STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING
HOW-TO GUIDE NUMBER SIX

FEMA 386-6

INTEGRATING HISTORIC PROPERTY AND CULTURAL 
RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS INTO HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING

Prepared for Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street, SW
Washington, DC 20472

May 2005

[CONTENTS:

Foreword
Introduction
Phase 1: Organize Resources
Phase 2: Assess Risks
Phase 3: Develop a Mitigation Plan
Phase 4: Special Implementation Considerations
Afterword
Appendix A  Glossary
Appendix B  Library
Appendix C  Worksheets
Appendix D  Answers to Review Tests
END CONTENTS]

FOREWORD

The hazard mitigation planning process

Hazard mitigation planning is the process of determining how to reduce or eliminate the 
loss of life and property damage resulting from natural and manmade hazards. As 
shown in this diagram, the hazard mitigation process consists of four basic phases.
For illustration purposes, this diagram portrays a process that appears to proceed 
sequentially. However, the mitigation planning process is rarely a linear process. It is not 
unusual that ideas developed while assessing risks should need revision and additional 
information while developing the mitigation plan, or that implementing the plan may 
result in new goals or additional risk assessment.

[GRAPHIC: DIAGRAM DISPLAYING THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING 
PROCESS: MOVEMENT FROM ORGANIZE RESOURCES TO ASSESS RISK TO 
DEVELOP A MITIGATION PLAN TO IMPLEMENT THE PLAN AND MONITOR 
PROGRESS.

Organize Resources: From the start, communities should focus on the resources 
needed for a successful mitigation planning process. Essential steps include identifying 
and organizing interested members of the community as well as the technical expertise 
required during the planning process.

Assess Risks: Next, communities need to identify the characteristics and potential 
consequences of hazards. It is important to understand how much of the community can 
be affected by specific hazards and what the impacts would be on important community 
assets.

Develop a Mitigation Plan: Armed with an understanding of the risks posed by hazards, 
communities need to determine what their priorities should be and then look at possible 
ways to avoid or minimize the undesired effects. The result is a hazard mitigation plan 
and strategy for implementation.

Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress: Communities can bring the plan to life in a 
variety of ways ranging from implementing specific mitigation projects to changes in the 
day-to-day operation of the local government. To ensure the success of an ongoing 
program, it is critical that the plan remains relevant. Thus, it is important to conduct 
periodic evaluations and make revisions as needed. 
END GRAPHIC]

[GLOSSARY SIDEBAR: 
mit-i-gate\ 1: to cause to become less harsh or hostile; 2: to make less severe or painful. 
plan-ning\: the act or process of making or carrying out plans; specif: the establishment of 
goals, policies, and procedures for a social or economic unit. 
END SIDEBAR]

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed a series of 
mitigation planning how-to guides for the purpose of assisting Tribes, States, and local 
governments in developing effective hazard mitigation planning processes. The material 
presented in these guides is intended to address the needs of both large and small 
communities with varying degrees of technical expertise and financial reserves.
The topic area for this guide is Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource 
Considerations into Hazard Mitigation Planning. 
Other guides that have been developed by FEMA as part of the how-to series include: 

Getting started with the mitigation planning process, including important 
considerations for how you can organize your efforts to develop an effective 
mitigation plan (FEMA 386-1);

Identifying hazards and assessing losses to your community, State, or Tribe (FEMA 
386-2);

Setting mitigation priorities and goals for your community, State, or Tribe and writing 
the plan (FEMA 386-3); and

Implementing the mitigation plan, including project funding and maintaining a 
dynamic plan that changes to meet new developments (FEMA 386-4).

These four guides are commonly referred to as the core four as they provide a broad 
overview of the core elements associated with hazard mitigation planning. In addition to 
these core four, FEMA has developed a series of supplementary how-to guides that 
are to be used in conjunction with the core four and address the following special topic 
areas: 

Evaluating potential mitigation actions through the use of benefit-cost review (FEMA 
386-5);

Incorporating special considerations into hazard mitigation planning for historic 
properties and cultural resources, the topic of this how-to guide (FEMA 386-6);

Incorporating mitigation considerations for manmade hazards into hazard mitigation 
planning (FEMA 386-7);

Using multi-jurisdictional approaches to mitigation planning (FEMA 386-8); and 

Finding and securing technical and financial resources for mitigation planning (FEMA 
386-9).

Why should you take the time to read these guides?

It is more cost-effective to assess potential effects from a disaster and to implement 
preventative measures than to wait for a disaster to strike and then assess actual 
impacts;

State and Federal aid is usually insufficient to cover the full extent of physical and 
economic damages resulting from disasters;

A surprising amount of disaster damage can be prevented if you understand where 
and how these phenomena occur; and

The impacts of both natural and manmade hazards can be reduced; response and 
recovery rates can be increased.

In addition, Tribes, States, and local communities are required to have FEMA-approved 
hazard mitigation plans in place to qualify for various FEMA grant programs, including 
the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation 
Competitive Grant Program (PDM-C). 

[DMA SIDEBAR: Focus on Preparedness
Because of the increasingly devastating effects of natural disasters and the growing 
threats of manmade damages associated with terrorism, emergency personnel across the 
United States have increased their efforts to better protect their communities. This 
increased emphasis on pre-disaster planning and preparedness is a direct outgrowth of 
the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390 [DMA 2000]), which amended the Robert 
T. Stafford Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. 
DMA 2000 continues the requirement for a State mitigation plan as a condition of disaster 
assistance, while new language requires that Tribes and local jurisdictions now have a 
plan to be eligible for disaster assistance. Tribes can choose to follow the State planning 
requirements if they wish to be grantees for FEMA funding programs or the local planning 
requirements if they wish to apply for disaster funds through the State as subgrantees. 
Additionally, the new language emphasizes the need for Tribal, State, and local 
jurisdictions to closely coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. 
Incentives to assist in the development of plans are also provided. 
DMA also emphasizes coordination among agencies and public participation, important 
components of the hazard mitigation planning process. To this end, collaboration among 
Federal, Tribal, State, regional, and local agencies is critical to reducing disaster-related 
damage to historic properties and cultural resources and ensuring that communities can 
not only survive, but also thrive.
The integration of historic properties and cultural resources into comprehensive mitigation 
planning is critical to the spirit and intent of DMA 2000. Planning for historic properties and 
cultural resources within existing programs and policies can enhance a jurisdictions ability 
to understand and document its vulnerability to natural and manmade hazards. 
END SIDEBAR]

Who is the audience for this how-to guide? 

This guide is designed for all practitioners involved in creating a hazard mitigation plan 
(e.g., planners and emergency managers). Why should planners and emergency 
managers consider historic properties and cultural resources? Because after a disaster, 
these resources special status as designated landmarks may complicate recovery 
efforts. However, these resources may also be assets that can help in creating mitigation 
plans with multiple community benefits. 

This guide will be of value to citizens who love their communities and want to protect 
their historic and cultural assets. The guide will outline specific steps for how 
communities can harness their knowledge, talent, and energy to create a secure future 
for historic resources. 

What are the benefits of hazard mitigation planning?
The goal of the how-to guides is not only to teach the mechanics of mitigation planning 
but also to demonstrate the real-world benefits of mitigation planning:

Your community can become more sustainable and disaster-resistant through 
selecting the most appropriate mitigation actions, based on the knowledge you gain 
in the hazard identification and risk assessment process;

You will be able to focus your efforts on the hazard areas most important to you by 
determining and setting priorities for mitigation planning efforts; and

You can save money by providing a forum for engaging in partnerships that could 
provide technical, financial, and/or staff resources in your effort to reduce the effects, 
and hence the costs, of natural and manmade hazards.

These guides provide a range of approaches to preparing a hazard mitigation plan. 
While there is no one right planning process, there are several elements that are 
common to all successful planning endeavors, such as engaging citizens, developing 
goals and objectives, and monitoring progress. Select the approach that works best in 
your Tribe, State, or community.

[TIP SIDEBAR: The Goals of this Guide
This special-topic guide, Incorporating Historic Property and Cultural Resource 
Considerations Into Hazard Mitigation Planning, will provide information and assistance to 
Tribes, States, and local governments on how to integrate historic preservation planning 
considerations into the hazard mitigation planning process to protect important historic 
properties and cultural resources from natural and manmade hazards. This guide will help 
your jurisdiction accomplish the following:

Identify and pull together resources that enhance the planning teams capability for 
incorporating historic property and cultural resource considerations into the hazard 
mitigation plan;

Determine which historic properties and cultural resources are likely to be damaged in 
a disaster and prioritize those most important for protection;

Evaluate potential hazard mitigation actions for historic properties and cultural 
resources through the use of benefit-cost analysis and other decision-making tools; 
and

Develop and implement a hazard mitigation plan that addresses historic properties 
and cultural resources.

Because each of the four mitigation planning phases is covered comprehensively in its 
own how-to guide, references to other publications in the series are often used in lieu of 
full explanations of a process or activity. Furthermore, this guide is intended as a general 
guidance tool for the broad audiences that are likely to comprise Tribal, State, and local 
mitigation planning teams, including government agencies, community interest groups, 
and cultural organizations.
END SIDEBAR]

INTRODUCTION

Although a new and evolving concept, the importance of integrating historic property and 
cultural resource considerations into mitigation planning has been made all too apparent 
in disasters that have occurred in recent years, such as the Northridge earthquake in 
California, or the Midwest floods. The effects of a disaster can be wide-rangingfrom 
human casualty to property damage to the disruption of governmental, social, and 
economic activity. Often not considered, however, are the potentially devastating effects 
of disasters on historic properties and cultural resources. Historic buildings and 
structures, artwork, monuments, family heirlooms, and historic documents are often 
irreplaceable, and may be lost forever in a disaster if not considered in the mitigation 
planning process. The loss of these resources is all the more painful and ironic 
considering how often residents rely on their presence after a disaster, to reinforce 
connections with neighbors and the larger community, and to seek comfort in the 
aftermath of a disaster.

[TIP SIDEBAR: Plan to Protect
Sometimes residents dont recognize how important their historic properties are until they 
are gone. When disaster strikes a communitys historic downtown, the identity and 
economic vitality of the community can be wiped out in a single blow. Pierce City, 
Missouri, offers a poignant example. On May 4, 2003, tornadoes tore through Pierce City, 
a community of 1,800, destroying approximately 100 homes and close to 40 percent of the 
downtown businesses, including historic buildings that were more than a century old. 
Quotes from residents, contained in a newsletter from the American Red Cross, provided 
some insight into the devastation wrought: 
While most of the town survived, its heart has been damaged.
Our beautiful little town has been destroyed. Antique stores and boutiques occupied 
most of the downtown historic buildings. They have been reduced to piles of rubble. The 
National Guard Armory, where many fled to take shelter, collapsed on them. 
It was the prettiest little town in Missouri, but now its all gone, all the history, all its 
charactereverything.

[GRAPHIC: PHOTO OF A ROW OF DAMAGED BUILDINGS.
CAPTION: In the wake of a series of tornadoes, many of Pierce City, Missouris commercial 
historic buildings were heavily damaged.
END GRAPHIC]
END SIDEBAR]

Historic properties and cultural resources are also valuable economic assets that 
increase property values and attract businesses and tourists. Far from being at odds 
with economic development, preservation of these assets is often an important catalyst 
for economic development (e.g., historic downtown revitalization programs leading to 
growth in heritage tourism). 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Yesterdays Architecture, Tomorrows Economy 
The following are just a few examples of how historic preservation provides significant 
economic benefit:

In Virginia, according to the Mosby Heritage Area Web site, Statewide reports indicate 
that every million dollars spent rehabilitating historic buildings in Virginia generates 15.6 
construction jobs, 14.2 jobs in other sectors of the economy, and $779,800 in household 
earnings. That means that every million dollars spent on restoration in Virginia creates 3.4 
more jobs and adds $53,500 more to local household incomes than the same amount 
spent on new construction. See http://www.mosbyheritagearea.org/Report/renovate.html. 
In Richmond, property assessments in the Shockoe Slip historic district, an old residential 
neighborhood changing over to residential and commercial uses, increased 245% 
between 1980 and 1990, while the rate in the city as a whole was just 8.9% (according to 
The Importance of Historic Preservation in Downtown Richmond: Shockoe Ship Area, a 
Case Study, 1991). 

The Virginia Tourism Corporation reports that visitors to historic homes stay an average of 
3.6 nights and spend $497 per trip, while Civil War buffs following a car route tend to stay 
4.1 nights and spend $547. The average pleasure visitor to Virginia stays 2.0 nights and 
spends an average of $249 per trip.

In Florida, the last three decades have witnessed the development of many historic 
preservation programs that have encouraged economic growth. According to Economic 
Impacts of Historic Preservation in Florida (available online from the Florida Department of 
State, Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of Historic Preservation 
(http://www.flheritage.com/files/economic_impact.pdf), the economic impact of historic 
preservation is $4.2 billion annually, including the following in 2000 alone: 

More than 123,000 jobs were generated in Florida from historic preservation activities; 

More than $657 million in State and local taxes were generated from spending on 
historic preservation activities with $317 million in income; and

More than $3.7 billion was spent in Florida by tourists who visited historic sites. 

In Georgia, according to Profiting from the Past: the Economic Impact of Historic 
Preservation in Georgia, the rehabilitation of historic properties from 1992 through 1996 
created 7,550 jobs and $201 million in earnings wages for workers and profits for local 
businesses. In 1996, tourists spent over $453 million on historic-related leisure activities, 
more money than they spent on evening entertainment, cultural events, or general sight-
seeing activities. On average, heritage travelers stay almost two nights longer than other 
travelers.
END SIDEBAR]

Historic preservation planning allows for the protection of historic properties and cultural 
resources before they are threatened with demolition or alteration. Hazard mitigation 
planning allows for the protection of life and property from damage caused by natural 
and manmade hazards. Integrating these two planning processes will help to ensure the 
future growth of safe and sustainable historic communities. 

[GLOSSARY SIDEBAR: Key Terminology
Historic preservation
The process of identifying, evaluating, protecting, preserving, and using historic properties 
as a living part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of 
orientation to the American people (preamble of the National Historic Preservation Act 
[NHPA]). 

Historic preservation is a field that allows communities to preserve a sense of place, a 
unique identity, and a link to the past. It is an important tool not only for educating 
residents and visitors about the history of a place, but it can also help maintain community 
pride and a sense of belonging. 

The historic preservation movement began as a reaction to the destruction of important 
historic properties. Similarly, the emergency management movement began as a reaction 
to the devastating effect of natural disasters. Over time, both fields have evolved in a 
similar manner. Today both movements are more proactive and planning-oriented, and 
focus on prevention.

Historic property
Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible 
for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) maintained by 
the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are 
related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional 
religions and cultural importance to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and 
that meet the National Register criteria. (Source: 36 CFR Part 800.16 [I][1].)

Cultural resources
Non-living examples of objects acquired and preserved because of their potential value as 
examples, as reference material, or as objects of artistic, historic, scientific, educational, or 
social importance, either individually or as a collection. 
Cultural resources include moveable heritage, such as collections of artifacts, statuary, 
artwork, and important documents or repositories. Often housed in libraries, museums, 
archives, historical repositories, or historic properties, these resources range from three-
dimensional examples such as sculptures, historic furnishings, family heirlooms, or 
textiles, to two-dimensional examples such as family records, written history or 
memorabilia, old photographs and maps, and other archival materials. 
END SIDEBAR]

How do you use this and the other how-to guides?
Information from the core four guides (i.e., the first four guides in the how-to series that 
cover the four phases of the hazard mitigation planning process) has been summarized 
or adapted as it applies to historic properties and cultural resources. This guide, 
therefore, is to be used in conjunction with the core four guides.

[GRAPHIC: DIAGRAM SHOWING FOUR PHASES OF THE HAZARD MITIGATION 
PLANNING PROCESS.
1. Organize resources; an arrow points to
2. Assess risks; an arrow points to
3. Develop a mitigation plan; an arrow points to
4. Implement the plan and monitor progress; arrows point to each of the first three phases.
END GRAPHIC]

The planning process for each community or jurisdiction is unique as each area will 
experience growth and change in a variety of ways. As a result, the step-by-step 
sequence outlined in this guide should be tailored to meet the needs of each jurisdiction. 
It should, however, be noted that the process illustrated in this guide is based on certain 
steps associated with successful planning processes. 

Types of Information Found in the How-to Series 
This guide, as well as the other guides in the how-to series, contains a wide variety of 
information, as explained below. 

Evaluate Your Community and Test Your Knowledge
Evaluation tests are included to help you assess your jurisdictions current planning 
process. In addition, the questions under Test Your Knowledge are designed to assess 
your comprehension and understanding of the material covered in the guide. 

Icons
In order to aid the reader, the how-to series has developed a system of icons that should 
be used to interpret information contained in the sidebars. Specific icons are the 
following: 
The Caution icon contains important information for avoiding common pitfalls that can 
lead to unsuccessful planning processes. 

The DMA icon provides information relating to the hazard mitigation planning 
requirements outlined in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) regulations. 

The Glossary icon identifies terms and concepts for which a detailed explanation is 
provided in Appendix A, Glossary.

The States icon identifies guidance focused solely on the role of the State. Although 
much of the information will be the same for Tribal, State, and local governments, there 
are different requirements under DMA 2000 for Tribal, State, and local hazard mitigation 
plans. If a Tribe chooses to prepare a DMA 2000 State plan to be eligible for funding as 
a grantee, it should pay special attention to the States icon. Furthermore, States have 
additional responsibilities to assist local jurisdictions and Tribes in their planning efforts.  

The Tips icon includes case studies and helpful hints that can be used in the planning 
process. 

Library
A mitigation planning Library has been included in Appendix B. The library has a 
wealth of information, including Web addresses, reference sources, and other useful 
reference materials. All of the Web sites and references listed in the how-to guide are 
included in the Library.

Worksheets
Finally, to help track progress, worksheets have been developed to accompany activities 
in the guide. Blank worksheets are included in Appendix C, Worksheets. You can 
duplicate the blank forms in Appendix C and use them to organize your work as you 
implement the hazard mitigation planning process.
The remaining sections of this guide cover Phases 1 through 4 of the hazard mitigation 
planning process as they apply to historic properties and cultural resources.

PHASE 1 - ORGANIZE RESOURCES 

[GRAPHIC: DIAGRAM SHOWING THE FOUR PHASES OF THE PLANNING PROCESS 
WITH PHASE 1 AND ITS 3 STEPS HIGHLIGHTED.

Mitigation Planning Process
1.	Organize Resources
	Assess community support
	Build the planning team
	Engage the public
2.	Assess Risks
3.	Develop a Mitigation Plan
4.	Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress

END GRAPHIC]

Overview

Organizing resources to consider historic properties and cultural resources in the hazard 
mitigation planning process involves identifying and assembling the necessary technical 
information, funding, staff, and political and public support. The process cannot progressmuch 
less succeedwithout the marshaling of these resources.
The three steps discussed in this section to integrate historic properties and cultural resources 
into the hazard mitigation plan supplement the guidance provided in FEMA 386-1: Getting 
Started: Building Support for Mitigation Planning. These steps are described below: 

Step 1 	This step entails assessing the level of awareness and support for protecting 
these assets. This step also involves identifying resources for hazard mitigation 
related to historic properties and cultural resources. 

Step 2	This step focuses on identifying and recruiting historic preservation and cultural 
resource experts to join the planning team, should such expertise not already be 
represented by the core planning team members. 

Step 3	This section offers advice and provides useful tips on how to effectively engage 
the public during key points in the hazard mitigation planning process. 

At the completion of this phase, you should have a clear sense of the communitys level of 
support for historic preservation. In addition, you should have identified available sources of 
information, team members should have been recruited, and a public outreach campaign should 
have been developed. 

Step 1

Assess Community Support

Before proceeding with Step 1, it is important for your planning team to first develop a broad 
definition of historic properties and cultural resources. As the planning effort includes input from 
a broad cross-section of community members, varying definitions for what constitutes a historic 
property/cultural resource may be encountered (see Appendix A  Glossary). Your planning 
team can refine the broad definition as you receive this input. Once agreement on the definition 
has been reached, it should form the basis for identifying the properties and resources that will 
be assessed in Phase 2.

