERS' TIP\]

5\. Citizen support.

Citizens are ultimately responsible for their own safety and for
protecting their assets from damage by preparing for potential disasters
that could occur within their community. It is important that they find
out about local hazards and identify measures they can take to reduce
their impact on their homes and families. For example, the purchase of
insurance that will cover their risk from these hazards is one specific
approach. The larger issue of economic viability of the community is
also very important to citizens, so it is crucial to convey to citizens
how involvement in a mitigation planning process helps protect economic
assets from disaster losses.

6\. Support from academic institutions.

Academic institutions often have their own emergency response or
operations plans to ensure the safety of their faculty, staff, and
students. Often, however these institutions are unfamiliar with the
hazards that could threaten their facilities and have not identified
measures that can be taken to reduce their impact. Just as with private
sector entities, schools stand to sustain losses in disasters and can
gain much by supporting and participating in planning. In addition, they
can often provide valuable resources to the community, such as technical
expertise, facilities in which to host meetings, post-disaster services
and facilities, and student resources to assist in data gathering.

7\. Support from a champion.

Having a prominent and well-respected community business leader, elected
official, or agency head advocate for the initiation of the planning
process will help you enlist the support of other officials and
community leaders. This also increases the \"human\" aspect of loss
reduction by associating it with a recognizable personality.

\[STATE TIP:

Under DMA 2000, states have an opportunity to create enhanced state
mitigation plans that will demonstrate their mitigation capabilities and
can obtain up to an additional 5% in HMGP funding. States should also
ensure that communities know that post-disaster funding, such as the
HMGP, will only be awarded to communities with approved local mitigation
plans (refer to Interim Final Rule at 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206 published
in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002).

States that have an approved mitigation plan in place can still use up
to 7% of the HMGP funds for mitigation planning after a major disaster
declaration.

The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM), authorized by DMA 2000, can
provide pre-disaster funding to states, communities, and tribes for
cost-effective hazard mitigation activities that are identified in a
mitigation plan, and for planning itself.

END STATE TIP\]

8\. Capitalize on new regulations.

DMA 2000 and its implementing regulations provide significant
opportunities for states and local governments to strengthen mitigation
efforts through planning. Interim Final Regulations implementing DMA
2000 were published February 26, 2002. These regulations provide
guidelines for the planning process and the content of plans. According
to these regulations, states and communities must have approved plans in
place to receive HMGP funds. States must have approved plans in place to
receive any non-emergency Stafford Act funds.

*States and communities with existing mitigation plans are urged to
revise them to comply with the new DMA 2000 regulations.* In addition,
tying mitigation planning into other ongoing planning initiatives can
significantly streamline your planning efforts and build coalitions
across units of local government, the private sector, and your
community. Integrating mitigation planning with other efforts provides
the opportunity to draw from other plans, which enables hazard reduction
goals, objectives, and actions to align with other community goals,
values, and policies.

9\. Create support by expanding current planning initiatives to include
mitigation concepts, policies, and activities.

Some opportunities to increase support for mitigation activities may
include those shown below. Note that many of these opportunities are
best used after mitigation actions are identified in Phase 3 of the
planning process. However, knowing early on that you can use these tools
to further support planning can help lend momentum to early planning
efforts. In addition, these tools are efficient as implementing
mechanisms for mitigation actions identified in Phase 3 of the planning
process.

\[READERS' TIP:

Identify an upcoming opportunity for your community or state to initiate
planning for hazards. Recently experienced disasters may provide
increased awareness and concern for developing a mitigation plan. This
interest can act as a catalyst for structuring a successful mitigation
planning effort. Such catalysts do not necessarily have to reside in the
community itself. They can involve a high profile disaster elsewhere, a
recent hazards analysis study, a book or popular movie about a disaster,
or other activities that focus attention on hazards and risks.