As the planning team determines the readiness of the community to undertake the hazard 
mitigation planning process, it is important to assess the level of knowledge, support, and 
resources available for carrying out hazard mitigation efforts for historic properties and cultural 
resources. If it is determined that public officials and citizens do not consider it important to 
address historic properties and cultural resources in the hazard mitigation plan, then activities 
suggested in Step 1, Task C in FEMA 386-1: Getting Started: Building Support for Mitigation 
Planning should be reviewed in an effort to raise awareness and build support for overcoming 
obstacles. 

Assessing Community Awareness of Historic Properties and Cultural Resources 

Which members of the community will most benefit from mitigation actions? 

Who in the community may resist and why? 

Is there a historic preservation office or department in your community? Is there staff with 
historic preservation capabilities with whom you can collaborate?

Is there an existing historic preservation plan in the community, State, or Tribe?

If there is a comprehensive plan, does it contain a historic preservation or conservation 
element?

[GRAPHIC: TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, ONE SHOWING THE OUTSIDE OF A SMALL LOG 
BUILDING, THE OTHER SHOWING THE INSIDE WITH ITS TWO ROWS OF DESKS.
CAPTION: Significant historic properties sometimes have a simple design, such as this typical 
frontier school house built in 1910 in South Pass City, Fremont County, Wyoming.
END GRAPHIC]

The following methods can be used to obtain answers to these key questions:

Conduct interviews with local officials and citizens;

Examine local newspapers;

Participate in community meetings;

Visit local historical societies, museums, and architectural review boards; and

Develop and distribute questionnaires/surveys.

In addition, if a community contains a locally designated historic district or one that is listed in 
the National Register, it is more likely than not that many residents will already be conversant 
with preservation issues and appreciate the importance of protecting historic properties and 
cultural resources from disasters. In such areas, local historical societies, neighborhood groups, 
and individual advocates may already be promoting the preservation of historic properties.

[GLOSSARY SIDEBAR: National Register of Historic Places
With the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in 1966, the National 
Register became the Federal governments official list of historic properties that have met certain 
evaluation criteria (see Criteria for Evaluation in Appendix A  Glossary) and are legally 
recognized as historically significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, 
and culture. Both Federal and State agencies are involved in the maintenance and expansion of 
the National Register, which is administered by the Secretary of the Interior under authority of 
Section 101(a)(1)(A) of the NHPA and the National Park Service (NPS). Properties are usually 
listed through a process managed by State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) or Tribal 
Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs). Typically, these properties are at least 50 years old and 
demonstrate a degree of integrity of historic materials sufficient to convey important historic 
information.

In its broadest sense, the National Register is a planning tool that highlights the importance of 
properties worthy of preservation due to their local, State, Tribal, or national significance. The 
listing currently contains information on more than 77,000 formally listed properties.
Many types of properties can be considered historic. These include:

Buildingsincluding residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural constructs;

Structuressuch as dams, bridges, canals, tunnels, or bandstands;

Objectssuch as signs, monuments, markers, or statuary;

Sitessuch as gardens, estate grounds, battlefields, landscapes, and archeological sites; and

Districtssuch as neighborhoods, commercial areas, or college campuses. Sometimes a 
listing is made for a grouping of buildings that lack individual distinction but together have been 
judged to be significant.
END SIDEBAR]

[CAUTION SIDEBAR: Properties Less Than 50 Years Old
While properties in the National Register are typically 50 years old or older, those properties that 
are less than 50 years old will qualify if they are integral parts of historic districts that do qualify 
or they fall into certain special categories. For a description of these categories, see National 
Register Bulletin #15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
END SIDEBAR]

Resources Available for Hazard Mitigation 

Many resources are available for the preservation and protection of historic properties and 
cultural resources. Enlisting the aid of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal 
Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) at the start of the hazard mitigation planning process will 
be invaluable for identifying available resources, and for determining which agencies or 
individuals may have the capabilities to implement mitigation actions, provide funding, etc. The 
following section focuses on three key sources to consult to obtain more information on 
available resources: SHPO/THPOs, archivists or collections managers, and planners. 

SHPO/THPOs. Section 106 of NHPA requires the SHPO/THPO to provide comment and 
to be consulted with on federally funded undertakingsincluding local actions using 
Federal funds or requiring Federal approvalthat may affect historic properties listed in, 
or eligible for listing in, the National Register (please see Appendix A  Glossary and 
Appendix B  Library for more information on SHPO/THPO responsibilities). SHPOs and 
THPOs generally maintain lists or databases of significant historic properties and cultural 
resources. 

[GLOSSARY SIDEBAR: State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
In cooperation with Federal agencies, SHPOs are responsible for directing and conducting a 
comprehensive statewide survey of historic properties and maintaining inventories of such 
properties under Section 101(b)(3) of the NHPA. These State officials maintain important 
information on historic properties in inventories and in statewide historic preservation plans, and 
are required to have qualified preservation professionals on staff. Federal agencies are directed in 
Section 110 of the NHPA to cooperate with SHPOs in establishing programs to locate, inventory, 
and nominate historic properties to the National Register. A State historic preservation office 
typically will have a designated SHPO and a deputy SHPO, and will likely have a support staff 
comprising archeologists, historians, planners, architects, and archivists. The structure of a 
preservation office differs from State to State and Tribe to Tribe.

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) 
A THPO is the Tribal equivalent of a State Historic Preservation Officer. The THPO may 
assume a role parallel to that of State government in administering the national historic 
preservation program on Tribal lands. Tribes will tailor their programs to accommodate Tribal 
values and address Tribal priorities. The 1992 Amendments to the NHPA recognized the Tribes' 
growing capabilities in historic preservation and the Tribes' rightful place in the national 
program. Specifically, the 1992 Amendments provide for Tribes, at their request, to assume 
responsibilities for such functions as identifying and maintaining inventories of culturally 
significant properties, nominating properties to the National Register, conducting Section 106 
review of Federal agency projects on Tribal lands, and administering educational programs on 
the importance of preserving historic properties.
END SIDEBAR]

[TIP SIDEBAR: See Appendix A 
The Glossary contains more information on the following major pieces of legislation that affect 
historic preservation initiatives:

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), particularly Section 106 and

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
END SIDEBAR]

It is important for your team to establish and maintain an open line of communication 
with the SHPO/THPO, especially if the planning area includes Tribal lands or areas 
historically associated with Native American groups. SHPO/THPO office staff may be 
able to help your team identify nearby communities that have faced similar challenges in 
incorporating historic property and cultural resource considerations into hazard 
mitigation plans. 

It is a good idea to contact your SHPO/THPO directly at the start of the hazard mitigation 
planning process. When doing so, you should provide a brief description of your 
planning project and any known historic properties in the community. Although the 
SHPO/THPO may respond directly, he or she most likely will delegate this task to the 
staff member most familiar with your communitys needs. This staff member will be the 
primary contact throughout the hazard mitigation planning process.
Do not be surprised if the SHPO/THPO does not respond instantly. Many, if not most, 
SHPO/THPO offices are understaffed and under-budgeted, with many other 
communities and projects demanding their attention. It is not uncommon to wait one 
month or longer before receiving a response to initial formal inquiries. 

[GLOSSARY SIDEBAR: Historic property and cultural resource survey 
A process by which historic properties and cultural resources that are potentially significant to 
the community are documented. Typically a survey involves the collection of documentary 
photography and completion of survey forms to describe each property or resource. This 
description includes its landscape (if a property), construction materials, geographic location, and 
potential significance (see sample survey in phase 2, Step 3 (Tip Sidebar) and Step 3 in Phase 2 
for more details on conducting a survey).
END SIDEBAR]

Archivist or collections manager at the local museum. Over the past decade, cultural 
institutions have made great strides in developing disaster preparedness plans. These 
documents will assist in understanding the range and scope of cultural resource assets 
in the affected area, and will ensure that the initial inventory includes special collections. 

Planners at local or regional planning offices. The local or regional planning office is a 
good source of information on historic properties that have been surveyed or designated 
as historic at the local level. If your community is a Certified Local Government (CLG), it 
should be the repository for local survey data. Also, historic properties and cultural 
resources may be identified in the preservation element of the local comprehensive plan 
or capital improvement plan. Local or regional transportation departments and planning 
associations may also have previously identified historic properties and cultural 
resources. If a community has already identified priorities for future preservation, hazard 
mitigation planning can be integrated into existing and ongoing preservation planning 
efforts. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Historic Preservation Element in Comprehensive Plans
Comprehensive plans provide a framework for regulating the built environment. State regulations 
define the elements that a plan must contain. These elements typically include: 

Future land use element;

Housing element;

Economic development element;

Capital improvement element;

Transportation element; and

Conservation element.

The policies in the comprehensive plan are intended to minimize incompatible use, avoid urban 
sprawl, provide for adequate infrastructure facilities, prevent damage or disruption to natural 
resources, and preserve the character of the community. These policies and their related goals and 
objectives provide a vision for the communitys future. The conservation element typically 
encompasses the protection of natural resources as well as historic properties and cultural 
resources. This element includes an analysis of the effects of future land use on historic properties 
and cultural resources and policies, goals, and objectives for preserving these resources. This 
element will also discuss local mechanisms such as Historic Preservation Commissions that 
designate and protect historic properties and cultural resources under jurisdictional zoning 
authority.
END SIDEBAR]

[TIP SIDEBAR: Certified Local Governments
Local governments strengthen their local historic preservation efforts by achieving Certified 
Local Government (CLG) status from the NPS. NPS and State governments, through their 
SHPOs, provide technical assistance and small matching grants to these communities. In turn, 
NPS and States gain the benefit of local government partnership in the national historic 
preservation program. Another incentive for participating in the CLG program is the pool of 
matching grant funds SHPOs set aside to fund CLG historic preservation subgrant projectsat 
least 10% of the State's annual Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) grant allocation. Grant funds 
are distributed through the HPF grant program, administered by NPS and SHPOs. Projects 
eligible for funding and the criteria used to select them are developed annually by the 
SHPO. Funding decisions are made by the State, not NPS. Among the kinds of activities funded 
are the following: architectural, historical, and archeological surveys; oral histories; nominations 
to the National Register; staff work for historic preservation commissions; design guidelines and 
preservation plans; public outreach materials such as publications, videos, exhibits, and 
brochures; training for commission members and staff; and rehabilitation or restoration of 
National Register listed properties.
END SIDEBAR]

[TIP SIDEBAR: Cultural Resource Inventories
Counties (e.g., in Florida) sometimes have a countywide cultural resources inventory, which also 
resides with the SHPOs office, that may include vulnerability determinations and preservation 
recommendations. SHPOs may also have grant funding available to undertake these types of 
broad surveys. 
END SIDEBAR]

Step 2

Build the Planning Team

Whether you have an established team or are in the process of forming one, it is important to 
assess the team members expertise and capabilities to address historic properties and cultural 
resource considerations and fill in any gaps. Individuals or agencies to consider adding to your 
planning team include: 

State and regional agencies that plan for historic properties and cultural resources, including 
your SHPO and State archivist;

Tribal representatives, including your THPO (as noted previously, it is important to identify 
Tribal nations that may have an important historical relationship with your planning area);

State, regional, and local historical societies; 

Historic preservation planners knowledgeable about Federal and State preservation 
legislation, local ordinances, and possible funding sources; 

Preservation architects and other professionals who specialize in the rehabilitation and 
restoration of historic structures;

Professional and amateur archeologists and/or archeology departments of universities and 
colleges in your region;

Local museums, libraries, archives, and repositories of collections, art, books, and artifacts;

Non-profit historic preservation organizations and historic neighborhood organizations;

Businesses and development organizations for historic commercial districts and Main 
Street programs; and

Federal government agencies, such as FEMA, the National Park Service (NPS), and the 
National Archives. 

If these individuals or representatives from the listed agencies do not have time to join your 
team, then establish an ongoing dialogue with them throughout the planning process. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Preservation Task Force
If substantial community support and interest is shown for protecting local historic properties and 
cultural resources, your planning team may wish to establish a dedicated historic and cultural 
resource preservation task force or committee. This task force or committee would be charged with 
reporting back to the larger hazard mitigation planning team. 
END SIDEBAR]

It is important to ensure that the assembled planning team includes interested citizens and local 
experts as well. It may be helpful to contact your SHPO for referrals of qualified individuals. An 
equitable and diverse representation on your planning team will enhance your planning efforts 
and help build community support for hazard mitigation. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Including Living Ties to the Past  Traditional Cultural Properties
Native American Tribal nations and other ethnic or social groups, even from a great distance, 
may feel a strong cultural connection with certain historic properties and cultural resources, 
including what are known as Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs). TCPs are defined as historic 
properties that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with 
the cultural practices or beliefs of a living community. These practices are rooted in that 
communitys history and are important in maintaining the continuity of traditional beliefs and 
practicesin essence, the cultural identity of the community. 
 
[GRAPHIC: 
PHOTO OF MOUNTAINS BATHED IN LIGHT, SHROUDED IN CLOUDS.
CAPTION: Mount Shasta, a sacred site to northern California Tribes. 
END GRAPHIC]

Examples of places important to sustaining the traditional beliefs of a community might include 
vision quest sites important to Tribal groups of the northern plains, or sand bars along the Rio 
Grande River that help maintain ceremonial practices of the Sandia Indians. Other examples 
include urban neighborhoods that are the traditional home of a particular cultural group. For 
example, Honolulus Chinatown embodies the distinctive cultural value of the citys Asian 
community in its architecture, landscaping, signage, and ornamentation.
 
[GRAPHIC: PHOTO OF LARGE ROCK OUTCROP.
CAPTION: View of Devils Tower, near the Belle Fourche River in Wyoming, taken in 1888. This site is sacred 
to several Native American Tribes.
END GRAPHIC]

Some communities may have several different histories and collections of historic properties and 
cultural resources; however, not all of these may be formally documented. Many social and ethnic 
groups may lack official published histories or historical societies, but nevertheless have a strong 
connection to specific resources. It is therefore important to make an additional effort to research 
and identify communities with alternative histories and to include these communities and their 
resources in the hazard mitigation planning process. 
END SIDEBAR]

Use Worksheet #1: Expand the Planning Team to identify others to invite to join your planning 
effort (see Appendix C for a blank worksheet).

Step 3

Engage the Public

There are several ways to obtain public input on the protection of historic properties and cultural 
resources during your hazard mitigation planning process. Frequently used methods include 
public meetings, questionnaires, and visual definition surveys. Public meetings are useful for 
educating the community on the overall hazard mitigation planning process, for identifying 
historic properties and cultural resources, for obtaining input on the various hazard mitigation 
alternatives available for protecting these resources, and for keeping the public up to date on 
the progress of your implementation efforts. For these reasons, your team should, at a 
minimum, develop a schedule for holding meetings at certain key stages in the hazard 
mitigation planning process. These key stages are: 

At the beginning of the planning process to inform the public of your planning efforts and to 
hear about what historic properties and cultural resources are important to the community;

At the conclusion of the risk assessment to report on your findings;

When developing your goals and discussing alternative mitigation actions for your mitigation 
strategy; and 

As you implement the plan to inform the public of progress made to date. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Dramatic Graphics as a Powerful Tool for Public Outreach 
Presenting graphic material from past disaster events can help members of a community visualize 
the potential impacts that a modern-day disaster may have on its historic properties and cultural 
resources. 

[GRAPHIC: OLD PHOTO OF FALLEN BUILDINGS.
CAPTION: San Francisco 1906 earthquake and fire, April 18-21. 
END GRAPHIC]
END SIDEBAR]

[TIP SIDEBAR: Public Participation
A carefully designed public participation process can often ensure that critical information about 
certain types of historic properties and cultural resources reaches the project team. For example, 
in many communities across the United States, selecting members of the project team who are 
fluent in Spanish is a basic but important step that influences the success of the information 
gathering process. This is true because many cultures place emphasis on teaching about the 
importance of certain types of historic properties and cultural resources through oral history and 
tradition, rather than relying upon traditional written source materials. This transmission of 
cultural information often occurs through that communitys native language, which may not be 
English. Without a critical ear attuned to this different mode of communication, the information 
gathering process may result in an incomplete, narrowly drawn picture of the heritage of all 
groups within a given geographic area, which in turn diminishes your hazard mitigation plan 
being actively embraced and used by the community as a whole.
END SIDEBAR]

Meetings could be held in conjunction with open gatherings of historical societies and historic 
preservation groups, neighborhood and social or ethnic organizations, or planning advisory 
groups or municipal governments. If residents are invited to participate in the process early on 
and to recount local history on their terms, there is a better chance that implementation of the 
plan will succeed. Local input is especially important for the valuation of local resources; even 
when a local structure is not eligible for listing in the National Register, it may still be very 
important to the community.

[TIP SIDEBAR: Whose History Is It Anyway?
Deciphering the importance of historic properties and cultural resources can sometimes be a 
difficult and daunting task, and must be approached with caution and sensitivity. Part of this 
difficulty comes from ones own cultural perspective, or world view. Like a tinted lens in a 
pair of glasses, this process can result in seeing people only from the point of view of ones own 
culture. Commonly called ethnocentrism, this misperception can result in a dominant cultural 
group completely looking past what is critically important to another cultural group. For 
example, in the American Southwest, simple memorials such as roadside crosses within Hispanic 
communities may not be perceived by those outside the Hispanic community as anything of 
importance, and certainly nothing worth preserving. But these objects, called descansos 
(literally places of rest) reflect the continuation of a tradition brought to the United States by 
Spanish colonists in the 17th century. Originally erected at places where a funeral procession 
paused to rest on the journey between church and cemetery, these memorials have become a 
symbol of interrupted journeys and deaths as a destination along our highways. To Hispanic 
community members, humble objects such as these often serve as tangible links to beliefs, 
customs, and practices that mark the existence of one or more living communities.
For more information, see Introduction/Dios da y Dios quita from Descansos: An Interrupted 
Journey, Rudolfo Anaya, Juan Estevan Arellano, and Denise Chavez (Del Norte, 1995).
END SIDEBAR]

If controversy is expected, it may be advisable to hold the public meeting at a neutral location, 
such as a church hall, using a trained facilitator. For increased credibility, all public meetings 
(whether controversial or not) should be advertised (consider using stakeholders, creating 
posters for display, and contacting media sources as options for advertising the meetings).

[CAUTION SIDEBAR: An Inclusive Planning Process
Without early and frequent public participation, your hazard mitigation planning effort may 
provoke misunderstandings and objections from some community members. Although public 
meetings convened by your hazard mitigation planning team or historic preservation task force 
can provide a forum for public input, they may not be enough to bridge the gap. Consider other 
opportunities for public inputfor example, engaging a local interest group in an open-ended 
dialogue, attending open meetings of other organizations, or encouraging their members to attend 
an upcoming meeting of your hazard mitigation planning team. For community members who 
are unable to participate because of other commitments, outreach in the form of short postcards 
to solicit input, or a project Web site or poster board, may help them feel included in the hazard 
mitigation planning process.
END SIDEBAR]

Other methods for garnering public input on historic properties and cultural resources include 
the use of brief questionnaires and a Visual Definition Survey poster board (see example). In 
the Visual Definition Survey, residents vote using a multi-voting system (described in FEMA 
386-3: Developing the Mitigation Plan, pp. 2-26 to 2-27) on the types and locations of historic 
properties and cultural resources they feel best demonstrate local history and contribute to a 
distinctive sense of place.

[GRAPHIC: POSTER WITH HEADING: VISUAL DEFINITION SURVEY, MILTON, PENNSYLVANIA.
HOW WOULD YOU TELL THE STORY OF MILTONS PAST?
CAPTION: Display poster board used to solicit input from Milton residents. 
END GRAPHIC]

[TIP SIDEBAR: A Community Success Story 
The Borough of Milton, Pennsylvania, is a flood-prone community located on the Western Branch 
of the Susquehanna River. The Borough contains a large historic district that has endured a long 
history of repetitive flooding. To reduce long-term damage from flooding events, the Borough 
considered acquisition and demolition of some of the districts oldest structures. Although many 
citizens remembered the devastation brought on by past flooding, they also remembered the 
unfortunate wound inflicted on their community by the demolition of over 400 buildingsmany 
of them historicfollowing the 1972 flood. To address flooding while adopting a preservationist 
approach, the Borough of Milton worked with concerned citizens, preservation advocates, a 
regional planner, and representatives from the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency 
(PEMA) and Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (SHPO) on the development of 
a community-based hazard mitigation planning process that actively incorporated information 
about historic properties. Working with FEMA, a team of historians, a preservation architect, and 
a hazard mitigation planner, the Borough organized and sponsored a series of public meetings to 
identify and focus on broad, common goals for mitigation actions that will result in improved 
protection of the Boroughs historic properties. More information on Miltons planning process 
for historic flood-prone properties is online at http://www.fema.gov/ehp/milton.shtm.

[GRAPHIC: FRONT COVER OF Looking to the Future, Alternatives for Reducing Flood-Related Damages in Historic Communities, Milton, Pennsylvania, June 2002.
END GRAPHIC]
END SIDEBAR]

Summary 

By the end of Phase 1, you should have collected readily available information on existing 
efforts to protect historic properties and cultural resources, building your understanding of the 
level of support that exists in your community for protecting these assets. You will also have 
established a balanced planning team comprised of members with cultural resources expertise 
and knowledge of the planning area. In addition, you should have identified a variety of 
approaches for engaging the public in the planning process. Relationships formed at this stage 
of the planning process will be valuable throughout the creation and implementation of the 
hazard mitigation plan.

In Phase 2, your team will identify hazards that affect local historic properties and cultural 
resources, inventory those properties and resources, and create a method for deciding which 
resources are preservation priorities. It will also assess the vulnerability of these assets and 
estimate the associated amount of potential loss. 
This is the end of Phase 1. Before proceeding to Phase 2, please take a moment to answer the 
following questions to determine if you have adequately assessed the resources needed to 
move forward with integrating historic property and cultural resource considerations into the 
hazard mitigation plan. These are followed by a Review Test that you should use as a learning 
aid to better understand the topics covered in Phase 1.

Evaluate Your Community

What are the obstacles to historic properties and cultural resource preservation in your 
community? How will you overcome them?

Are there any gaps in the range of interests and expertise represented on your planning 
team? If so, who will be added to your team to fill those gaps?

What additional outreach is needed to inform the public about your planning efforts to 
integrate historic properties and cultural resources in your hazard mitigation plan?

Review Test (Select one answer for each question.)
1.	What types of resources may be considered historic?
a.	Buildings such as houses, schools, churches, and factories.
b.	Cemeteries, battlefields, and gardens.
c.	Bridges, dams, and canals.
d.	All of the above.

2.	A State Historic Preservation Officer is:
a.	A State archivist or records manager.
b.	A person designated by the Governor of each State who is responsible for carrying out 
historic preservation programs under State and Federal law.
c.	Responsible for protecting historic properties in State parks.
d.	All of the above.

3.	A Tribal Historic Preservation Officer is:
a.	Equivalent of a SHPO, but responsible for historic properties and cultural resources on 
Tribal lands.
b.	A resource that can help you develop information regarding traditional cultural 
properties.
c.	A person who can help you understand the distinctions between generally recognized 
historic properties and properties of importance to Native American or Indian 
communities.
d.	All of the above.

4.	Early and active input from the public is needed to:
a.	Gain support for historic preservation and address community concerns and 
misconceptions.
b.	Determine the best time of year to undertake renovations.
c.	Find someone who knows what a SHPO is. 
d.	None of the above.

 (Answers in Appendix D  Answers to Review Tests.)

PHASE 2  ASSESS RISKS

[GRAPHIC: DIAGRAM SHOWING THE FOUR PHASES OF THE 
PLANNING PROCESS WITH PHASE 2 AND ITS 4 STEPS HIGHLIGHTED

Mitigation Planning Process
1.	Organize Resources
2.	Assess Risks
	Identify hazards
	Profile hazard events
	Inventory assets
	Estimate losses 
3.	Develop a Mitigation Plan
4.	Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress
END GRAPHIC]

Overview

In Phase I, you identified, assembled, and organized the resources necessary for 
integrating historic properties and cultural resources into the hazard mitigation plan. In 
Phase 2, Assess Risks, your team will use these resources to conduct a risk 
assessment of the historic properties and cultural resources located in your jurisdiction. 

[GLOSSARY SIDEBAR: Risk assessment
Measuring the potential for property damage, economic loss, injury, and death that may 
result from both natural and manmade hazards. Specifically, it involves identifying 
potential hazards and assessing a communitys ability to survive them, diminish their 
impact, or avoid them completely. Risk assessment is central to the hazard mitigation 
planning process, and is described fully in FEMA 386-2: Understanding Your Risks: 
Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses. 
END SIDEBAR]

There are four primary steps associated with conducting risk assessments that this 
Phase of the guide will cover:
Step 1:	Identify hazards that can affect your community.
Step 2:	Profile hazards to determine hazard-prone areas and magnitude of 
each hazard.
Step 3:	Inventory the historic properties and cultural resources vulnerable to 
those hazards, assess vulnerability of these assets, and establish 
preservation priorities by determining which assets are most valuable 
to the community.
Step 4:	Estimate the associated amount of potential losses. 

To assist you through Steps 3 and 4, the primary focus of this section, the guide includes 
worksheets filled in with sample information.

At the end of Phase 2, your planning team should have a clear picture of the historic 
properties and cultural resources that are important to the community; how vulnerable 
these resources are to hazards; and the cost of their loss, replacement, or repair due to 
a hazard event. The end-product of this phase will be a prioritized list (or preservation 
hierarchy) of historic properties and cultural resources for protection in the community. 

Steps 1 and 2

Identify and Profile Hazards 

Since hazard identification is essential to the mitigation plan, it is likely that the planning 
team has already identified the hazards that are likely to affect the jurisdiction and has 
already developed a hazard profile. This information should be used as the starting point 
for accomplishing Steps 3 and 4 of the risk assessment process as it relates to historic 
properties and cultural resources. There is no need to repeat Steps 1 and 2, as the goal 
is to integrate cultural resource considerations into the existing hazard mitigation 
planning process. In addition, Steps 1 and 2 are described in FEMA 386-2: 
Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses.
In preparation for Step 3, review the identified hazards that exist within the planning area 
and their profiles.

[TIP SIDEBAR: Geographic Effects of Hazards
Some hazards will affect the entire planning area (e.g., winter storms, tornadoes, and 
droughts), and others will only affect certain geographically determined areas (e.g., 
floodplains, seismic zones, and urban-wildland interface zones).
END SIDEBAR]

Step 3

Inventory Historic Property and Cultural Resource Assets

In this Step, the historic properties and cultural resources that are most likely to be 
affected by a hazard event will be determined. Specifically, your planning team will: 

Develop and map a general inventory of historic property and cultural resource 
assets located in the planning area.

Overlay the map of identified hazards developed in Step 2 of the risk assessment 
process with the general inventory map of historic properties and cultural 
resources in the planning area. This will provide the needed data for identifying 
which properties and resources are located in hazard-prone areas. 

Review the map of historic properties and cultural resources located in hazard-
prone areas and determine the number and value of these assets.

Compile property data and characteristics for each resource that may be 
potentially impacted. This can be accomplished either by using a geographic 
information system (GIS) or by conducting a survey. Note: this information will be 
needed to accurately estimate potential losses in Step 4 of the risk assessment 
process.

Review the property data and characteristics of each property and establish 
preservation priorities. This information will be incorporated into Phase 3 of the 
hazard mitigation planning process.

Before starting Step 3, there are a few considerations to keep in mind with regard to 
assessing the vulnerability of historic properties and cultural resources.

1. Characteristics of Historic Properties and Cultural Resources

In determining a communitys preservation priorities, an assessment should be made of 
each resources vulnerability potential. Unfortunately, there is no easy formula for 
predicting how a historic property or cultural resource will perform during a disaster. For 
example, determining which structural systems in buildings will be superior is dependent 
upon a wide variety of factors, most particularly, the type of hazard confronted. 
In addition, the age of a structure cannot be considered a predominant factor in 
determining whether a resource will perform well in a disaster. It is often assumed that 
older structural systems and materials used in historic buildings will perform far worse 
than recent code-driven construction. This is not always the case, as some historic 
structural systems were designed with far greater structural support than necessary. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Vernacular Historic Construction Methods
Buildings designed without the aid of an architect or engineer can sometimes better 
withstand damage from certain types of disasters than modern construction techniques. 
These properties may actually be able to outperform recent construction in certain disaster 
events because their essential structural systems may be better able to sustain lateral 
vibrations and pressure than buildings constructed more recently. Examples of such 
traditional over design include the nineteenth-century stone or brick masonry bank barns 
commonly found throughout the Mid-Atlantic region. Reinforced with heavy timber framing, 
these barns typically possess a structural capacity far exceeding their actual use. On the 
other hand, the structure of some historic buildings may emphasize flexibility over 
strength. These buildings may be able to withstand the seismic force from an earthquake 
quite well by dissipating it throughout a larger area of the building. Examples of this type of 
construction are the small-scale wood-frame houses built in the San Francisco Bay Area 
during the late nineteenth century. 
END SIDEBAR]

Similarly, specific types of collections can better withstand the direct effects of different 
disaster types. For example, paper records are not affected by vibrations associated with 
earthquakes, and certain types of art collections, such as stone sculptures, are usually 
not damaged by significant flooding. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Cultural Museum Disaster Preparedness  No Lack of Information!
Over the past decade, concerted efforts by conservation professionals have resulted in a 
wealth of information to help cultural museums design effective plans to better protect 
their unique assets. The Heritage Emergency National Task Force is one of the oldest 
efforts of this type. This coalition was formed in 1995 to help libraries and archives, 
museums, historical societies, and historic sites better protect their collections from natural 
disasters. The Task Force is sponsored by the non-profit Heritage Preservation, Inc. and 
FEMA. The organization provides a wealth of technical information on disaster response 
and salvage on its Web site: http://www.heritagepreservation.org.
The Central New York Library Resources Council has prepared a publication entitled In 
the Face of DisasterPreparing for Emergencies in Central New York: A Self-Planning 
Manual for Disaster Prevention, Response, and Recovery in Libraries, Museums, and 
Cultural Institutions of Central New York State. This document provides step-by-step 
instructions and worksheets to institutions on how to complete a customized disaster plan 
and includes three major components: prevention, response, and recovery. See the 
Central New York Library Resources Council Web site for more information: http://clrc.org. 
One of the nations premier art museums, the Getty Museum, located in Los Angeles, 
California, is also extraordinarily active in providing information about disaster 
preparedness and response. The Getty Conservation Institute serves the conservation 
community through its support of scientific research, education and training, model field 
projects, and the dissemination of information. In addition to many on-line educational 
articles, the Institute publishes useful guides such as Building an Emergency Plan. For 
more information on these resources, go to: http://www.getty.edu/conservation.
Other educational institutions provide high-quality information on the care and treatment of 
cultural resources damaged through disasters. For example, a Web site entitled 
Conservation OnLine (also known by its acronym CoOL), is sponsored by Stanford 
University. This site provides detailed information on the care and treatment of specific 
materials. It also provides hotlinks to other Web sites that contain useful case studies, 
information about disaster plans by type of museum or institution, and bibliographic 
references. See the CoOL Web site at http://palimpsest.stanford.edu.
END SIDEBAR]

Lastly, just because a historic property or cultural resource has survived the test of time 
does not necessarily mean it is hazard-resistant. On the contrary, a number of factors 
may make historic resources uniquely vulnerable to disaster-related damage. For 
example, historic buildings may have been constructed in locations without any 
forethought of possible future hazard events. These include buildings sited in 
floodplains, or those built along early transportation corridors, such as canals. 
Furthermore, a disaster may compound damage already sustained from poor 
maintenance or inappropriate alteration.

[TIP SIDEBAR: Accounting for Peculiar Design Advantages and Vulnerabilities 
You should consult a qualified structural engineer or a design professional with experience 
in historic building rehabilitation to conduct a detailed evaluation of historic properties in 
your inventory. Since financial resources will likely not permit a detailed assessment to be 
carried out on each historic property, you should focus on conducting your inventory first 
in the most significant hazard-prone areas, and then refer to your preservation hierarchy 
(see Task B in the next section) for the order in which you can complete your inventory 
over time.
END SIDEBAR]

[CAUTION SIDEBAR: Rehabilitation and Alteration
As you read this guide, keep in mind the following clarifications. Rehabilitation has one 
meaning in the preservation planning context and another in the context of hazard 
mitigation planning. When design experts talk about rehabilitation, they usually mean 
taking actions that help preserve the distinctive character of a historic building while 
allowing for reasonable change to meet new needs. In the hazard mitigation context, when 
mitigation planners mention rehabilitation, they mean retrofitting a structure or taking steps 
to reduce its vulnerability to hazards (e.g., flood-proofing or seismic strengthening). 
Another key word to keep in mind is alteration. Alteration usually has a negative 
connotationwhen a historic structure or resource is said to be altered, it may be taken to 
mean that the structure has changed to the extent that it no longer is considered historic. 
In hazard mitigation planning, however, altering a structure to protect it from a hazard or 
hazards means doing something positivethat is, changing or strengthening a structure 
to better withstand future hazard events while at the same time minimizing the impact 
these changes have on the structures historic integrity.
END SIDEBAR]

2. Threat of Terrorism and Other Manmade Hazards

In recent years, another factor has markedly contributed to the unique vulnerability of 
historic properties and cultural resourcesthe threat of terrorism. The high visibility, 
significance, and public accessibility of many historic resources make them attractive 
targets for terrorists. Many resources are symbolic on a local, State, Tribal, or national 
level, with some serving a governmental or other type of public function. In evaluating 
the threat from terrorism, it is important to identify why a resource is significant. 
Properties important to a certain social group may be targeted by enemies of that group. 
Moreover, many historic buildings lack the terror-resistant features included in many of 
todays new buildingsdefensible spaces, flame-retardant materials, and blast-resistant 
windows (see FEMA 386-7: Integrating Manmade Hazards into Mitigation Planning  for 
more details on manmade hazards). 

[CAUTION SIDEBAR: Assess Building Vulnerability in a Multi-Hazard Context
The characteristics that enhance performance during one type of hazard event may be the 
very features that make it vulnerable to damage from another type of hazard event.
END SIDEBAR]

3. Learning From Historic Disasters in Local Communities 

It is recommended that your planning team research the communitys past experience 
with disasters. Beyond providing an indication of the communitys resiliency and 
response, such a study may reveal how local building traditions were adapted over time 
as a result of disaster events. From the recent post-disaster experiences of other 
communities, your team may glean valuable information about how well historic 
properties and cultural resources withstand a disaster, and how they can be protected 
from future disasters. 

[GRAPHIC: OLD PHOTO OF COLLAPSED BUILDINGS.
CAPTION: Jefferson and Allen Avenues, St. Louis, Missouri, after the tornado, May 27, 1896.
END GRAPHIC]

Above all, learning from the disaster experiences of local communities will help to 
identify and evaluate hazard mitigation alternatives for potential implementation. 
Historical information on local disasters may be found in a variety of sources, including: 

Disaster reports and qualitative financial statistics archived by FEMA or a State 
emergency management agency (SEMA);

Published local and regional histories;

Unpublished historical information, including collections of memoirs, diaries, oral 
histories, and historical photographs; and

Newspaper and magazine accounts of the disaster.

[TIP SIDEBAR: See Appendix B
Additional information regarding historic building construction, performance, and treatment 
standards is provided in the Library Appendix of this guide.
END SIDEBAR]

Procedures and Techniques

Task A. Determine the proportion and value of historic property and 
cultural resource assets in your community located in hazard-prone areas.

You will use Worksheet #2: Determine Extent and Value of Historic Properties (see 
the example following the introduction to worksheet 2 and blank worksheet in Appendix C) 
for this task to determine the proportion and value of historic property and cultural resource 
assets located within those areas, or in the case of community-wide hazards, those that are 
most vulnerable to the identified hazards. Your inventory should not only identify properties and 
resources that merit protection, but also demonstrate other factors, including economic 
value. Worksheet #2, which was adapted from Worksheet #3a from FEMA 386-2 will help your 
team develop this determination. 

Introduction to Worksheet # 2

To place the value of historic properties in perspective, show what percentage of the 
total structures in the identified hazard area are historic. The total number of structures 
in the hazard area should have already been tabulated by the mitigation planning team. 
The number and value of historic properties and cultural resources should also be 
computed as a percentage of the total assets in the community. You will be able to 
compute the percentage of historic properties and their value after completing 
Worksheet #3: Inventory Historic Property and Cultural Resource Assets. In the 
example included below, 15% of the historic residential structures represents 20% of the 
total value of the residential stock. See FEMA 386-2 for more information. 

[SAMPLE WORKSHEET #2	Determine Extent and Value of Historic Properties	Phase 2, Step 3
Date: January 3, 2007

Fill in Columns 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 11. Fill in Columns 4 and 10 after completing Worksheet #3.
 Divide Column 1 by Column 2 and multiply by 100 to calculate the percentage of properties 
in the hazard area (Column 3). This process can be used to determine the percent value of 
properties within the hazard area (Column 6), the percentage of historic properties in the 
community (Column 9) and their percent value (Column 12).

13 column table listing type of structure, number of properties (Columns 1 to 3), value of 
properties (Columns 4 to 6), number of properties (Columns 7 to 9), and value of properties 
(Columns 10 to 12). The types of structure are: residential, commercial, industrial, religious/
non-profit, government, and education. Under number of properties: column 1number of 
historic properties in hazard area for residential is 150; column 2number of all properties 
in hazard area for residential is 1,000; column 3percentage of properties that are historic 
for residential is 15%. Under value of properties: column 4dollar value of historic properties 
in hazard area for residential is $3 m; column 5dollar value of all properties in hazard area 
for residential is $15 m; column 6property value of historic properties as percentage of total 
property value for residential is 20%. Under number of properties: column 7number of historic 
properties in community or state for residential is 400; column 8number of all properties in 
community or state for residential is 2,000; column 9percentage of properties that are historic 
for residential is 20%. Under value of properties: column 10dollar value of historic properties 
in community or state for residential is $60 m; column 11dollar value of all properties in 
community or state for residential is $250 m; column 12property value of historic properties as 
percentage of total property value for residential is 24%. The last row of the table is for the total 
by column.

END OF WORKSHEET #2]

1. Determine the location of historic property and cultural resource assets within 
hazard-prone areas.

The simplest way to determine which historic and cultural resource assets are located in 
hazard-prone areas is to use GIS. If your team has access to GIS, it should overlay the 
communitys base map onto a map of historic properties and cultural resources. This 
composite map should then be overlain onto a map identifying the location of hazard-
prone areas in the community, such as floodplains. The resultant map will reveal which 
historic properties and cultural resources are located in hazard-prone areas, and 
precisely where they are situated, by street and parcel. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Creating a Composite Map
[GRAPHIC:  SHOWING 3 DIFFERENT TYPES OF MAPS OF THE SAME AREA. 
DOTTED LINES CONNECT THE MAPS SHOWING THEY ARE TO BE LAIN ON TOP OF EACH OTHER.
A Map showing the location of the communitys historic properties and cultural resources in hazard areas can be produced
by overlaying a composite of the base map and historic property and cultural resource map
with a map delineating hazard area boundaries.
END GRAPHIC] END SIDEBAR]

To determine the specific hazard threats posed to each historic and cultural resource, 
your team should repeat the last overlay using hazard-specific maps, i.e., maps 
identifying seismic zones, flood hazard areas, etc. For some hazards, such as 
hurricanes and tornadoes, a GIS layer will not be available. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Geographic Databases and Data Sharing
Obtaining or creating GIS-based information is important because it will help your team 
locate concentrations of historic properties and cultural resources, and also better define 
the level of risk faced by your historic properties and cultural resources. For example, GIS 
data will show if historic properties are located in floodplains, in active earthquake zones, 
etc. In addition, other planning initiatives can be placed in a GIS, which can help your 
team identify impacts to historic properties and cultural resources that have occurred over 
time. 
END SIDEBAR]

If your team does not have access to GIS, hazard boundaries can be hand-drawn on a 
map depicting the location of historic properties and cultural resources. Your planning 
team may want to take the locations of historic properties recorded on tax maps or U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps, and map them directly onto paper copies 
of floodplain maps, USGS earthquake hazard maps, or other hazard-related maps. 