END READERS' TIP\]

By examining various community plan documents, you may discover public
dissatisfaction or concern with issues or physical features that have
implications for hazard reduction. For example, citizens may be
concerned about a blighted downtown business district that also happens
to lie in the floodplain. By tapping into the existing momentum for this
issue, you can channel some of the same support into reducing losses in
that area.

a\. Comprehensive and other community-oriented planning activities. Not
all communities have comprehensive plans or are required to develop them
under state-enabling legislation, but all communities need to plan for
their future. Integrating mitigation concepts and policies into existing
plans provides expanded means for implementing initiatives via
well-established mechanisms. As comprehensive plans are reviewed and
updated, and after mitigation strategies are developed, mitigation
policies and activities should be incorporated into elements of the plan
such as economic development, transportation, recreation, historic
preservation, and housing. A natural hazards element may also be
desired. Planning for future land uses by considering hazard constraints
and opportunities, addressing environmental concerns, and incorporating
hazard reduction into capital improvements and infrastructure elements
are all potential mitigation opportunities.

\[READERS' TIP:

Disasters can affect your community\'s housing, economy, transportation,
cultural resources, and natural resources, which are all usually covered
in a comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan reflects what the
community would like to see happen in the future. The plan is carried
out through other local measures such as capital improvements, zoning,
and subdivision ordinances. The comprehensive plan can incorporate
mitigation strategies identified in the community\'s mitigation plan to
discourage new development in hazard-prone areas and encourage practices
that are consistent with the mitigation goals. Some mitigation
activities, such as the acquisition of land in high hazard areas, can
tie in with pre-existing community goals, such as preserving open space,
improving environmental quality and natural features, and enhancing
recreational opportunities.

END READERS' TIP\]

Some other special purpose community plans that can be used to help
support mitigation planning include:

-   Stormwater management plans: these plans describe actions to
    maintain system capacity to handle stormwater, which also provides
    flood mitigation benefits;

-   Open space and recreation plans: these plans target locations for
    open space and recreation areas where property acquisition or buyout
    programs in hazard areas can complement the planned improvements;

-   Redevelopment and housing plans: these plans identify areas where
    construction is occurring or will occur. Opportunities exist to
    incorporate mitigation techniques into retrofit activities and new
    construction, and to influence the location of redevelopment away
    from hazard areas; and

-   Transportation plans: these plans identify and prioritize road
    improvement projects where mitigation of transportation and utility
    systems can be incorporated.

\[READERS' TIP:

More information and resources regarding comprehensive plans, including
developing hazard elements, can be found on the American Planning
Association\'s Web site at www.planning.org. You may also contact your
local planner, regional planning agency, or state planning agency for
more information.

END READERS' TIP\]

b\. Capital improvement plans. State and local governments and private
organizations of any size have capital improvement plans for building
new facilities and replacing inadequate facilities. These plans could
incorporate mitigation principles into planned projects such as locating
new public buildings out of high hazard areas or sizing adequate
culverts to accommodate floodwaters. These plans could also include
provisions for upgrading replacement facilities using the latest
mitigation techniques; ensuring that new facilities are built to the
most current codes, standards, and specifications; and avoiding the
extension of public facilities in hazard areas.

c\. Floodplain remapping or updating. FEMA is currently in the process
of updating Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for approximately 3,300
communities. Over the next five to seven years, more than 2,700 new
digital maps of flood-prone communities that have never been mapped
before will also be included in this program. The new and updated
information that will be delineated on the maps is an important impetus
to either revise your existing mitigation and floodplain management
plans, or to create a new mitigation plan to address flood hazards.
Check with your local floodplain administrator or your state National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) coordinator to discuss the public
participation requirements of revising your FIRMs and how the flood
hazard will affect risk in your jurisdiction.

It is always important to revisit the mitigation plan every time a flood
map is revised, particularly if floodplains encompass developed areas.
For more information on FEMA\'s flood hazard mapping, or to find out if
your community is scheduled to be remapped, go to
http://www.fema.gov/mit/tsd/st_main.htm, or talk to your state NFIP
coordinator.

d\. Existing mitigation plans and other emergency management plans.
Communities and states should review existing mitigation plans and
update them to meet DMA 2000 requirements. However, planning does not
end with this update. It is important to understand that vulnerability
to hazards does change over time. Drainage patterns, shoreline erosion,
water levels, population demographics, and development patterns within
hazard areas are not constants. New research and an improved
understanding of hazards and the development of new mitigation
approaches will also require you to update your mitigation plan.
Finally, plans often have to be updated within an established timeframe
in order to be compliant with federal and state regulations. This update
provides an excellent opportunity to begin incorporating multi-hazard
mitigation principles into these plans. *Bringing the Plan to Life*
(FEMA 386-4) will address the plan maintenance and update processes.

\[READERS' CAUTION:

Do not assume that hazard elements in local, state, or other federal
plans required by state law automatically meet DMA 2000 requirements.
You should review any existing hazard elements against the Interim Final
Rule published in the Federal Register February 26, 2002 (44 CFR Parts
201 and 206) to determine compliance. Your SHMO can also help you.