[GRAPHIC: OLD PHOTO SHOWING LEANING BUILDING AND SCATTERED DEBRIS.
CAPTION: Hurricane and storm surge damage in Galveston, Texas, September 1-10, 1900.
END GRAPHIC]

2. Compile a detailed inventory of what historic properties and cultural resources 
can be damaged by a hazard event.

At this point, you will be able to compile a detailed inventory of all of the historic 
properties and cultural resources found within each of the identified hazard areas in your 
community. Run a query and sort your results by the characteristicse.g., age and type 
of constructionlisted in Worksheet #3: Inventory Historic Property and Cultural 
Resource Assets. 

Introduction to Worksheet #3 

Your planning team will be using Worksheet #3 throughout the remainder of Phase 2 
(see the following example worksheet and blank worksheet in Appendix C). It is 
designed to help the team organize the information it collects on historic properties and 
cultural resources, and can be used to establish preservation priorities. Based on 
Worksheet 3b from FEMA 386-2, Worksheet #3 has been adapted specifically for use in 
assessing historic properties and cultural resources. 

For each hazard identified in Step 1, your planning team should make a photocopy of 
Worksheet #3 and fill in the name of the specific hazard at the top of the sheet (e.g., 
flood, hurricane, or earthquake). As your team progresses through Phase 2, 
information will be supplied to complete the remainder of Worksheet #3.

[SAMPLE Worksheet #3	Inventory Historic Property and Cultural Resource Assets	Phase 2, Step 3

Make a copy of a blank worksheet for each hazard of concern.  Fill in the name of the hazard 
and the date.  List the name and address of vulnerable historic properties and cultural resources 
in Column 1. For each property/cultural resource (row) fill out Columns 2 to 10 to complete the 
information about the asset. For Columns 11 to 15, use results from Worksheet #5 to fill in the 
applicable columns. For Column 16, use the ranking from Column 7 of Worksheet #4. See the 
Building Data Requirement table below to determine what additional columns to add to this 
worksheet, depending on the hazard.  

Hazard:	Flood			Date: January 8, 2007

Examples of the types of information to fill in for Columns 3, 5, and 6:
Column 3:  Type of Property/Resource (include, but not limited to, buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts)
Column 5:  Structural System (e.g., concrete, wood frame, or steel)
Column 6:  Primary Material(s) of Property/Resource (brick veneer, concrete, or plaster)
8 column table, titled Building Data Requirements by Hazard, lists building characteristics, flood, 
earthquake, tsunami, tornado, coastal storm, landslide, and wildfire. In column 1, the building 
characteristics are: Building Type/Type of Foundation, Building Code Design Level/Date of 
Construction, Roof Material, Roof Construction, Vegetation, Topography, and Distance from the 
Hazard Zone. This table shows you at a quick glance the type of data required when addressing 
the selected seven hazards.

Hazard: Flood. Building Characteristics: 1. Building type/type of foundation, yes. 2. Building code 
design level/date of construction, yes. 3. Roof material, no. 4. Roof construction, no. 5. Vegetation, no. 
6. Topography, yes. 7. Distance from the hazard zone, yes.

Hazard: Earthquake. Building Characteristics: 1. Building type/type of foundation, yes. 2. Building code 
design level/date of construction, yes. 3. Roof material, no. 4. Roof construction, no. 5. Vegetation, no. 
6. Topography, no. 7. Distance from the hazard zone, no.

Hazard: Tsunami. Building Characteristics: 1. Building type/type of foundation, yes. 2. Building code 
design level/date of construction, yes. 3. Roof material, no. 4. Roof construction, no. 5. Vegetation, no. 
6. Topography, no. 7. Distance from the hazard zone, yes.

Hazard: Tornado. Building Characteristics: 1. Building type/type of foundation, no. 2. Building code 
design level/date of construction, yes. 3. Roof material, yes. 4. Roof construction, yes. 5. Vegetation, no. 
6. Topography, no. 7. Distance from the hazard zone, no.

Hazard: Coastal Storm. Building Characteristics: 1. Building type/type of foundation, yes. 2. Building code 
design level/date of construction, yes. 3. Roof material, yes. 4. Roof construction, yes. 5. Vegetation, no. 
6. Topography, yes. 7. Distance from the hazard zone, yes.

Hazard: Landslide. Building Characteristics: 1. Building type/type of foundation, no. 2. Building code 
design level/date of construction, no. 3. Roof material, no. 4. Roof construction, no. 5. Vegetation, no. 
6. Topography, yes. 7. Distance from the hazard zone, yes.

Hazard: Wildfire. Building Characteristics: 1. Building type/type of foundation, no. 2. Building code 
design level/date of construction, yes. 3. Roof material, yes. 4. Roof construction, yes. 5. Vegetation, yes. 
6. Topography, yes. 7. Distance from the hazard zone, yes.

Two examples are provided in this 16-column table. 
First example. 1. name and address of asset subject to hazard Hazardville Opera House on 50 
Main Street, 2. date of construction/creation is 1905, 3. type of property/type of resource is 
commercial building, 4. square footage is 40,000, 5. structural system is concrete, 6. primary 
material(s) of property/resource are brick veneer, concrete, plaster ceiling, 7. current function/use 
is community center, 8. current condition is good, 9. owner is interested in mitigation (Town is 
owner), 10. level of property vulnerability is medium, 11. loss to structure is $300 K, 12. loss to 
contents is $150 K, 13. loss of function or use is $30 K, 14. displacement cost is $190 K, 15. 
total loss for hazard event is $670 K, and 16. level of community value for ranking purposes is 
medium.
Second example. 1. name and address of asset subject to hazardLehman Gardens on the Corner of Main and North, 
2. date of construction/creation is 1840, 3. type of property/type of resource is a park, 
4. square footage is 43,560, 5. structural system is not applicable, 6. primary material(s) of property/resource are 
marble statues, granite gravestones, metal historic streetscape furniture, and heirloom roses, 
7. current function/use is public garden, 8. current condition is excellent, 9. owner is interested in mitigation (Town is owner), 
10. level of property vulnerability is high, 11. loss to structure is not applicable, 12. loss to contents is $20 K, 
13. loss of function or use is not applicable, 14. displacement cost is not applicable, 
15. total loss for hazard event is $20 K, and 16. level of community value for ranking purposes is high.
END OF WORKSHEET #3]

For each hazard identified in Step 1, your team will use the information from its inventory 
to fill in Columns 18 of Worksheet #3. At a minimum, your team should consider 
collecting the following information on historic properties and cultural resources identified 
in the inventory:
1.	Name and Address/Location of Asset Subject to Hazard;
2.	Date of Construction/Creation;
3.	Type of Property/Type of Resource;
4.	Square Footage;
5.	Structural System;
6.	Primary Material(s) of Property/Primary Materials of Resource;
7.	Current Function (for Properties);
8.	Current Condition; and 
9.	Building Characteristics (for Properties) (Building Type/Type of Foundation, Roof 
Materials, Roof Construction, Vegetation, Topography, Distance from the Hazard 
Zone).

Additional information to collect for your inventory includes:
Tax ID Number; 
Distinguishing Characteristics; and 
Party Responsible for Maintenance.

The first eight items in this list correspond to the first eight columns in Worksheet #3. 
The building characteristics needed for the ninth item will depend on the hazard type. 
See the Building Data Requirement table in Worksheet #3 for applicable data and add 
the necessary number of columns to the worksheet. 

This information should be entered into a computerized database in order to run queries 
and analyses. A spreadsheet modeled on Worksheet #3 can serve the purpose, as this 
data should eventually be imported into, or linked to, a GIS. If limited time is available to 
address all of the historic properties and cultural resources contained in your community, 
consider using representative properties for initial planning purposes. 

Conducting a Survey of Historic Properties and Cultural Resources

If an existing inventory of historic properties and cultural resources is not available, or is 
inadequate, your team will have to conduct its own survey. (This inventory will prove to 
be an invaluable source of information for both the hazard mitigation planning process 
and other planning efforts.)
Although the prospect of conducting a survey of historic properties and cultural 
resources may seem daunting, several resources are available to assist you (e.g., you 
can enlist the aid of a variety of individuals, from volunteers and students to 
professionally qualified consultants). Moreover, several public sector professionals are 
available to provide guidance to your team on appropriate methodologies, funding 
sources, etc. Among the most important resources to tap into is the Survey Coordinator 
from the SHPO/THPO office, as they can assist in determining the focus for such a 
survey. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Survey Guidelines
Many local and State planning and preservation offices have published guidelines on how 
to conduct a survey of historic properties. Readily available guidelines describe the 
qualifications and experience of individuals who should conduct the survey, what kind of 
photographic documentation is required, and what types of information are needed to 
complete the survey forms. One of your most useful sources of information for conducting 
your survey will be National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for 
Preservation Planning, accessible at http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb24.
END SIDEBAR]

Additionally, your team should consult the Hazards Profile developed in Step 2 to 
ascertain the areas that have been identified as having a significant hazard threat. 
These areas should receive high priority for the initial survey effort, with less threatened 
areas to be surveyed in subsequent project phases.

[TIP SIDEBAR: Saving Time and Resources
If you cannot complete a comprehensive survey of historic properties and cultural 
resources located within the planning area, consider what you can do with the time 
available. For example, by simply examining old maps, you can identify areas where it is 
highly likely historic properties will be found. Additionally, taking digital photographs of 
representative historic properties and streetscapes may also be useful. While these 
activities wont yield a comprehensive inventory, they will help to make a good start.
END SIDEBAR]

[TIP SIDEBAR: Rapid Visual Screening for Seismic Zones 
A tool available to help you quickly identify, inventory, and rank buildings most at risk from 
a seismic event is called rapid visual screening. This methodology uses a form for a 
sidewalk survey which the screener fills out based on visual observation of the building 
from the exterior, and if possible, the interior. The form includes space for documenting 
building identification information, including its use and size, a photograph of the building, 
sketches, and documentation of pertinent data related to seismic performance, including 
the development of a numeric seismic hazard score. To learn more about this 
methodology, see FEMA Publication 154: Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for 
Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook. 
END SIDEBAR]

Note that a historic property and cultural resource survey may be undertaken for one 
property or one set of resources, or for several thousand. Also note that the process for 
identifying below ground archeological properties will differ from an aboveground 
architectural survey. Surveys undertaken for archeological sites often include limited 
sampling and an examination of historic land use patterns. Surveys for cultural 
resources, such as museum collections, will also differ. While the effort and 
techniques are variable, the goal for such surveys is always to document important 
information about these resources.

[CAUTION SIDEBAR: Dont Develop Your Mitigation Options Without A Definitive 
Survey
Initial or windshield surveys can miss historic buildings or potentially historic buildings. A 
very important building may be located within an otherwise non-important block and lose 
out as a result. Disasters may also yield additional information/reveal previously hidden 
materials that were not readily visible before (buildings surveyed as non-historic could lose 
a later exterior cladding, revealing the original historic facade, as happened in the 
California Northridge earthquake in 1994.)
END SIDEBAR]

[TIP SIDEBAR: Be Comprehensive
Your plan should also account for historic properties and cultural resources that are yet 
undiscovered. Certain types of historic propertiesparticularly those not yet identified or 
conservedare also uniquely vulnerable to hazard events. During some hazard events, 
archeological resources previously buried or submerged in water may become exposed. 
For example, prehistoric sites along waterways may be unearthed by erosion due to 
flooding. Once-buried wells, privies, cellar holes, graves, building foundations, and 
artifacts may become flooded or exposed during a seismic event. A shipwreck might 
become dislodged or damaged by wave action. Archeological resources made of organic 
materials are especially vulnerable if they are located adjacent to waterways prone to 
flooding. 

[GRAPHIC: PHOTO OF STEEP CLIFFS.
CAPTION: Eroded fields in Chilton County, Alabama, April 1937.
END GRAPHIC] END SIDEBAR]

Information received during the survey will be recorded on inventory forms. These forms 
often vary in design from State to State. Regardless of whether your team is surveying a 
few properties/resources or is surveying districts containing large concentrations of 
resources, standard information should be collected and recorded on the inventory 
forms. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Field Surveys in Milton, Pennsylvania
The community worked with consultants to survey the historic properties vulnerable to 
floods. The community selected 100 properties to survey in its National Register-listed 
historic district, using a field survey form developed for this project. The consultants later 
input the results of the survey into a database that was linked to a GIS program for 
analysis.

[GRAPHIC: PICTURE OF THE HAZARD MITIGATION/HISTORIC DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FIELD SURVEY FORM.
END GRAPHIC] 
END SIDEBAR]

[TIP SIDEBAR: Consider a Variety of Features 
When Surveying a Historic Property
Include secondary buildings, landscape features and setting, archeological sites, and any 
art, artifact and antique collections, etc. 
END SIDEBAR]

[TIP SIDEBAR: New Curatorial Facility at Timucuan Ecological & Historic Preserve 
It is important to remember that some cultural resourcessuch as works of art, books, or 
historic documentsmay be located in buildings that are not historic. For example, four 
national park units in Northeast Florida recently collaborated on construction of a new 
curatorial building to house their museum collections. Timucuan Ecological and Historic 
Preserve and Fort Caroline National Memorial, located in Jacksonville, are jointly 
managed, as are Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas National 
Monument, located an hour south in St. Augustine.
A unique sharing of resources between the parks made the facility possible. Although the 
Castillo had the money to fund its own building, all of its parkland is at or near sea level, 
between the Intercoastal Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean. After Hurricane Floyd 
threatened Northeast Florida in 1999, and park staff had to scramble to move the museum 
collection to higher ground, Castillo superintendent Gordie Wilson realized that  we 
were putting people and collections at risk on a regular basis. He looked at other space in 
St. Augustine, but the low elevation of the whole city, as well as cost and lease 
agreements of rental space on a higher floor, ruled out that option. Wilson approached 
Timucuan Superintendent Barbara Goodman, knowing that Timucuan Preserve contains 
land above the 100-year floodplain.

[GRAPHIC: PHOTO OF OUTSIDE OF 1-STORY BUILDING.
CAPTION: Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve building, sited 40 feet above sea 
level, safely houses museum collections of four national parks in Jacksonville, Florida.
END GRAPHIC]

The new curatorial facility was designed in 2001, and constructed in 2003. The result is a 
new 3,500-square-foot building, funded through the Castillo 80% Fee Demo program and 
located near Timucuan headquarters at approximately 40 feet above sea level. 
The building contains two large rooms to store archives and three dimensional objects 
separately, as well as a much needed work area, a research room, and an office. The 
facility is climate- and humidity-controlled and has fire suppression and alarm systems. 
Collections consist primarily of archeological objects systematically excavated from the 
parks as well as a large archival collection encompassing much of the history of Castillo 
de San Marcos. Historical objects, such as books, household goods, and architectural 
fragments from the Castillo are also contained in the collection.

The collections for Timucuan and Fort Caroline were previously stored in two cramped 
rooms with limited air conditioning, minimal humidity control, and a security system in only 
one area. The rooms had both exceeded their storage capacity and contained no work 
space. The Castillo and Fort Matanzas collections were stored in a stand-alone Bally 
Building at sea level.

Had the new building not been completed by spring 2004, park staff from both facilities 
would have been hurriedly moving collections prior to the rash of hurricanes that hit 
Florida later in the summer. Instead, the collections were already safe and staff could 
spend time securing other facilities and park resources. The four parks museum 
collections are now stored according to NPS guidelines and these unique cultural 
resources will no longer be deteriorating in poor environmental conditions and subject to 
potential tidal surges. 
END SIDEBAR]

To make sure you have not missed any important piece of information in your survey, 
consult the various experts you identified in Phase 1, Worksheet #1. 

[CAUTION SIDEBAR: Sensitivity of Information
Some information on historic properties and cultural resources may be so highly sensitive or 
private that it should not be included in the publicly available hazard mitigation plan. Examples 
include specific locations of culturally sensitive archeological sites and the value of 
significant archival collections, museum contents, or artifacts. Moreover, you should treat 
any information you find on the vulnerability of critical infrastructure and on security plans and 
systems as highly sensitive. Sensitive information should not be included in the main body of 
the mitigation plan, but rather in an addendum to which access is controlled. For guidance on 
how to protect sensitive information contained within your inventory, see Phase 4, 
Consideration 1: Sensitivity of Information. 
END SIDEBAR]

Finally, remember that a survey without input from community members is a survey that 
lacks legitimacy. Therefore, it is extremely important to solicit the input of the public early 
in the survey process. 
Once the survey is completed, the next task is to determine which of the identified 
properties/resources are most important to the community, and to set preservation 
priorities accordingly.

Task B. Establish preservation priorities.

Once the inventory of historic properties and cultural resources is complete, your team 
will be tasked with answering the following question: Which property/resource would the 
community miss most if it were lost? 

In attempting to answer this question, your team will need to determine the value the 
community places on these historic properties and cultural resources. Whereas some 
communities define themselves by skyscrapers, others may identify themselves with a 
particular landscape, neighborhood, or even sculpture. These assets are considered to 
be preservation priorities. Not only do these icons provide invaluable information about 
the past, but their loss would also provoke a public outcry. In addition to providing a 
sense of place, they may also serve as potentially valuable economic centers, 
commercial cornerstones, or important pieces of infrastructure. Examples include the 
retention of historic buildings along a rivers edge incorporated into a regional riverwalk 
system, or archeological sites in a flood-prone area protected and integrated into a 
neighborhood environmental education and discovery center. Thus, preservation of 
properties and resources like these would be conducive to strengthening and 
maintaining a sustainable communitya general goal of the hazard mitigation plan. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Artistic and Cultural Collections
Consider artistic and cultural collections that are valuable assets to your community. Many 
communities have created mitigation plans that focus on the uniqueness of artistic or 
cultural collections, and use these to achieve economic development and tourism goals. In 
some cases, this may represent the entire community, such as the Taos Pueblo in Taos, 
New Mexico. In other cases, museums that house such collections focus on particular 
types of cultural resources, such as the B&O Railroad Museum in Baltimore, Maryland. 
Other institutions may highlight significant events in a jurisdictions history, such as the 
Johnstown Flood Museum in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, or may display a wide range of 
historic records and artifacts related to the formation and development of a town or region. 
An excellent example of this type of museum is the Filson Historical Society in Louisville, 
Kentucky, which is home to an extensive collection of original manuscripts, Daniel 
Boones famous Kill a Barr carving, handmade quilts, Civil War artifacts, photographs 
and prints, and the most extensive collection of antebellum portraiture in Kentucky. 
END SIDEBAR]

[TIP SIDEBAR: Storage Procedures
Developing appropriate storage procedures for moveable heritage (e.g., collections of 
artifacts, special collections of a local library, school, or college, and written histories) will 
be an important part of your plan. For example, you may wish to relocate significant items 
stored in hazard-prone areas or buildings to less hazard-prone areas.
END SIDEBAR]

In Task B, the goal for your team is to establish a working hierarchy of preservation 
priorities for the community. Once established, these preservation priorities (also 
referred to in this guide as a preservation hierarchy) will provide a basis for important 
planning decisions that will be made by the planning team in Phase 3 of the hazard 
mitigation planning processthe part of the process when mitigation actions are 
evaluated. By viewing this hierarchy in conjunction with information on hazards, the 
community can consider ways to reduce disaster-related damage with a view to also 
preserving a communitys character. Given the potential abundance of information on 
historic properties and cultural resources in a community, setting preservation priorities 
is essential. Although each resource in your inventory may have an interesting story to 
tell, it is unlikely the community has the immediate ability to provide each historic 
property and cultural resource an equal level of attention in the hazard mitigation plan. 
To establish your preservation hierarchy, you will first determine the community value of 
each historic property and cultural resource, then organize your results by order of 
priority.

If you are having trouble creating a preservation hierarchy, consider asking for advice for 
a creative solution from a local planner, professional mediator, or a college class 
studying community planning.

[CAUTION SIDEBAR: Communicate Regularly With Your Planning Team 
Throughout the priority-setting process, you must communicate regularly with members of 
your hazard mitigation planning team. If goals and objectives whose implementation could 
threaten historic properties or cultural resources are advanced, you will want to voice your 
concerns and resolve potential conflicts. An example of this would be the selection of a 
structural diversion mitigation alternative that would result in the demolition of a significant 
number of buildings in a designated historic district. Conversely, if you find that 
preservation potentially complements other mitigation goals, you will also want to make 
that known. An example of this might be the acquisition of land that achieves multiple 
community goals, such as preserving open space, maintaining natural features, and 
enhancing recreational opportunities.
END SIDEBAR]

Introduction to Worksheet #4 

You will use Worksheet #4: Determine Community Value for Historic Property and 
Cultural Resource Assets (see the following example and blank worksheet in 
Appendix C) to determine the level of community value. To arrive at this overall value, 
your team must first rank each asset in the categories listed in Columns 16 of 
Worksheet #4, which roughly correspond to the variables listed above. Then, 
qualitatively add the results of Columns 16 and fill in Column 7. Record this total in 
Column 16 of Worksheet #3. Although these two worksheets use rankings of high, 
medium, or low, any range of numbers, colors, symbols, or other signifiers can also be 
used to ascribe value. 

[SAMPLE Worksheet #4	Determine Community Value for Historic Property and 
Cultural Resource Assets	Phase 2, Step 3
List the name and address of vulnerable historic properties and cultural assets. For each asset 
(row), fill in columns 1 to 6. Define High, Medium, and Low for Columns 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 at the 
bottom of this worksheet (optional). Fill in Column 7 by qualitatively adding Columns 3 to 6. 
Enter the results of Column 7 in Column 16 of Worksheet #3.

Date: January 16, 2007

5 examples are provided in this 8 column table.
Example 1. Name and address of assetHazardville Opera House on 50 Main Street, 
1. historic designation is NR-listed, 2. geographic context of significance is State, 
3. level of significance is high, 4. public sentiment is low, 5. economic importance is medium, 
6. degree of integrity is low, and 7. total level of community value  is medium.
Example 2. Name and address of assetCarruth House Museum on 22 Primrose Lane, 
1. historic designation is local landmark, 2. geographic context of significance is Local, 
3. level of significance is high, 4. public sentiment is medium, 5. economic importance is low, 
6. degree of integrity is high, and 7. total level of community value is medium.
Example 3. Name and address of assetCarruth Archives on 35 North Street, 
1. historic designation is not listed, 2. geographic context of significance is State, 
3. level of significance is medium, 4. public sentiment is medium, 5. economic importance is low, 
6. degree of integrity is medium, and 7. total level of community value is low.
Example 4. Name and address of assetLehmans Garden on the corner of Main and North, 
1. historic designation is NR-listed, 2. geographic context of significance is National, 
3. level of significance is medium, 4. public sentiment is high, 5. economic importance is high, 
6. degree of integrity is medium, and 7. total level of community value is high.
Example 5. Name and address of assetDowntown District on Main Street, 
1. historic designation is NR-listed, 2. geographic context of significance is Local, 
3. level of significance is medium, 4. public sentiment is high, 5. economic importance is high, 
6. degree of integrity is medium, and 7. total level of community value is medium.
For column 1, historic designation, the asterisk means the designation level does not 
automatically correlate to the level of community value for ranking purposes.

END OF WORKSHEET #4]

1. Determine community value.

While all of a communitys historic properties and cultural resources are important, some 
do a better job in visually reflecting the communitys history, some are more important to 
the local economy, and some are better able to convey important information about the 
past. Moreover, the significance of some assets may not be immediately obvious to the 
outside expert. What may strike an outsider as an unimpressive artifact or piece of 
property may in fact be highly meaningful to the community. Thus, a variety of variables 
(e.g., economic importance or public sentiment) contributes to the overall value each 
historic property and cultural resource in your inventory holds for the community. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: New Uses for Old Structures
The structure pictured here is not what immediately comes to mind when we think of a 
historic property, yet it has great community value. Constructed circa 1850, this 
acorn-shaped gazebo is located in downtown Silver Spring, Maryland, and is all that 
remains of the estate that gave this city its name. 
[GRAPHIC: PHOTO OF GAZEBO WHOSE ROOF IS ACORN-SHAPED.
END GRAPHIC]

Another unusual structure valued by its community is the Transfer House in Decatur, 
Illinois, built in 1895 to serve streetcar riders from the center of a downtown intersection. 
After streetcar service ended in 1936, the Transfer House serviced the bus lines. When the 
square was reduced in 1962 in the name of highway building, the Transfer House was moved 
to nearby Central Park. It languished there, serving as a shopper's resting place and, in season,
 as Santa's headquarters, until 1970. It was then renovated for use of the Downtown Decatur 
Council as offices and public information center. 

[GRAPHIC: PICTURE OF A POSTCARD ILLUSTRATING A 2-STORY OCTAGONAL 
BUILDING WHOSE 2ND FLOOR IS OPEN.
CAPTION:	Vintage postcard Illustration of the Transfer House, Decatur, Illinois.
END GRAPHIC]
 
[GRAPHIC: PHOTO OF THE RENOVATED TRANSFER HOUSE AND FOUNTAINS.
CAPTION: Renovated Transfer House in Central Park, Decatur, Illinois.
END GRAPHIC]
END SIDEBAR]

Due to the profusion of such variables, determining community value is not a science; 
however, it is still possible to approach the task in a structured way. Often local 
jurisdictions and States have already developed information that will help you determine 
community value of certain properties and resources. Local governments, private non-
profit historic preservation organizations, and SHPO offices have often developed plans 
that specify some of this information. As part of this task, you should check with your 
local historic preservation planner or SHPO for this information.

[TIP SIDEBAR: A Great Source of Information  State Historic Preservation Plans
As a condition of the receipt of Federal matching funds from NPS, SHPO offices are 
required to develop what are known as State historic preservation plans. These plans help 
guide each States approach to the identification, evaluation, and protection of historic 
properties. These plans integrate historic preservation into broader planning systems at 
local, regional, and State levels.

Each of these plans has a statewide focus, and usually describes key organizations that 
are active in historic preservation in each State. Each plan requires broad public 
involvement to ensure that the vision, issues, and goals of each plan are truly 
representative of a broad cross-section of the State. Preservation-relevant information on 
social, economic, political, legal, and environmental conditions, and trends, is an important 
component of each plan. Including information about these conditions is important, and 
helps shape how each State develops its program priorities, and carries out its historic 
preservation activities. Each plan also includes information on a wide range of historic 
properties, and often identifies specific property types that will be a special focus of 
preservation activities. Such plans may also contain information on cultural resources, if 
these resources are of concern to the public and professionals across the State.
State historic preservation plans represent broad statements of public policy regarding 
historic preservation. Your hazard mitigation planning team should employ these State 
historic preservation plans as general information guides, rather than technical 
encyclopedias that represent the sum of all knowledge regarding historic properties in a 
given State. Used in conjunction with data from State inventories, National Register 
listings, and historic context data, they represent invaluable information sources that 
should be actively used in shaping your hazard mitigation plan.
You should contact your SHPO office directly to obtain the most up-to-date version of this 
document, which is often available via the Internet. The NPS Historic Preservation 
Program Planning unit also provides readily accessible and updated information on these 
plans, as well as contact information in each State. Information current as of October 2004 
is included at: http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/pad/stateplans/planlist.htm.
END SIDEBAR]

[TIP SIDEBAR: Unique Preservation Priorities
The values you use to establish your preservation priorities are unique to the community. 
It is possible that your communitys preservation values may conflict with those of the 
larger jurisdiction, such as the county or State. For example, while your community may 
focus its preservation efforts on the oldest historic properties, State preservation goals 
may highlight the need to better protect and enhance more modern examples of historic 
properties, such as early 20th century residential communities. In such cases, you do not 
have to accept the priorities of the larger jurisdiction. Rather, you should document in your 
plan the process you followed to determine your preservation priorities. In this way, it will 
be clear to the community, county, State, or anyone else who reads the plan why you are 
pursuing a given course of action.
END SIDEBAR]

As you work with your community in setting preservation priorities, you may identify 
additional variables that factor into what the community considers valuable. By 
understanding how historic properties and cultural resources are important in other 
areas of your communitys life, you will be able to make a more informed choice about 
how to best protect those historic properties and cultural resources. The following list of 
variables acknowledges FEMAs desire to encourage communities not only to consider 
the historic significance and informational value of an asset, but also to take into account 
other factors when making decisions about historic properties and cultural resources, 
such as economic potential. These variables are:

Public Sentiment;

Economic Importance;

Geographic Context of Significance;

Level of Significance; and

Integrity.

The next section will discuss each of these variables in depth. Careful consideration of 
these variables in relation to the resources contained in the inventory will help to 
determine the overall value of the communitys historic property and cultural resource 
assets.

[CAUTION SIDEBAR: Community Value of Cultural Resources
In developing your preservation priorities or hierarchy, it may not be easy to determine the 
community value of cultural resources, such as archival collections and other moveable 
objects. There are, however, some basic questions you can answer to help you 
understand how some cultural resources may hold a greater value than others. For 
example, does the resource contain information relating to the surrounding community? Is 
it highly usable? 

Usability of a cultural resource is one key characteristic to consider. Is the resource 
organized or curated in such a way that its important information can be accessed by the 
public? If your cultural resource is an archival collection, does it have a finding guide? 
In addition, you may wish to evaluate how unique your cultural resource is. For example, 
is the information contained in a collection unique or is it duplicated in another collection 
stored at another institution or site? 
END SIDEBAR]
 
[SPECIAL SUBJECT BOX: Variables for Developing Community Value
Public Sentiment
Your assessment of public sentiment should be based on actual input from the public, 
rather than just your intuition. Public input will help you identify those resources held in 
high regard by the community (some of which may not strike an outsider as particularly 
impressive), as well as those which create less public sentiment, yet are still significant 
in their own right. You may have recorded the level of public sentiment towards your 
communitys historic properties and cultural resource as you researched in Phase 1 what 
has been done to date to protect these assets, and later as you undertook your inventory 
in Step 3 of Phase 2. If your team has determined the level of public sentiment for an 
asset in your inventory, that level should be entered into Column 4 of Worksheet #4. 
If your team does not know how the community feels about certain assets, there are a 
variety of methods that can be used to gather community input. Three effective methods 
are public meetings, questionnaires, and visual definition surveys. At public meetings, 
interested individuals have an opportunity to express their thoughts and reach 
consensus. In the questionnaire, respondents may be requested to list significant 
structures known to them. In the visual definition survey, community members are asked 
to place adhesive stickers on a large poster board of their community to highlight areas 
they believe to be of high significance. Once you obtain the publics input, enter your 
results in Column 4 of Worksheet #4.

Economic Importance 
Historic properties and cultural resources do considerably more than provide a 
community with a unique sense of place. They can also provide an important attraction 
for potential residents and tourists. Examples include historic buildings used as 
museums and educational centers, as well as larger geographic areas such as Pikes 
Place Market Historic District, a healthy, bustling community of merchants and residents 
in Seattle, Washington. Furthermore, neglected historic properties may be eligible for tax 
credits and other incentives for proper rehabilitation. Most importantly, these historic 
properties and cultural resources are nonrenewable and cannot be replaced or 
replicated. While potential economic importance is not the only reason a historic property 
should be prioritized, it is an important consideration in the decision-making process. 
Often local decision-makes are unaware of the economic potential of these properties. 
Showing decision-makers how these properties can be economic assets will help in 
ensuring that they are considered for preservation and enhancement as part of the 
hazard mitigation planning process.

[TIP SIDEBAR: Disasters and Heritage Tourism
The rain from Tropical Storm Alberto fell for 11 days. In one day alone, the town of 
Americus, Georgia, was inundated by 21 inches of rainfall. The commercial district of the 
town of Montezuma, Georgia, comprising 60 historic buildings, found itself covered by 14 
feet of water. By the time the 500-year flood event ended, President Clinton had declared 
78 counties in the State eligible for Federal disaster assistance.
Federal officials estimated damage at over $1 billion. Agricultural losses alone exceeded 
$100 million. Approximately 50,000 people fled their homes. The floods damaged more 
than 18,000 buildings, and destroyed more than 250 historic buildings. Thirty-three people 
perished. These numbers alone, however, do not fully convey the devastating impact of 
Tropical Storm Alberto upon the State of Georgia and its economic infrastructure.
Although one local newspaper reported that some considered Montezuma a ghost town 
that couldnt come backit did come back. A combination of Federal, State, and private 
non-profit funding was used to rebuild the town, which learned that historic preservation 
can be the foundation of economic and physical growth. The effort, in turn, brought a new 
industryheritage tourismto Montezuma, generated new life to the downtown area, and 
helped bring citizens together in a common cause. But if the communities wrecked by 
Tropical Storm Alberto had taken action well before the flood, they might have been able 
to reduce damages and losses from the flood. 
END SIDEBAR]

Examining local and regional planning data may give you an idea of the potential 
economic importance of the historic properties and cultural resources in your inventory. 
Are some of your properties located in a zone targeted for redevelopment and future 
investment? Are they already an important anchor of the local economy? Answers to 
these questions will help you understand how historic properties and cultural resources 
can contribute to a communitys economic future.

[TIP SIDEBAR: Economic Importance of Historic Properties and Cultural Resources
Thought should be given to the role these resources play in creating a diversity of housing 
options (e.g., converting warehouses into apartment lofts) and generating additional 
benefits to the community (e.g., serving as a revitalization engine).
END SIDEBAR]

Once the economic importance of assets in the inventory has been determined, it should 
be entered into Column 5 of Worksheet #4.

Historic Designation
Historic properties and cultural resources in a community may already have been 
designated as such under local historic preservation ordinances, State landmarks, or the 
National Register. It is likely, though, that many historic properties have not yet been 
evaluated. These properties should not automatically be discounted. It is important, 
therefore, to recognize past efforts and indicate designation or lack thereof of each asset 
in the inventory in Column 1 of Worksheet #4.  

Evaluating Significance 
Geographic Context of Significance (National, Tribal/State, Local). One way of 
determining significance is to evaluate properties or resources using a prescribed set of 
criteria. One of the best available sets is the Criteria for Evaluation developed by NPS, 
which is used to determine a historic propertys eligibility for listing in the National 
Register. The basis for a historic propertys significance rests on one or more of the 
following four factors (additional information is provided in Appendix A  Glossary):

Events important to broad patterns of our history;

Lives of persons important in our past;

Architectural and engineering design and construction; and

Information important in prehistory or history.

Historic contexts can help your team evaluate the significance of properties contained in 
your inventory. Specifically, a historic context is used by historians to compare a specific 
property type with other similar historic properties. Historic contexts that have been 
developed over the past two decades are usually on file in SHPO and THPO offices, and 
in some cases in local historic preservation agencies. 

[GLOSSARY SIDEBAR: Historic contexts 
Documents that specify certain themes, geographic areas, and chronological periods that 
provide perspective to evaluate a historic propertys significance. Historic contexts have 
been developed on a variety of geographic levels or scales. The geographic scale 
selected may relate to a pattern of human development, a political subdivision, or a 
cultural area. For example, a local historic context represents an aspect of the history of a 
town, city, county, cultural area, or region. A State historic context allows evaluation of a 
historic property when it represents an aspect of the history of the State as a whole. A 
national context would be employed when a historic property represents the history of the 
United States and its territories as a whole. Regardless of the scale, the historic context 
establishes the framework through which decisions about the significance of related 
historic properties can be made.

NPS has made extensive information on historic contexts available to the public, including 
information on approximately one-third of the 77,000 historic places listed in the National 
Register. As components of Multiple Property Submissions (MPS), information on groups 
of properties is available via the Internet. For more information, go to 
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/research/contexts.htm. 
END SIDEBAR]

As your team creates a list of preservation priorities, the process of establishing 
significance must be handled with care and diligence. Ultimately, there is no easy litmus 
test for defining significance; some of the challenges your team may face are described 
in the sidebar below. The careful use of a rigorous evaluation process and established 
criteria will help achieve community consensus in this important portion of the inventory 
process. 

[CAUTION SIDEBAR: Defining Significance
Not all historic properties and cultural resources in your inventory will be equally significant 
or exceptional, however much they may appear to be. Properties with more significance 
than others might be those that are easily identifiable with historic trends, or that serve as 
exceptional examples of an architectural form or style. Among this subset of resources, 
you must still make comparisons. For example, although buildings associated with 
important historical figures may already have been identified and evaluated, their levels of 
significance may not have been compared.

Significant buildings might not always be large and impressive, but may actually be quite 
modest, such as a row of workers houses with simple front porches, closely set to the 
street. Although humble-looking, they may contain design elements that evoke a bygone 
era. Indeed, certain features may define a buildings character and link it with its historical 
past or architectural styleits ornate exterior construction materials, its interior room 
organization, or its placement within a working agricultural landscape. On the other hand, 
other features of the same building may contribute little to an understanding of the 
buildings history or overall significance.

Likewise, cultural resources with little value on the open market may be priceless to your 
communityfor example, diaries or artwork produced by early residents, or an original 
first edition of the local newspaper from its inception 150 years ago. Other cultural 
resources may be valuable for their sheer rarityan irreplaceable sculpture collection, a 
set of rare books, or antiques that once belonged to some renowned person.
The process of defining significance will take time and careful analysis. For example, 
although an important labor leader was born and raised in a certain house in your 
community, it may be the small apartment where he formed his labor union that is the 
more significant site. In another example, although a community has many streets 
containing examples of post-World War II suburban housing, it may be the street with the 
largest intact collection of the same type of house, with the same type of landscape, built 
by the same developer, which has the greater level of significance. Thus, the street 
nicknamed Ranch House Heaven would merit greater recognition in the evaluation 
process due to its abundance of ranch houses. Because it so thoroughly typifies a postwar 
ranch-house streetscape, it serves as an important example of postwar housing. In 
summary, training a critical eye on the evaluation process will ensure success in your 
efforts.
END SIDEBAR]

Once the geographic context of significance of historic properties and cultural resources 
has been determined, the significance level should be entered into Column 2 of 
Worksheet #4 - the geographic context level.

Level of Significance (High, Medium, Low). Whereas the geographic context of 
significance helps you understand where a property or resource is important, the level of 
significance helps you understand just how important that property or resource is. In 
other words, is the resource simply a representative example of a particular property 
type or historic trend, or is it an important and exceptional example?
When determining community value, it is useful to look at the level of significance of a 
historic property or cultural resource. The level of significance will provide you with some 
important information about the character and nature of the resource, which may prove 
useful as your team proceeds to define overall community value. For the purposes of 
this guide, the level of significance is defined in the following manner: High = Exceptional 
property or resource important to maintaining the unique character of the community; 
Medium = Important representative example which contains some unique details; and 
Low = Important, but other representative examples exist in the community. Fill in the 
level of significance in Column 3 of Worksheet #4.

Once you have determined the designation (or lack thereof) and level of significance, 
you may wish to consider combining the two variables. For example, you might 
categorize historic properties as National Register Listed-Local Significance or 
Unevaluated-Regional Significance.
Closely tied to level of significance is the integrity of a historic resource, discussed in the 
following section. 

Integrity 
After assessing the geographic context and level of significance of the historic properties 
and cultural resources in the inventory, the next step is to assess the integrity of those 
assets. Simply put, the integrity of a historic property is how well it conveys its 
significance. Remember that integrity focuses on the features of a historic property, and 
is not the same as condition, which pertains to appearance. The ability of a historic 
building to tell its historyto demonstrate historic themes and trends in a certain place 
and time periodheavily depends on its integrity. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: The Seven Aspects of Integrity
The National Register uses seven aspects of integrity to assess the eligibility of a 
historic property. Even if you are not assessing National Register eligibility, an 
understanding of these seven aspects of integrity will help guide you through determining 
the overall integrity of a historic property. These seven aspects of integrity are location, 
association, setting, materials, design, feeling, and workmanship. More information on 
assessing integrity is available from NPS in Chapter Seven of its Bulletin #15: How to 
Apply the Criteria for National Register Evaluation, found online at 
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_7.htm. 
END SIDEBAR]

When evaluating integrity, it is important to document and evaluate all contributing 
historic design features. The removal or replacement of important design elements, such 
as windows and siding, may prevent a historic property from depicting some of its 
historic and architectural themes. 