END READERS' CAUTION\]

Emergency operations plans identify preparedness and response procedures
into which mitigation considerations could be incorporated to facilitate
post-disaster reconstruction and recovery. To keep plans up-to-date,
states and local governments must conduct real-life exercises based on
actual risk scenarios. Issues that emerge from post-disaster scenarios
often draw attention to pre-disaster mitigation activities that can be
undertaken now to prevent future disaster losses.

\[DMA NOTE:

After the initial approval, state mitigation plans must be reviewed,
updated, and submitted for re-approval by FEMA every three years. Local
mitigation plans must be reviewed, updated, and re-submitted to FEMA
every five years.

END DMA NOTE\]

FEMA can make available post-disaster mitigation and recovery exercises
for flood, earthquake, and hurricane disaster scenarios. Exercises
designed to assist communities in pre-disaster mitigation planning are
also being developed. Check with your FEMA regional office.

e\. Post-disaster recovery planning. Trying to organize and prioritize
projects in a post-disaster situation without a previously adopted
mitigation plan can be a disaster in its own right. Officials face
extraordinary pressure to immediately rebuild affected areas back to
pre-disaster conditions, eliminating the possibility of reducing losses
from future events. A mitigation plan that addresses post-disaster
issues before the event could help to take some of the pressure off
elected officials, and would provide a publicly supported reason for a
more sustainable redevelopment effort. See *Planning for Post-Disaster
Recovery and Reconstruction* for guidance, available from the FEMA
publications warehouse.

10\. Support from other programs.

a\. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) offers federally-backed
flood insurance to help reduce disaster losses from flooding. It
provides flood insurance to property owners for structures that
otherwise would be uninsurable because of their susceptibility to
flooding, in exchange for communities adopting and implementing
floodplain management regulations to minimize future flood losses to new
construction.

b\. The Community Rating System (CRS) is a program under NFIP that
recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities
that exceed the minimum NFIP standards. The CRS recognizes community
efforts beyond the NFIP minimum standards by reducing flood insurance
premiums from 5% to 45% for the community\'s property owners, depending
on the amount of public information and floodplain management activities
that the community undertakes. Communities receive credit under CRS for
developing a flood mitigation plan.

c\. The Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) is a program under the
NFIP that provides funding for states and communities for the
preparation of mitigation plans and for flood mitigation projects. Plans
required under FMA can serve as the basis of DMA 2000 plans, and can be
expanded using the criteria in the Interim Final Rule implementing DMA
2000.

d\. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM), authorized under DMA 2000,
provides for pre-disaster funding of mitigation planning and projects on
a competitive basis. An approved mitigation plan is required to receive
funding. Check with your FEMA regional office for latest information on
availability of funds.

See Table 1 (page xi) for planning requirements for the HMGP, PDM, FMA,
and CRS programs.

Planning resources

There are three primary types of resources that will facilitate your
planning efforts: technical, financial, and human.

1\. Technical resources for mitigation planning include professional
advice on matters related to economics, science, engineering, mapping,
and planning, as well as procedural information. In mitigation planning,
expertise on this wide array of topics is often needed in order to have
enough information to make determinations as to project type and
priority. Not all of this expertise is needed in the beginning stage of
planning. However, you should note when you feel you will need to obtain
such assistance and where you might obtain such assistance. Technical
resources also include data necessary to complete risk assessments or
make project decisions.

\[READERS' NOTE:

FEMA\'s *Mitigation Resources for Success* CD (FEMA 372) features a
variety of technical, case study, and federal program information that
will help build support and provide resources for undertaking hazard
mitigation activities and programs. You will find useful information,
publications, technical fact sheets, photographs, case studies, and
federal and state mitigation program information and contacts. The vast
array of documents and photographs are available for exporting to other
documents, Web sites, and publications, and for use in educational and
training presentations. To obtain a copy, call the FEMA publications
warehouse at 1-800-480-2520.

END READERS' NOTE\]

2\. Financial resources are critical for implementing most projects, as
well as for securing the technical resources discussed above. In
addition to the \"traditional\" FEMA funding programs, you should seek
out community, state, and other federal agency funding sources from
programs with missions related to the type of mitigation activity being
pursued. For example, funding for mitigation of transportation
facilities should also be sought from transportation programs. Financial
resources for planning will be summarized in this section.