[CAUTION SIDEBAR: Renovation or modification may not diminish a buildings integrity
Someday, a recent remodeling or alteration might itself be considered historic. Therefore, 
significant architectural features may not always date from the time of original 
construction. For example, the relatively recent addition, in 1920, of wood clapboard siding 
on a remodeled log cabin dating back to 1840 does not necessarily diminish the buildings 
physical integrity. The siding in itself may be a historic design element and may not 
diminish the integrity of the property as a whole. For more information on this topic, see 
NPS Technical Brief #35: Understanding Old Buildings: The Process of Architectural 
Investigation by Travis McDonald, at http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief35.htm. 

[GRAPHIC: PHOTO OF HOUSE SHOWING DIFFERENT STYLES OF ARCHITECTURE.
CAPTION: Blythewood has three distinct sections: the 1820s main block (center), 1880s shed-
roofed addition (left), and 1920s Colonial Revival addition (right). Prince Georges County, 
Maryland.
END GRAPHIC] END SIDEBAR]

[TIP SIDEBAR: Summarizing Survey Results
Communities summarize the results of historic property integrity evaluations in a variety of 
ways. For example, the City of Chicago recently completed an ambitious projecta 
citywide survey of historic properties. More than 17,000 buildings or structures were 
identified as having at least a minimal level of significance. In order to better understand 
the significance and integrity of all of these properties, the City developed a color-coding 
system in which red properties were significant on a City, State, or national level, and 
orange properties were significant on a community or neighborhood level. As it turned out, 
only 300 of the 17,000 properties were categorized as red, with 9,600 categorized as 
orange. The system also assigned categories of green, yellow-green, and yellow to 
represent different degrees to which buildings had undergone alterations. Finally, blue 
properties were those constructed too recently to be considered for evaluation for 
significance, but whose significance may be reevaluated as time passes.
END SIDEBAR]

This process may also afford your team with an opportunity to evaluate the current 
condition of cultural resources, especially in regard to their ability to withstand hazard-
related damage. While some museums and other repositories may have already begun 
this process, there is a wealth of information available to assist in this effort.

[TIP SIDEBAR: Assessing Your Conservation Needs
Professional associations such as the American Institute for the Conservation of Artistic and 
Historic Works (AIC) maintain an extensive guide of qualified conservators experienced in a 
range of specialties, including books and paper, photographic materials, objects, paintings, 
architecture, wooden artifacts, and textiles. These conservators may be able to assist you in 
assessing the current conservation needs of your cultural resources, and may also be able to 
help you develop a site-specific disaster emergency plan for cultural resources. This free guide 
is available directly through AIC as well as on its Web site, located at http://aic.stanford/public/select.html. 
END SIDEBAR]

Once you have evaluated the integrity of each historic resource in your inventory, you 
should indicate the degree of integrity in Column 6 of Worksheet #4.
END SPECIAL SUBJECT BOX]

2. Determine overall community value.

By now, your planning team should have considered and evaluated a range of factors to 
determine the overall community value of the historic properties and cultural resources 
contained in its inventory. These would include public sentiment, potential economic 
importance, geographic context level, type of significance, and integrity. Taken together, 
all of these factors will be combined to generate an overall community value for each 
asset. Perhaps your community feels that it is appropriate to put more emphasis on one 
category than another; if so, you can consider the use of weighted multipliers.
Throughout your assessment of these factors, your planning team has been recording 
on Worksheet #4 the degree to which each factor contributes value to each asset within 
your inventory. To determine the overall community value of a specific asset, combine all 
the ranks assigned to that asset across all the factors noted in Columns 16 of 
Worksheet #4. This composite rank is your overall community value for that asset. You 
should record the value first in Column 7 of Worksheet #4 and then in Column 16 of 
Worksheet #3. 

[CAUTION SIDEBAR: Not All Historic Properties and Cultural Resources are Created 
Equal
You should resist the temptation to consider every historic property and cultural resource 
as equally important in your preservation hierarchy. Remember that you are creating a 
preservation hierarchy that will help planners prioritize mitigation actions in the hazard 
mitigation planning process. As difficult as it may be to consider, some properties and 
resources in the hierarchy will need to be less of a priority than others. In the case where 
the area is small, intact, original enough, or of high integrity, then every historic property 
and cultural resource may rate as equally important. 
END SIDEBAR]

[TIP SIDEBAR: Mapping Historic Properties and Cultural Resources 
If you have a number of historic properties and cultural resources, your team may wish to 
create a map to display these. This map can be created by color-coding the community 
value assigned to each asset on a base map or using a GIS (see GIS discussion in Step 3, Task A, Part 1). 
A glance at the completed map will reveal a bell-curve distribution of community 
value for resources: a few resources of either high or low value, and several of average 
(medium) value. Likewise, you will find this same bell-curve distribution among the 
individual factors that comprise community value (e.g., a few resources of very high or low 
integrity, and many of average integrity).
Ultimately, this mapped preservation hierarchy will serve as an invaluable aid to your 
planning team as it attempts to prioritize mitigation options during the mitigation planning 
process. For example, highly significant areas, where preservation is a top priority, may be 
the focus of intensive mitigation efforts, whereas less significant areas may not require 
such concentration of effort. 
END SIDEBAR]

With the establishment of your preservation hierarchy, you are now ready to revisit the 
hazards you identified back in Step 1 and estimate the losses to the resources prioritized 
in your preservation hierarchy in Step 4.

This is the end of Step 3 of Phase 2. Following are questions you should ask yourself to 
determine if you have adequately addressed preparing your inventory and preservation 
hierarchy. These are followed by a Review Test you should use as a learning aid to help 
you check your understanding of key terms and concepts in inventorying assets.

Evaluate Your Community

Is GIS being used for the hazard mitigation plan? Does a GIS database already exist 
for historic properties and cultural resources?

If a GIS inventory does not exist, do you have an inventory in another format? If so, 
is it complete and up to date? Who manages and updates the inventory?

Have you been able to show on a mapusing GIS or by handwhich resources lie 
in areas affected by more than one hazard? 

Were you able to evaluate the vulnerabilities to different hazards of the historic 
properties and cultural resources in your inventory? If not, where can you find 
assistance to assess vulnerabilities?

Did your preservation priorities conflict with other community plans and policies? If 
so, have you worked out these conflicts?

Have you clearly justified your preservation priorities and created a record of your 
evaluations?

Review Test (Select one answer for each question.)
1.	Where can you check to make sure you have all the existing data you need on 
historic properties and cultural resources in your community? 
a.	Your local planner.
b.	SHPO/THPO office.
c.	Local and State non-profit historical and cultural organizations.
d.	All of the above.

2.	A GIS is useful for:
a.	Providing rules of order for contentious public meetings.
b.	Producing maps that display many types of data that are tied to a particular 
location.
c.	Telling you where you can find more information on historic properties and 
cultural resources.
d.	None of the above.

3.	If a GIS is not available, you should:
a.	Give up. 
b.	Compile your data on a computerized spreadsheet based on Worksheet #3.
c.	Plot the location of historic properties and cultural resources by hand on a USGS 
map or a flood map of your community.
d.	Undertake the actions described in b and c.

4.	The level of community value for ranking purposes is based on:
a.	An exact mathematical formula.
b.	The geographic context of significance only.
c.	The best judgment that the team makes after evaluating an array of variables 
that contribute to community value.
d.	None of the above. 

5.	A property can be considered historic and worthy of consideration in the hazard 
mitigation plan only if it is listed in the National Register, a State landmarks list, or a 
local landmarks list.
a.	True.
b.	False.

6.	Which of the following, in your opinion, should rank first in the preservation 
hierarchy? Second? Third? State your reasons.
a.	A block of bungalows, some of which have been greatly altered, that were 
designed by a prominent local architect and date back to the 1920s.
b.	A privately owned house that is listed as a local landmark and that serves as an 
outstanding example of the Queen Anne style.
c.	The library, which was constructed in 1890, is listed in the National Register, 
contains diaries and photographs of the communitys founders, and is an 
excellent example of the Neoclassical architectural style.
d.	None of the above.

(Answers in Appendix D, Answers to Review Tests.)

Step 4

Estimate Losses

Step 4 will address the question Which historic properties and cultural resources would 
result in the most financial damage to the community in the event they were damaged or 
destroyed? In this step, your team will bring together the information gathered in Steps 
13 to estimate the potential losses to the communitys historic properties and cultural 
resources due to hazard events. To do this, your team will need to assess the level of 
damage as a percentage of structural and content replacement value, and functional and 
displacement value. See Worksheet #5: Estimate Total Losses for Historic 
Properties and Cultural Resources (see the following example and blank 
worksheet in Appendix C) for this step. 

[SAMPLE Worksheet #5	Estimate Total Losses for Historic Properties and Cultural Resources	Phase 2, Step 4

Make a copy of this worksheet for each hazard of concern.  Note the date and the hazard at the top of the worksheet. 
List each historic property or cultural resource asset. For each asset (row) calculate the structure, contents, function, 
and displacement losses. Enter each loss and total loss on Worksheet #3, as indicated.

Hazard:	Flood			Date: January 19, 2007

4 examples are provided in this 14 column table. 

Example 1. Name/description of structureHazardville Opera House.
Calculate structure loss for Hazardville Opera House.
Structure replacement value, $1,000,000, multiplied by
Percent damage, 30%, equals
Loss to structure, $300,000 (enter in Worksheet 3, column 11)

Calculate contents loss for Hazardville Opera House.
Replacement value of contents (professionally appraised for historic contents), $500,000, multiplied by
Percent damage, 30%, equals 
Loss of contents, $150,000 (enter in Worksheet 3, column 12) 

Calculate loss of function for Hazardville Opera House.
Average daily operating budget, $1,000, multiplied by 
Functional downtime in number of days, 30, equals
Total function loss, $30,000 (enter in Worksheet 3, column 13)

Calculate displacement cost for Hazardville Opera House.
Displacement cost per day, $1,000, multiplied by
Displacement time, 190, equals
Total displacement cost, $190,000 (enter in Worksheet 3, column 14)

Example 2. Name/description of structureCarruth Archives.
Calculate structure loss for Carruth Archives.
Structure replacement value, $200,000, multiplied by
Percent damage, 20%, equals
Loss to structure, $40,000 (enter in Worksheet 3, column 11)

Calculate contents loss for Carruth Archives.
Replacement value of contents (professionally appraised for historic contents), $250,000, multiplied by
Percent damage, 20%, equals 
Loss of contents, $50,000 (enter in Worksheet 3, column 12) 

Calculate loss of function for Carruth Archives.
Average daily operating budget, $300, multiplied by 
Functional downtime in number of days, 22, equals
Total function loss, $6,600 (enter in Worksheet 3, column 13)

Calculate displacement cost for Carruth Archives.
Displacement cost per day, $100 multiplied by
Displacement time, 126, equals
Total displacement cost, $12,600 (enter in Worksheet 3, column 14)

Example 3. Name/description of structureDowntown District.
Calculate structure loss for Downtown District.
Structure replacement value, $3,000,000, multiplied by
Percent damage, 30%, equals
Loss to structure, $900,000 (enter in Worksheet 3, column 11)

Calculate contents loss for Downtown District.
Replacement value of contents (professionally appraised for historic contents), $750,000, multiplied by
Percent damage, 30%, equals 
Loss of contents, $225,000 (enter in Worksheet 3, column 12) 

Calculate loss of function for Downtown District.
Average daily operating budget, $5,000, multiplied by 
Functional downtime in number of days, 30, equals
Total function loss, $150,000 (enter in Worksheet 3, column 13)

Calculate displacement cost for Downtown District.
Displacement cost per day, $7,500, multiplied by
Displacement time, 190, equals
Total displacement cost, $1,425,000 (enter in Worksheet 3, column 14)

Example 4. Name/description of structureLehman Gardens.
Calculate structure loss for Lehman Gardens, not applicable.
Loss to structure, not applicable (enter in Worksheet 3, column 11)

Calculate contents loss for Lehman Gardens.
Replacement value of contents (professionally appraised for historic contents), $200,000, multiplied by
Percent damage, 10%, equals 
Loss of contents, $20,000 (enter in Worksheet 3, column 12) 

Calculate loss of function for Lehman Gardens, not applicable.
Total function loss, not applicable (enter in Worksheet 3, column 13)

Calculate displacement cost for Lehman Gardens, not applicable.
Total displacement, cost not applicable (enter in Worksheet 3, column 14)

The total for structure loss is $670,000; the total for content loss is $109,200; the total for loss of function 
is $2,700,000; and the total for displacement cost is $20,000.
The total loss for hazard event is $3,499,200 (enter in Worksheet 3, column 15). This was obtained by 
adding structure loss ($670,000) plus content loss ($109,200) plus function loss ($2,700,000) plus 
displacement cost ($20,000).

END OF WORKSHEET #5]

Before you begin to estimate losses, first check to see if these calculations have not already been 
made as part of the hazard mitigation planning effort. If so, you can simply use these estimates, 
making appropriate adjustments for historic values. Additionally, you are strongly advised to 
review FEMA 386-2: Understanding Your Risks, Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses 
before delving into Step 4 of Phase 2. The loss estimation tables provided in Step 4 of FEMA 
386-2 should be used to complete Task A. These tables have been adapted from various sources, 
including Means Square Foot Cost publication, Hazards U.S. (HAZUS), and FEMAs Benefit-
Cost Analysis module. For more a detailed analysis, refer to the source(s) listed for each table. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Hazards US (HAZUS) 
FEMA's Mitigation Division recently released HAZUS-MH MR1 (HAZUS-Multi-Hazard 
Version 1.1), an updated and revised version of HAZUS-MH, a powerful risk assessment 
software program for analyzing potential losses from floods, hurricane, winds, and earthquakes. 
Included with the new release are an updated version of the Building Inventory Tool (BIT), the 
Inventory Collection Survey Tool (InCAST), and the Flood Information Tool (FIT). These three 
data input tools have been developed to support data collection. InCAST helps users collect and 
manage local building data for more refined analyses than are possible with the national level 
data sets that come with HAZUS. InCAST was released in 2002 with expanded capabilities for 
multi-hazard data collection. BIT allows users to import building data and is most useful when 
handling large datasets (over 100,000 records), such as tax assessor records. FIT helps users 
manipulate flood data into the format required by the HAZUS flood model. 
Federal, Tribal, State, and local government agencies and the private sector can order 
HAZUS-MH free-of-charge from the FEMA Distribution Center. 
Please visit the FEMA Web site for more information: http://www.fema.gov/hazus/.
END SIDEBAR]

In using these tables, you will find that loss estimation tables have been developed for floods, 
earthquakes, and coastal storms, but not for tornadoes, landslides, tsunamis, and wildfires. In 
these cases, you can base your loss estimations either on the full value of historic properties and 
cultural resources located within a given hazard area or on past community experience with those 
types of hazards. For example, if your community is vulnerable to wildfires, your estimate of 
loss to a wildfire would be based on the number of assets, such as infrastructure, timber, and 
other community resources, that were destroyed in past wildfire events. For further explanation 
on how to use these tables, see FEMA 386-2, page 4-3. 

[GLOSSARY SIDEBAR: Loss estimation table 
A loss estimation table projects the losses likely to be sustained due to a specific type of hazard 
event (e.g., floods) based on observed past damages. Estimated losses are provided for different 
magnitudes of the hazard and are expressed as a percentage of replacement cost. 
END SIDEBAR]

[CAUTION SIDEBAR: Using Loss Estimation Tables
Currently, no standardized loss estimation table or damage curve exists for historic properties 
and cultural resources. Therefore, the loss estimation tables provided in FEMA 386-2 should only be used as a 
broad planning tool for estimating losses to historic properties and cultural resources. You may 
wish to develop alternative tools for loss estimation, or highlight historic properties slated for 
detailed loss analysis in the future. Moreover, loss estimation tables and standardized damage 
curves represent the cumulative data on average loss gathered from many thousands of hazard-
prone buildings. Many of these buildings may not be representative of the historic buildings in 
your community. For example, they may be of more recent construction or of a different 
construction method. Although loss estimation tables and standardized damage curves are an 
imperfect tool, they may still be an important aid in the hazard mitigation decision-making 
process. 
END SIDEBAR]

Task A. Determine the extent of damages.

It is important to remember that potential losses to a historic property or cultural resource go 
beyond the immediate dollar value of materials and labor needed for repair. Your total estimate 
of the costs of expected losses will take into account several different types of losses, including 
the following: 

Losses to Historic Properties or Cultural Resources (Column 11 of Worksheet #3);

Losses to the Contents of the Historic Properties (Column 12 of Worksheet #3);

Losses to the Use and Function of Historic Properties or Cultural Resources (Columns 13 of 
Worksheet #3); and 

Losses due to Displacement Costs (Column 14 of Worksheet #3).

In Task A, you will calculate the expected losses to the structure and content, along with the 
functional loss and displacement cost. In Task B you will add these losses together to obtain 
total loss estimates for each asset and for the hazard as a whole.

Worksheet #5 will help guide you through the four types of calculations required to estimate 
losses to structures, contents, functional downtime, and displacement. You will make these 
calculations for each hazard identified in Step 1 of this risk assessment. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Estimating Seismic Rehabilitation Costs
FEMA has two publications to aid your team in estimating seismic rehabilitation costs. FEMA 
156: Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings Volume 1  Summary, and 
FEMA 157: Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings Volume 2  Supporting 
Documentation. Both publications can be ordered through the FEMA Publications Warehouse by 
calling 1-800-480-2520.
END SIDEBAR]

1. Estimate losses to structure.

Before you can calculate the estimated percent damage to a structure, you must first determine 
the replacement value of the resource. As discussed below, arriving at the replacement value of 
historic properties and cultural resources requires careful consideration of historic design 
features.

[GLOSSARY SIDEBAR:  Replacement value
A replacement value represents the approximate cost of the contemporary reconstruction of an 
existing building, structure, or cultural resource. The replacement value is used in determining 
the cost-effectiveness of various hazard mitigation alternatives.
END SIDEBAR]

While several methods exist for determining a fair market value for historic properties, especially 
buildings, no established method is available for determining a replacement value for historic 
properties. It is a difficult task to place a dollar value on the craftsmanship exhibited by many 
historic properties, particularly when the types of materials and skilled labor that went into such 
work are no longer readily available. It is nearly impossible to provide an accurate valuation 
when craftsmanship is truly unique. Assigning a replacement value to certain cultural resources, 
such as works of art, original photographs, or documents may be even more difficult. 
Despite this challenge, defining a reasonable replacement cost allows historic properties and 
cultural resources to more effectively be integrated into the hazard mitigation planning process. 
Replacement values for historic properties and cultural resources can vary significantly. For 
example, methods for treating historic properties and cultural resources following a disaster can 
deviate significantly, ranging from standard repair and rehabilitation to a more careful (and often 
more expensive) level of museum-quality conservation or restoration. Moreover, the costs of 
materials required for rehabilitation often vary widely from region to region. 
As you develop an idea of the replacement value of your historic properties and cultural 
resources, it is important to remember that these resources are non-renewable resourcesthey 
cannot truly be replaced by duplicates or facsimiles. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Involvement of Property Owner in Determining Replacement Value
Owners may also be a valuable source of information on the replacement value of historic 
properties and their contents. Some institutions or landowners, however, may be hesitant to 
reveal the actual value of their properties. 

These owners should be assured that they can provide planners with the dollar values they 
require for planning purposes, but that the amount will be classified as sensitive and not included 
in the plan. Additionally, if it makes the owners more comfortable, they can cite a value range
between $100,000 and $120,000, for exampleinstead of a precise value, or state the value of 
the contents as a percentage of the structures value. 

Some institutions may not know the value of their artifacts or parts of their collections. In these 
cases, they can report the percentage of their holdings that are considered unique or 
irreplaceable. This figure can still be useful in prioritizing mitigation actions. 
END SIDEBAR]

One way to determine replacement values for what are essentially irreplaceable resources is to 
combine standard cost estimating techniques used for new construction with approximate costs 
of post-disaster rehabilitation based on the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for 
Rehabilitation of Historic Structures. 
These guidelines, as well as other guidelines from NPS, will also help in determining 
replacement values for historic properties. Of great assistance will be the documentary 
photographs and field notes you took during your survey of the property in Step 3. For 
appraising cultural resources, it may be necessary to work with a professional appraiser or 
experienced conservator. Reviewing insurance policies may also help you to estimate their 
replacement value. More detailed methods for replacement valuation are described in the section 
below.

[SPECIAL SUBJECT BOX: Recommended Methods for Replacement Valuation of Historic 
Properties
In estimating losses to a building, you must first determine the replacement value of a historic 
property. One recommended method for determining the replacement value of historic properties 
is to organize information in a standard valuation format using a common construction costing 
guide, such as the one published by RS Means. Such costing guides place buildings and 
structures into several different quality-based categories of per-square-foot construction costs, 
based on such factors as height and level of detail and craftsmanship. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: How do I determine a replacement value of a historic property?
Using a common construction costing guide, you should:

Determine the appropriate style category to which the property belongs by examining the 
pictures provided in the guide. Look for similar design features, as well as level of ornament and 
detail.

Establish a basic square-foot cost based on the basic structural system, using extra costs for other 
structural features such as chimneys and porches. These extra costs classifications are listed in 
the guide.

Use the local construction cost multipliers provided in the guide to find the construction cost 
multiplier appropriate for your community; use this figure to calculate your final cost.

For unique property features, consider using additional multipliers specific to your community 
or site-specific cost exceptions. 
END SIDEBAR]

You may notice that some of the new buildings in your community resemble certain historic 
structures. This is not surprising, since certain popular architectural styles have often been 
revived throughout history. 

Because many contemporary buildings or structures listed in the RS Means guide and other 
similar construction costing guides are alike in basic external appearance to historic buildings 
and structures, it is relatively easy to place many historic properties into different categories of 
construction costs. 

However, due to the high level of architectural detail that is often present in historic properties, 
many historic buildings and structures should be placed into a higher Means or construction 
guide category indicating a higher level of detail or construction quality. In addition, you should 
adjust your estimate to account for local construction costs and any unique or site-specific 
characteristics. For example, certain exceptions and allowances should be made for unique 
decorative features, such as curved glass windows, turrets, or detailed cornices. A qualified 
preservation architect, a contractor experienced in historic building rehabilitation, or other 
appropriate design or construction professionals will be able to assist you in the development of 
site-specific or unique cost exceptions and allowances. 

Perhaps your community has some highly unusual, one-of-a-kind historic properties and cultural 
resources for which there is no easy comparison or cost category. These might include places and 
structures as diverse as a sod house, a traditional cultural landscape feature, or a unique example 
of commercial roadside sculpture. For these truly unique assets, you should make a list of their 
most unusual or unique aspects. For example, a property may serve as the venue for an annual 
community cultural gathering, or be an exceptional example of architecture that draws tourists 
regionally or nationally. Once you have compiled your list of unusual features, examine it for 
those items which have a well-defined dollar value. This may include annual costs associated 
with the continual upkeep of unique design features. When standard cost estimating techniques 
are inadequate for determining a replacement value for a highly unusual historic property, you 
can explore alternative methods of replacement valuation. If you do decide to pursue other 
methods, remember to keep a written paper record justifying your decisions.

If your community is undertaking a large-scale hazard mitigation plan encompassing hundreds or 
even thousands of historic properties, it may lack the time, money, or other resources needed to 
develop detailed individualized replacement costs, especially those requiring multiple cost 
exceptions for historic design features. Although these more detailed estimates provide a greater 
degree of accuracy, your community can instead develop a specialized multiplier for each 
historic property that you add to the standard estimated replacement value for similar standard, 
modern construction to account for locally unique cost considerations. This multiplier should be 
based on the average costs of potential post-disaster rehabilitation of historic design features 
found in the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation. Such a multiplier will be 
useful if many of your communitys historic properties have similar or typical historic features. 

To formulate this community-specific multiplier, you may want to investigate a variety of local 
or regional sources, such as the following:

Insurance claims and post-disaster reports for historic properties and cultural resources in 
your community, or for similar properties facing similar hazards in other communities in your 
region. 

Local, State, or Federal financial incentive programs, that encourage appropriate rehabilitation of 
historic properties (e.g., tax credits for rehabilitation). Do the figures used by these programs 
accurately reflect the potential costs for post-disaster rehabilitation? Could these figures be used 
in support of a multiplier for your project? 

Your SHPO/THPO, as well as local professionals experienced with historic buildings, may be 
able to tell you the typical features and costs associated with rehabilitating local historic 
properties. 

The needs of your community will determine whether you choose to establish a multiplier or 
pursue a more detailed analysis. Should you choose the multiplier, community needs will also 
determine the means by which you gather cost data to develop the multiplier.
END SPECIAL SUBJECT BOX]

Remember that you probably will not find a perfect match for every historic property in your 
preservation hierarchy. This means that replacement value data generated using either a costing 
guide or a multiplier will be approximate, and not exact. The replacement cost you assign to an 
essentially irreplaceable resource is, at best, imperfect. If you encounter concerns about 
replacement valuation, you can remind those concerned that many other factors about a historic 
property or cultural resource can influence the decision-making process. 
Once you have determined the structural replacement value of each historic property and cultural 
resource (when applicable) in your preservation hierarchy, you should multiply it by the percent 
damage expected to occur from a particular hazard event using the loss estimates tables in Step 4 
of FEMA 386-2. Record that value in Column 11 of Worksheet #3.

2. Estimate losses to contents of historic properties and cultural resources.

An additional consideration for estimating losses to historic properties is the replacement 
valuation of their contents. Many historic commercial and residential buildings contain items 
similar in value to those found in more contemporary buildings and structures. Certain historic 
properties, however (particularly museums, community centers, and historic sites), may contain 
valuable art, antiques, and furnishings, as well as other rare historic items. If your inventory does 
not list these cultural resources separately, you should include them in the contents valuation for 
the historic property. For these unique contents, it may be necessary to consult an antiques dealer 
or appraiser to determine their value or check existing insurance policies. In addition, important 
cultural resources such as archives or art may be located within a building that is not considered 
historic. 

Once you have determined the replacement value of the contents of a historic property, you 
should multiply it by the percent damage expected to occur from a particular hazard event using 
the loss estimates tables in Step 4 of FEMA 386-2. The product of this calculation will be the 
costs expected to be incurred by a community due to losses to the contents from that hazard 
event. For example, if the librarys content replacement value equals $225,000 and it is expected 
that 10 percent of its contents would be damaged by a 100-year flood, then estimated losses to 
these contents from such a flood would be $22,500.
Once you have estimated the content loss to the historic property or cultural resource, you should 
record that value in Column 12 of Worksheet #3.

[TIP SIDEBAR: Collections and Objects Damaged by a Disaster
To determine eligibility for FEMA funding for stabilization and treatment of collections and 
objects of exceptionally significant value after a disaster, see FEMAs Collections and Individual 
Objects Policy at http://www.fema.gov/rrr/pa/9524_6.shtm. 
END SIDEBAR]

3. Estimate losses due to functional downtime and displacement time.

To estimate losses due to functional downtime and displacement, you are referred to pages 4-4 
and 4-5 of FEMA 386-2. Losses due to functional downtime are the costs associated with the amount of time a historic 
property is out of business, or the amount of revenue from visitors that would be lost if a site 
were destroyed. To determine tourism losses, the loss of revenue is calculated from the time the 
business is closed through the day the business resumes operations. As stated before, you can 
count either loss of revenue per day or loss of operating budget per day (based on the annual 
operating budget). To calculate functional downtime losses, multiply the average daily operating 
budget by the number of days that the business is closed. 

Displacement costs are associated with the amount of time a business or service is displaced 
from its original location. A standard of $1/square foot for rent, $500/month of additional costs, 
and a $500 one-time cost for the initial move can be applied. While these are the default values 
for a residential structure, higher costs can be applied as long as the applicant can support higher 
values through receipts or estimates. To derive displacement costs, calculate the daily 
displacement cost and multiply by the number of days the business or service would operate in 
its temporary location.

[GLOSSARY SIDEBAR:  Functional Downtime
Functional downtime is the number of days that a business would be closed due to damage from 
a hazard event before it could resume in another location.
Displacement Time
Displacement time is the number of days a business or service would operate away from its 
original location due to a hazard event. 
Displacement Cost
Displacement cost is the expense for a business or service to be relocated to another structure 
because of a hazard event. This cost can include the rent for temporary building space per month 
and a one-time cost to set up operations in the new place.
END SIDEBAR]

Once you have calculated losses due to functional downtime and displacement costs, you should 
record those values in Columns 13 and 14, respectively, of Worksheet #3.

Task B. Calculate the total loss for each hazard.

Now that you have completed all the calculations in Worksheet #5 for each historic property and 
cultural resource in your preservation hierarchy, sum the dollar value of the calculated losses to 
arrive at the total estimated damage for each hazard event. Transfer this information to Column 
15 of Worksheet #3.

Summary

With the completion of your calculations in Worksheet #5, you should have a good idea of which 
historic properties and cultural resources are subject to the greatest potential damage and which 
hazard event would produce the greatest potential losses. This information will aid you in 
prioritizing your mitigation actions in Phase 3.

This is the end of Step 4 of Phase 2. Following are questions you should ask yourself to 
determine if you collected sufficient data to carry out your calculations to estimate losses. These 
are followed by a Review Test to help you distinguish among the different types of costs 
involved in estimating losses. 

Evaluate Your Community 

Were you able to assess the costs of each potential hazard event for each resource on your inventory? Where will you look for missing information?

Did you determine the replacement value for unique historic properties?

Did you remember to estimate the replacement value for contents in museums, community centers, or 
historic sites?

Does your loss estimate include functional downtime and displacement costs? 

Review Test (Select one answer for each question.)
1.	Before you can calculate the estimated percent damage to a structure you must first 
determine the ___________ value. 
a.	expected.
b.	replacement.
c.	market.
d.	historic.

2.	To calculate losses due to displacement, multiply the displacement cost per day by 
___________.
a.	the number of customers who stop by. 
b.	the cost of all the utilities for one month.
c.	the number of days out of business.
d.	one months rent.

3	If you do not have loss estimation tables available it is acceptable to use historic data for 
your loss estimation.
a.	True.
b.	False.
c.	Only if you project the historic data into present value. 
d.	If FEMA gives you approval to do so.

4.	To determine the value of unique resources such as historic artifacts, antiques, or 
valuable art to calculate the content loss, you can:
a.	Consult an antiques appraiser.
b.	Check existing insurance policies.
c.	Both a and b.
d.	None of the above.

5.	Functional loss is:
a.	The cost of not being able to operate your business following a disaster.
b.	The measure by which a historic property fails to meet the standards of a modern 
building code.
c.	Damage to a structure caused by a natural or manmade disaster.
d.	Both b and c.

6.	Displacement cost is:
a.	The cost of moving your house out of a floodplain.
b.	The cost of putting a structure back on its foundation after it has been displaced by a 
flood.
c.	The cost for a business or service to be relocated to a temporary location after its normal 
location is damaged by a natural or manmade disaster.
d.	None of the above.

(Answers in Appendix D  Answers to Review Tests.)

PHASE 3  DEVELOP A MITIGATION PLAN

[GRAPHIC: DIAGRAM SHOWING THE FOUR PHASES OF THE PLANNING PROCESS 
WITH PHASE 3 AND ITS 4 STEPS HIGHLIGHTED.
Mitigation Planning Process
1.	Organize Resources
2.	Assess Risks
3.	Develop a Mitigation Plan
	Develop mitigation goals and objectives
	Identify and prioritize mitigation actions
	Prepare an implementation strategy 
	Document the mitigation planning process
4.	Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress
END GRAPHIC]

Overview

In Phase 3 you will identify mitigation actions and implementation strategies for 
protecting your identified historic properties and cultural resources. This process 
consists of four major steps:
Step 1. Develop mitigation goals and objectives for your preservation hierarchy.
Step 2. Identify, evaluate, and prioritize actions.
Step 3. Prepare an implementation strategy.
Step 4. Document the mitigation planning process completed for historic properties 
and cultural resources.

The steps you will take in Phase 3 for protecting your identified historic and cultural 
resources parallel those for creating the hazard mitigation plan to address the other 
assets in the community. For a more detailed review of those steps, please refer to 
FEMA 386-3: Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation Actions and 
Implementation Strategies. 

Step 1

Develop Mitigation Goals and Objectives for Historic Properties 
and Cultural Resources

Before you identify mitigation actions for protecting historic properties and cultural 
resources in your community, your team must develop a set of goals and objectives. 
These will be used as the basis for developing appropriate mitigation actions. 

[GLOSSARY SIDEBAR: Goals 
General guidelines that explain what you want to achieve. They are usually broad policy 
statements and represent long-term, global visions. The following are examples of goal 
statements:

Our community will develop ways to protect significant historic properties and cultural 
resources from future flood events.

Our community will use historic properties as an economic development tool for 
community growth.

Objectives 
Defined strategies or implementation steps for attaining the identified goals. Unlike goals, 
objectives are specific and measurable. The following are examples of objectives: 

Protect structures in the historic downtown area from flood damage.

Rehabilitate houses in a hurricane-prone residential historic district. 

Mitigation Actions 
Specific actions that help you achieve your goals and objectives. The following are 
examples of mitigation actions:

Elevate three historic structures located in the historic district.

Replace historic windows with stronger glass; new window design will match historic 
design.
END SIDEBAR]

Procedures and Techniques

Task A. Review and analyze the findings from your risk assessment.

1. Review the findings from your risk assessment. 

A review of the findings from your teams risk assessment (Phase 2) will help you 
formulate goals and objectives that address the vulnerability of community assets. You 
should review the findings from each step of the risk assessment. For additional 
information on reviewing the findings of your risk assessment, you are referred to pages 
1-2 through 1-4 of FEMA 386-3.

You should take the following steps to complete your review of the risk assessment 
findings:

Note conditions in the community that contribute to hazard effects.

Note the hazard characteristics.

Note which historic properties and cultural resources identified in Phase 2 are 
located in hazard areas. Cross reference this with your preservation hierarchy, which 
you developed in Step 3 of Phase 2.

Identify building design and construction vulnerabilities of hazard-prone historic 
properties and cultural resources. Use the results from Worksheet #3: Inventory 
Historic Property and Cultural Resource Assets from Phase 2.

Review the community value, the composite map of vulnerabilities, and estimated 
losses to identify the most vulnerable areas. Again, turn to your results from 
Worksheet #3, Phase 2.

2. Develop a list of problem statements based on these findings.

Based on your teams review of the risk assessment, you should next develop a list of 
problem statements for each hazard. By the time you are done, you may find that you 
have a long list of problem statements to address. 
Several examples of problem statements are provided below:

The historic lighthouse is threatened by erosion and coastal flooding. 

The downtown historic district is threatened by multiple hazards, including 
earthquakes and wind storms. Repetitive hazard-related loss has encouraged 
disinvestment, and current zoning tools do not promote economic growth in the 
neighborhood.

The towns oral history archives are currently stored in a basement, which is prone to 
flooding and is not safe from fire.

Property owners are not aware of hazard-related threats to historic properties.

Task B. Formulate goals.

1. Develop proposed goal statements.

Group your problem statements and see what common theme runs through them in 
order to begin formulating goals. One way to formulate your goals is to turn these 
problem statements into positive statements of what you want to do to create a stronger 
community, State, or Tribe. For more information on developing goal statements please 
refer to pages 1-5 and 1-6 of FEMA 386-3. Remember that your goal statements 
should not identify specific mitigation actions, but identify the overall improvements you 
want to achieve. Example general goals follow:

Enhance the ability of vulnerable historic properties and cultural resources to 
withstand the impact of hazards while maintaining their integrity.

Minimize losses to areas of high economic value, including local landmarks in the 
downtown district.

Encourage and support efforts to identify, evaluate, and designate historic properties 
and cultural resources.

2.  Review existing plans and other policy documents to determine if your goals conflict 
with other plans.

In Phase 1, your team collected existing plans (preservation plans, comprehensive 
plans, zoning and economic development plans, transportation plans, etc.) and other 
policy documents. Review these documents to ensure that their priorities do not conflict 
with the ones you have established for your communitys historic properties and cultural 
resources. You do not want to spend time and energy on formulating goals, objectives, 
and mitigation actions for protecting your communitys historic properties and cultural 
resources only to discover that they conflict with other community plans. This is 
particularly true for historic properties, which are sometimes considered as an 
afterthought in other planning decisions. When you encounter such conflicts you do not 
have to abandon a goal or the objectives and mitigation actions that stem from them, but 
you do need to address the conflict to develop common goals. Such goals may include 
protecting private property and critical public facilities, avoiding disruptions to the local 
economy, and sustaining local character and identity.

[TIP SIDEBAR:  Individual Structures of High Significance
If you are focusing on a single structure of high significance, check to see if it is included 
in an existing Historic Structure Report, Cultural Landscape Report, or Master Plan which 
outlines preservation priorities. Certain cultural resource collections may also have 
existing conservation and care plans associated with them. 
END SIDEBAR]

Task C. Determine objectives.

Objectives are more specific and narrower in scope than goals. They expand on the 
goals and provide more detail on the ways to accomplish them. Please review page 1-7 
of FEMA 386-3 for more detail on determining objectives.
The following objectives shape the strategy for implementing one of the example goals 
listed in Task B, Enhance the ability of vulnerable historic properties and cultural 
resources to withstand the impact of hazards while maintaining their integrity.
Objective 1:	Assess appropriate methods to retrofit historic properties and 
protect cultural resources.
Objective 2:	Promote the use of existing incentive programs such as Federal 
and State income tax credits and preservation easements.
Objective 3:	Disseminate best management practices for protecting historic 
properties and cultural resources.

Task D. Gather public input.

Once you have developed your goals and objectives you need to share them with the 
public and gather their input. Input from the public is important for shaping and refining 
your goals and objectives, and for reaching community consensus on them. Allowing 
community members to participate in the planning process will give them a sense of 
ownership about the plan that will enhance their support for the plan and its 
implementation. As part of this effort, it is recommended that you review pages 1-8 
through 1-10 of FEMA 386-3, which provide additional information on how to 
gather public input at this point in your planning process. 

While many in the community may agree with the proposed goals, the planning team 
may still encounter strong differences of opinion among some community members 
regarding how historic properties and cultural resources fit into the hazard mitigation 
plan. Ensuing debates could be emotionally charged. If at this point, despite your 
outreach efforts throughout the planning process, community divisions or professional 
differences between members of the planning team, or among government officials, 
arise over historic properties, cultural resources, and hazard mitigation, your team may 
wish to work with a neutral arbitrator or alternative dispute resolution specialist who can 
objectively describe the issues, goals, and objectives of multiple interest groups, and 
help achieve consensus. 

This is the end of Step 1 of Phase 3. You should ask yourself the following questions to 
determine if you have adequately developed mitigation goals and objectives for 
incorporating your historic properties and cultural resources into your hazard mitigation 
plan. These are followed by a Review Test that you should use as a learning aid to help 
you become familiar with the concepts of hazard mitigation. 

Evaluate Your Community

Have you done a thorough job of evaluating other plans and policy documents to 
identify potential conflicts with your preservation goals?

Have you gathered public input to shape and come to consensus on goals and 
objectives for historic properties and cultural resources?

Review Test (Select one answer for each question.)
1.	Goals are:
a.	General, broad, long-term visions of what your community wants to achieve.
b.	Implementation of strategies or steps that are measurable.
c.	Specific measures, with a specific timeline and budget, to fix a specific problem.
d.	All of the above.

2.	Objectives are: 
a.	General, broad, long-term visions of what your community wants to achieve.
b.	Implementation of strategies or steps that are measurable.
c.	Specific measures, with a specific timeline and budget, to fix a specific problem.
d.	All of the above.

3.	Actions are: 
a.	General, broad, long-term visions of what your community wants to achieve.
b.	Implementation of strategies or steps that are measurable.
c.	Specific measures, with a specific timeline and budget, to fix a specific problem.
d.	All of the above.

(Answers in Appendix D  Answers to Review Tests.)