3\. Human resources. In addition to private citizens, employers,
industries, and organizations can provide the staff and expertise
necessary to conduct a meaningful planning process.

1\. Technical resources.

These include existing planning, engineering, and scientific resources
on staff, GIS, local universities and colleges, and regional planning
associations. States often have staff devoted to technical matters
within the state, such as the State Geologist and State Climatologist.
Program staff such as the State Hurricane Program Manager and State
Earthquake Program Manager can also provide technical assistance.

Local and state higher education institutions can often be excellent
sources of student and faculty expertise and data. In addition, the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) provides technical
materials to the 45 states and territories that have earthquake program
managers. Some technical assistance is provided through the National
Earthquake Technical Assistance Program (NETAP) sponsored by FEMA.

2\. Financial resources.

*Pre-Disaster Programs*

-   The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM), authorized by DMA 2000,
    can provide funding to states, communities, and tribes for
    cost-effective hazard mitigation planning activities that complement
    a comprehensive mitigation program and reduce injuries, loss of
    life, and damage and destruction of property before a disaster
    strikes. Check with your FEMA regional office on the status of
    funding.

-   The Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) provides funding to
    assist states and communities in implementing measures to reduce or
    eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to buildings,
    manufactured homes, and other insurable structures. The three types
    of grants available through FMA are planning, project, and technical
    assistance grants. Only communities that participate in the National
    Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) can apply for project and technical
    assistance grants. Planning grants are to be used by states and
    communities to prepare flood mitigation plans, with a focus on
    repetitive loss properties. Currently, funding for FMA is provided
    through the NFIP and is funded at \$20 million annually.

*Post-Disaster Programs*

-   The Stafford Act (Public Law 100-107, as amended) authorizes funding
    for all federal disaster-related assistance in place today.

\[DMA NOTE:

How the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) Relates to the
Stafford Act

The Stafford Act authorizes federal assistance after the President
determines that a disaster has overwhelmed state and local resources.
FEMA and other agencies administer most Stafford Act assistance, which
includes such things as:

-   Provision of temporary housing assistance, including vouchers, minor
    repairs to homes, and the use of mobile homes;

-   Repair, reconstruction or replacement of public facilities;

-   Aid for individuals and families through grants for personal,
    uninsured emergency needs;

-   Clearance of debris;

-   Access to counseling and legal services; and

-   Funding for mitigation grants.

Although the Stafford Act does provide some funding for mitigation
initiatives, mainly through its Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP),
it is geared towards helping communities and victims respond and recover
after a disaster has occurred.

The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) amends the existing
Stafford Act. These amendments authorize the President to provide grants
to state and local governments for pre-disaster mitigation activities,
delineate criteria to be used in awarding such grants, and define
mitigation planning requirements that state and local governments must
meet before receiving additional funding. If state and local governments
meet these criteria and get their plan approved by FEMA, they are
eligible to receive increased funding under HMGP, which is implemented
under Section 404 of the Stafford Act.

DMA 2000 shifts federal emergency management policy away from a reactive
\"response and recovery\" emphasis. Emphasis is now placed on
identifying hazards before they occur, preventing future losses, and
minimizing the impact of disasters.

END DMA NOTE\]

-   The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), authorized by Section
    404 of the Stafford Act, provides grants to state, local, and tribal
    governments (up to 15% of the FEMA disaster funds they receive) to
    implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major
    disaster declaration.

-   The Assistance to Individuals and Households Grant Program is
    authorized by Section 411 of the Stafford Act and authorizes grants
    to be used for mitigation measures to cover serious unmet,
    disaster-related real property losses.

-   The Public Assistance Program (PA) is authorized under Section 406
    of the Stafford Act. This program provides funding, following a
    disaster declaration, for the repair, restoration, or replacement of
    damaged facilities belonging to governments and to private nonprofit
    entities, and for other associated expenses, including emergency
    protective measures and debris removal. The program also funds
    mitigation measures related to the repair of damaged public
    facilities.

\[READERS' TIP:

Start identifying funding resources to support the planning process.
Many grants can help pay for creating the plan, while others can help
pay for the activities themselves. There are many federal agencies that
offer grants and technical assistance for general planning that may be
used towards mitigation planning. Some states and local governments hire
or task an individual to track down different grants that may be
available. A few states have automated computer systems to help local
governments locate funding for mitigation projects. Planning initiatives
almost always gain more support from local officials if there is a
potential for grant money from an outside source that can help pay for
cost-effective actions that result from the plan. Numerous resources are
available to local governments to help fund mitigation efforts. The need
for outside funding sources reinforces the need to look at
multi-objective planning. Some funding sources are not specifically
designated for hazard mitigation planning, but can be used for that if
it accomplishes the specified goal in tandem with hazard mitigation. An
example of approaching mitigation planning in a multi-objective context
is a community that wants to bury its power lines to reduce wind-related
damages. This community might be able to tap into blight-reduction
grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (as power
lines are usually seen as unsightly and can detract from the
community\'s character). Refer to the *Mitigation Resources for Success*
CD (FEMA 372) for other federal programs.

END READERS' TIP\]

3\. Human resources.

These include the community\'s citizens, businesses, and association
leaders who want to be involved in the planning process.

\[READERS' TIP:

Check with your State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) for technical
assistance and sources of funding for planning. In addition, consult
with the SHMO for planning guidance and to get the most up-to-date
requirements.

END READERS' TIP\]

In addition to the staff it brings, private sector participation can
also lead to financial and in-kind resources. Citizens with expertise in
areas such as survey techniques, fundraising, public relations, and
other technical subjects can be valuable to the planning team. For
additional guidance on planning resources, see *Securing Resources for
Mitigation Planning* (FEMA 386-9).

\[STATE TIP:

The state should assist local jurisdictions in identifying funding for
mitigation planning or to fund mitigation measures.

\[END STATE TIP\]

\[Exhibit -- Hazardville Post\]

The Hazardville Post Vol. CXI No. 100 Thursday, February 25, 2002

Mayor Challenges Town to Reduce Disaster Costs

\[Hazardville, EM\] In an attempt to follow through on his commitment to
make Hazardville a safer place to live, work, and do business, Mayor
McDonald has appointed Joe Norris, the Planning Department Director, to
head a hazard mitigation steering committee. To assist him with these
efforts, the City Council has appointed to the committee David Waters,
Hazardville\'s Floodplain Manager, Wendy Soot, Hazardville\'s Fire
Marshall, Mary Tremble, Director of Hazardville\'s Emergency Management
Agency, and Rita Booke, head of the local Citizens for Action group.

Mr. Waters, Hazardville\'s Floodplain Manager, is excited about the
opportunity to work with Mr. Norris to integrate all of the Town\'s
plans together. \"It certainly is long overdue that Hazardville begins
to take a comprehensive approach to deal with our hazards. We are a
small town that seems to be repeatedly plagued by problems brought on by
floods and landslides. In addition, I understand there is a substantial
risk for a major earthquake in the region,\" said Mr. Waters.

Mr. Waters finds that by getting many of the local business members
together, he is able enlist their help and build partnerships that will
help Hazardville become a safer place to live and work. He has asked Jim
Snow, owner of Snow\'s Snowplows and a local business leader, to
research efforts to gain outside support in the form of grants and local
monetary resources. Jim explains, \"Grants will help cover the
activities necessary to implement the plan. Getting this committee
together to develop a plan will help save more of our tax dollars in the
long run. It will help our town become more efficient at dealing with
risks, and will save things from being destroyed.\"

Disasters can affect our community's economy, housing, transportation,
cultural resources, and natural resources. These elements are all part
of the bigger picture. Ms. Tremble, Director of Hazardville\'s Emergency
Management Agency, sees that as a member of the hazard mitigation
planning team, she can help update the existing emergency management
plan by reviewing and focusing on the recent disasters and the
community\'s vulnerabilities to hazards, and by ensuring that the plan
is compliant with federal and state regulations and plans.

Mayor McDonald commented in the interview, \"We need to think on a more
regional scale. When a disaster occurs, there are no boundary lines
stating how far a flood can reach or how much damage an earthquake can
cause for a community or communities. Some flooding problems are
multi-jurisdictional, and therefore, I have asked the Hazardville
planning team to consider working closely on this mitigation planning
effort with our neighbors to the north, Soppytown, to deal with the
flooding and watershed issues in a coordinated manner.\" At the time of
press, no response was forthcoming from Soppytown\'s Mayor Smith. If you
are interested in becoming involved in the plan, please call the
Planning Department at 888-777-6666.

\[Diagram showing the movement from step1 to step 2 to step 3, with step
2 enlarged\]