Step 2

Identify, Evaluate, and Prioritize Actions 

In Step 2, you will identify, evaluate, and prioritize mitigation actions to address the goals 
and objectives you developed. As part of the evaluation process for determining which 
actions work for your community, State, or Tribe, your planning team will assess the 
levels of financial, staffing, and other resources you can devote to implementing your 
identified actions. The process of identifying, evaluating, and prioritizing mitigation 
actions is covered in more detail in FEMA 386-3, Step 2, and summarized 
below as it applies to integrating historic property and cultural resources into the hazard 
mitigation plan.

Procedures and Techniques

Task A. Identify alternative mitigation actions.

In Task A, your planning team will identify specific mitigation actions to address the 
goals and objectives that you developed. In identifying possible mitigation actions you 
must evaluate a range of mitigation approaches. Such an alternatives analysis is 
necessary to determine the varying impacts and costs associated with each action. 
Additionally, the Federal government mandates that such an analysis be performed for 
projects that entail Federal involvement or funding (e.g., National Environmental Policy 
Act analysis). Many States also mandate a similar alternatives analysis for State 
involvement.

[CAUTION SIDEBAR: NEPA
One of the most important laws to comply with is the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA). Signed into law by President Nixon in 1969, NEPA establishes the broad national 
framework for protecting the environment, including historic properties. NEPA's basic 
policy is to ensure that all branches of government give proper consideration to the 
environment prior to undertaking any major Federal action that significantly affects the 
environment. The NEPA process subsumes the review of proposed actions under an 
array of other Federal laws. To achieve improved project streamlining, NEPA and NHPA 
requirements are sometimes combined. For more on NEPA and NHPA, see Appendix A, 
Glossary. 
END SIDEBAR]

For this task you will use Worksheet #6: Identify Alternative Mitigation Actions for 
Historic Properties and Cultural Resources (included in Appendix C) and follow the 
instructions located at the end of Task A. You are also referred to Worksheet Job Aid 
#1: Alternative Mitigation Actions by Hazard, found in Appendix C. Worksheet Job 
Aid #1 will help you evaluate a variety of potential hazard mitigation options for historic 
properties and cultural resources.

[CAUTION SIDEBAR: Consider All Potential Mitigation Actions 
You dont want some good ideas not to be considered because of concerns over funding. 
At this point in the planning process all ideas should be considered and evaluated.
END SIDEBAR]

A number of approaches exist for reducing hazard-related losses to historic properties 
and cultural resources. In some cases, one action can protect against multiple hazards; 
in others, a combination of actions may be needed to protect one resource. The 
alternatives you identify should provide some measure of structural or physical 
protection to historic properties and cultural resources while maintaining historic integrity 
and a sense of place. 

The types of mitigation actions chosen will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, 
depending on the types of historic properties and cultural resources found, and the 
ability to implement one potential action over another. Generally, mitigation actions for 
historic properties and cultural resources fall into the following five categories:
1.	Prevention.
2.	Property and resource protection.
3.	Structural diversions.
4.	Public education and awareness.
5.	Natural resource protection for historic landscape features and archeological sites.

See the special subject box that follows for an explanation of the five categories of mitigation 
actions you should consider in determining which actions work for your community. 

[SPECIAL SUBJECT BOX: Mitigation Action Category #1: Prevention
Preventive mitigation actions involve the pre-emptive reduction of hazard-related loss 
through specific administrative measures taken very early on in the land development 
process. 

Preventive mitigation actions include performance standards and regulatory actions, 
both of which influence the ways in which land is developed and buildings are 
constructed. Examples include planning and zoning, building codes, capital improvement 
programs, open space preservation, and storm water management regulations. 
Performance Standards. Performance standards require that buildings and their 
components be durable enough to survive certain levels of stress from different hazard 
events. Ensuring compliance with performance standards will help reduce the likelihood 
that design elements of historic buildings and other structures located in hazard-prone 
areas will experience hazard-related damage. However, without careful analysis and 
creative design, character-defining features of these structures may be unnecessarily 
sacrificed in an attempt to bring them up to an enhanced code or performance standard. 
In meeting performance standards, you should consider design options that attempt to 
maintain historic design elements while also providing enhanced strength and 
performance. For example, sometimes the structural systems of a building or structure 
may be replaced with modern materials. At other times, though, structural systems are 
an important, character-defining feature that should be preserved in place. In these 
cases, such as with a historic bridge, you may want to consider the introduction of new 
structural elements while leaving old ones in place, or making repairs to the existing 
structural system. 

Older buildings that are eligible for listing in the National Register, if stripped of their 
original, historic building material, may lose their eligibility and the potential historic 
preservation tax credits that go with it. It is important to evaluate the replacement and 
replication of design elements alongside planning and community goals, including the 
use of your hierarchy or priority list.

[CAUTION SIDEBAR:  Performance Standards for Historic Buildings
Many enhanced building codes and performance standards in hazard-prone areas were 
developed for contemporary construction. It is important to allow for flexibility in the design 
of retrofits and rehabilitations of historic buildings.
END SIDEBAR]

Regulatory Actions. Regulatory actions include building codes, zoning and subdivision 
regulations, design and site plan review, easements, floodplain buffers, and open space 
requirements. The introduction of regulatory measures to prevent the construction of 
buildings in hazard-prone areas can be a useful mitigation alternative. 
Regulatory actions can provide your community with an opportunity to ensure that future 
growth and development avoid or minimize risk of hazard-related damage. It is 
important, however, that your team examine the potential impact of regulatory actions on 
the future of existing historic communities. For example, the introduction of setbacks in a 
historic community where buildings are typically set close to the lot line may result in 
new construction that disrupts the unique sense of place important to many historic 
districts. Additionally, regulatory actions that prevent or limit growth in hazard-prone 
areas may lead to disinvestment in, and even abandonment of, historic areas. This is 
particularly important in communities with large concentrations of historic properties in 
the floodplain. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and Historic Structures 
The NFIP provides relief to historic structures by waiving new construction and substantial 
improvement requirements of the program. This exclusion from the new construction 
requirements serves as an added incentive for property owners to maintain the historic 
character of the designated structure. 
The NFIP floodplain management requirements contain the following two provisions 
intended to provide relief for historic structures located in Special Flood Hazard Areas. 
Communities have the option of using either provision for addressing the unique needs of 
historic structures:

In the definition of substantial improvement at 44 CFR 59.1, alteration to an historic 
structure does not constitute a substantial improvement, provided that the alteration 
will not preclude the structures continued designation as an historic structure. The 
same also applies to historic structures that have been substantially damaged.

The other provision of the NFIP floodplain management regulations that provides 
relief for historic structures is 44 CFR 60.6(a). This provision states Variances may 
be granted for the repair or rehabilitation of historic structures upon a determination 
that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structures continued 
designation as a historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to 
preserve the historic character and design of the structure. 

However, NFIP floodplain management requirements could apply to additions to historic 
structures if they are located in a floodway. All structures, including historic structures, 
must comply with the floodway encroachment provisions of Section 60.3(c)(10) and (d)(3) 
of the NFIP regulations. For example, any addition to a historic structure that expands the 
square footage of the structure beyond its existing footprint must comply with the 
regulatory floodway criteria. Under these regulations, any addition to a historic structure 
that results in a rise of the Base Flood Elevation will be prohibited. 
END SIDEBAR]

Thoughtful use of regulatory action can both promote economic growth and encourage 
disaster-resistant design. For example, in hazard-prone areas, a balanced combination 
of density controls or overlay zones with preservation-friendly investment incentives can 
foster economic growth while keeping new construction and population growth at 
reasonable levels. Design review and site plan review can lead to new construction that 
is both disaster-resistant and adheres to the scale, setting, materials, and sense of place 
of a particular historic district. 

Many contemporary building codes include standards for minimizing damage from 
hazard events. Code sections on retrofitting offer one such example. Frequently, these 
codes are intended for contemporary building materials and construction techniques, so 
it is important that you allow considerable flexibility in applying them to historic buildings. 
You may want to bring together a building code official and a design professional to 
discuss possibilities for code compliance. Their discussion may yield creative design 
solutions that comply with the basic tenets of the building code while retaining character-
defining historic features. Flexibility and willingness to compromise will be key.

[TIP SIDEBAR: State Building Codes for Historic Structures
Some States have developed building codes that are specific to the rehabilitation of 
historic buildings. You should check to see if your State has such a code, or consider 
using another existing code as a springboard for discussion about code compliance. 
Representative examples of such codes are the State of Marylands Building 
Rehabilitation Code (available online at 
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/education/growfromhere/lesson15/mdp/smartcode/smartcode00.htm) 
and the State of New Jerseys Uniform Construction Code of Rehabilitation 
Subcode. This code (New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 5, Chapter 23, Subchapter 6) 
is available online at http://www.state.nj.us/dca/codes/rehab/index.shtml. Both codes offer 
alternative codes for the repair, renovation, and reuse of buildings that otherwise would 
not have met existing codes without a prohibitive amount of investment.
Other codes include alternative methods of performance analysis (e.g., the ABK 
methodology described in Appendix A for seismic-prone buildings), regional codes (e.g., 
the State Historical Building Code in California) and national codes (e.g., the Universal 
Code for Building Conservation).
END SIDEBAR]

Mitigation Action Category #2: Property and Resource Protection 

This category includes basic property improvements performed by the owner, including 
retrofitting, elevation, relocation, and acquisition. 

Basic Property Improvements. Property owners can often undertake a variety of 
relatively simple improvements to reduce hazards facing their property. Although these 
improvements provide limited protection from hazard-related damage, they have minimal 
impact on character-defining design features and are relatively low in cost. 
Basic property improvements include floodproofing, elevating and retrofitting utility 
systems, creating safe rooms, and anchoring and relocating furniture and other 
vulnerable contents. For example, heirlooms and other cultural resources may be 
removed from flood-prone basements and stored in safer locations. In turn, flood-prone 
basements may themselves be renovated so that they can be flooded without damage to 
the building or foundation.

Retrofitting. Retrofitting entails the replacement or rehabilitation of building and 
structural systems to improve their ability to withstand structural forces. Retrofitting of 
historic structures can be highly intrusive because of the risk of removing character-
defining design elements, or having them obscured with incompatible modern materials. 
It is possible, however, to design retrofitting projects in which character-defining features 
are preserved in place and retrofitting measures are hidden from view. In addition, 
reproduction of historic facades or design elements using modern materials may 
conform to the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation and also maintain 
the National Register eligibility of a historic building. 

For buildings and structures identified as vulnerable to earthquake hazards, structural 
retrofitting may be particularly useful. Seismic retrofits include the following actions:

Introduction of sub-foundation dampers that can absorb sudden pressure.

Reinforcement of foundation and wall connections.

Replacement of older structural elements with modern materials. 

Reinforcement of structural connections by sistering old connections with new 
patches.

Bracing of parapets and anchoring of nonstructural elements.

[TIP SIDEBAR:  Seismic Retrofit Publications
There are several publications that provide information on seismic retrofit, including ASCE 
31, Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings and FEMA 356, Prestandard and 
Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Additionally, FEMAs forthcoming 
publication on seismic retrofits provides additional guidance on decision-making for 
seismic-prone historic properties. This guide contains information about multiple retrofit 
design options. In addition, this guide contains specific information about both baseline 
and complex tools for understanding historic building systems. Factors which might trigger 
the use of more complex evaluation tools include a building with highly significant and 
unique historic design features, unusual geologic conditions, or a difference of opinion 
about the outcome of baseline evaluation results.

FEMA 312, Homeowners Guide to Retrofitting and FEMA 348, Protecting Building Utilities 
from Flood Damage are two publications that provide specific information on protecting 
structures from flood damage. 
END SIDEBAR]

In areas prone to wind and coastal storm events, retrofitting projects should pay 
particular attention to the following:

The strength of roofing joists and connections.

The strength of window glass, frames, and shutters. For example, shatter-resistant 
glass or storm shutters could be installed.

The construction of the foundation, particularly in areas prone to repetitive or high-
velocity flooding. 

To reduce the threat of damage from fire, retrofitting projects should consider the 
following:

Upgrading mechanical and fire-protection systems. 

Balancing the need to conform to current codes and the preservation of character-
defining features. For example, the seemingly random placement of modern pull-
boxes, sprinklers, and sirens may disrupt the interior and historic ambience of an 
eighteenth-century house museum. Creative input from a preservation architect, 
however, may allow you to conceal fire-protection improvements and thus retain a 
historic sense of place inside the building. 

To address vulnerability to manmade hazards, such as terrorism, the following 
retrofitting measures should be considered:

Access control: Access can be controlled by retrofitting certain physical aspects of 
a building, structure, or site, or by enhancing security at points of potential entry: 

Security measures: Security measures include screening visitors and limiting or 
prohibiting access. Although limiting public access may reduce the significance of 
certain historic properties and cultural resources, use of alternative public 
interpretation programs can still allow public involvement. For significant public 
spaces, work with curators and building managers to explore ways to control 
rather than prohibit access. 

Site planning and landscape design: Although historic landscape features often 
contribute to the character of a site, they may not work well for controlling 
access. In these cases, you should ask an experienced landscape architect to 
design new site elements that restrict ingress while still complementing and 
retaining historic landscape features. For specific advice on how to design new 
site features for historic properties, refer to the Secretary of the Interiors 
Standards.

Architectural and interior space planning: Although interior spacesparticularly 
those with a high amount of human traffic, such as lobbiescan be retrofitted to 
serve as control points, in many historic buildings, these spaces are themselves 
character-defining features. To find creative solutions for adding architectural 
design features that control access but also preserve important features, try 
consulting an experienced preservation architect. 

Blast resistance: In addition to controlling access, ensuring a certain level of blast 
resistance may be important in retrofitting a historic structure. When recommending 
blast-resistant walls or window systems, you should see that their design does not 
conflict with existing character-defining exterior elements. Many historic buildings are 
significant because of exterior design qualities, while structures such as bridges are 
notable for exposed structural elements. 

Lighting improvements: Improved lighting may also enhance the security of a 
historic property or cultural resource. Before altering the lighting in and around a 
historic resource, however, you must consider the potential impact that interior and 
exterior lighting systems may have on historic elements. In highly significant interior 
spaces, lower lighting may be an important historic feature.

[TIP SIDEBAR: Balancing Historic Preservation and the Nations Security
Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, concrete Jersey barriers were 
placed around the famous monuments and buildings of Washington, DC, and access to 
many monuments was restricted or prohibited altogether. Although the barriers provided 
immediate security, they were visually incompatible with DCs famous historic architecture. 
Moreover, access restrictions gave the perception that cultural sites were off limits. This 
perception, combined with the general perception that the nations capital was a terrorist 
target, led to a decline in tourist activity and, consequently, tourist revenue.

In an attempt to strike an appropriate balance between increasing security and retaining 
the citys unique urban design, the National Capital Planning Commission formed an 
Interagency Task Force, whose work resulted in Designing for Security in the Nations 
Capital (October 2001), which grew into The National Capital Urban Design and Security 
Plan (October 2002). The Plan provides specific guidance for design improvements that 
enhance the citys traditional open, pedestrian environment while still providing enhanced 
security. For example, the Plan calls for the use of hardened benches, landscaping 
elements such as vegetation, discrete bollards, and concrete planters to serve as security 
features for Federal facilities, monuments, and museums. While these improvements are 
clearly contemporary, they use forms and materials that are compatible with their 
nineteenth and early twentieth century monumental settings. The urban design features 
recommended by the Plan not only enhance protection and security, but also fit the citys 
traditional sense of place. The Plan is available on line at 
http://www.ncpc.gov/publications_press/publications.html.
END SIDEBAR]

[TIP SIDEBAR:  Integrating Modern Materials into Historic Structures
Working with a highly experienced preservation architect, you can develop structural 
interventions that do not obscure historic design elements of a historic structure, but rather 
introduce modern and aesthetically rich elements that help to protect the property. For 
example, during a mechanical renovation of the Library of Congress in Washington, DC, 
new fire protection systems were integrated into the existing historic design. Sprinklers 
were placed in the middle of decorative floral rosettes. This illustrates how modern 
elements can be successfully integrated into historic fabric.

When recommending retrofitting as a mitigation action, you should ensure that new 
designs and new materials not obscure existing significant historic features, and 
retrofitting should reference important historic design elements. New hazard mitigation 
measures for historic properties can provide an opportunity to enhance your communitys 
architecture while highlighting the past. More information about the appropriate design of 
additions to historic properties is available from your SHPO and NPS at 
http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/standguide/rehab/rehab_newadd.htm.
END SIDEBAR]

Elevation. One of the most common methods of protecting flood-prone buildings, 
elevation involves raising a building so that its lowest floor is above the Base Flood 
Elevation (BFE), or the 100-year flood zone. Where less intrusive elevation is desired, 
historic buildings can be elevated to below the BFE while integrating other property 
protection measures to reduce vulnerability to hazard-related damage. 

[TIP SIDEBAR:  A local success story in South Carolina 
113 Calhoun Street is a 125-year-old, three-story house that stands in the heart of the 
downtown historic district of Charleston, South Carolina. Charleston, vulnerable to 
damage from multiple hazards (including coastal storms, earthquakes, and flooding), has 
one of the nations oldest local historic district ordinances. Built between 1875 and 1880, 
the house is an example of the regional single house style. Already abandoned for 
several years by the time Hurricane Hugo struck in 1989, 113 Calhoun Street was in 
serious danger of collapse by 1997. Instead of demolishing the building, though, the City 
of Charleston donated it to the 113 Calhoun Street Foundation, a non-profit partnership 
formed between the South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, Clemson University, and the 
City. 

Using creative design solutions the 113 Calhoun Street Foundation transformed the 
derelict building into an educational center demonstrating low-impact, sustainable-living 
design concepts. Primary funding for the initial construction was provided by FEMA, while 
additional support, including the donation of products and services, came from the private 
sector. 
 
[GRAPHIC: 2 PHOTOS.
PHOTO OF 3-STORY HOUSE IN DETERIORATED CONDITION.
CAPTION 1: 113 Calhoun at inception of project. 

PHOTO OF RENOVATED HOUSE WITH IMPROVED EXTERIOR.
CAPTION 2: 113 Calhoun today.
END GRAPHIC]

It was determined that an elevation above the BFE would not have been appropriate for 
113 Calhoun Street. Such an elevation would have raised the building more than 5 feet, 
which would not have been in keeping with the surrounding streetscape and character of 
the historic district. Instead, the organization elevated the house only one foot, 
undertaking a variety of other types of interior and exterior improvements to protect 
against hazards. 

Even though it was elevated below the BFE, the house is still protected from minor 
flooding events and suffers less damage in major flooding events. Improvements to the 
house included the following:

Placing HVAC ductwork at ceiling level and returns above the BFE.

Placing electrical, telephone, and computer outlets above the BFE, with no splices or 
connections below the BFE.

Installing interior decorative wainscoting to the BFE. This wainscoting consisted of 
water-resistant material, and could be removed to dry after a flood event.

Designing interior structural elements so that a continuous load path was created 
that minimized weak links in the buildings structural system. 

Tying hurricane clips on the roof to metal connectors that ran down three floors and 
were bolted to the concrete foundation. The structural improvements did not 
compromise any exterior or interior historic features. 

Installing traditional wood colonial shutters on the first floor, and heavy duty aluminum 
shutters, which offered greater protection against coastal storms, on the second and 
third stories. 

Replacing the existing roof with a standing seam metal roof in keeping with the 
districts historic character. 

Developing a special fastener system, in which screws supplemented nails, to give 
the roof a greater ability to withstand hurricane winds. 

Replacing the buildings deteriorated original foundation of unreinforced masonry 
brick with a new foundation consisting of concrete footings with steel ties. This new 
system allowed new timber members to be bolted to the foundation, protecting 
against the twisting movements and other movements caused by seismic and wind 
forces. Brick from the original foundation was re-used as a veneer on the new 
foundation. 

Care was taken to ensure that improvements did not compromise the exterior or interior 
historic features of the house, and that these features could be retained where possible. 
For example, almost all of the buildings original cypress siding was still intact and, despite 
years of neglect, was retained. 

When construction was completed in 2000, the 113 Calhoun Street Foundation received 
multiple national awards for its work from organizations such as the Association of State 
Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Additional information about the 113 Calhoun improvement project, including detailed plan 
drawings and a video tour of the house, are available online at http://www.113calhoun.org. 
END SIDEBAR]

An advantage of elevation is that it can bring a structure into compliance with floodplain 
regulations and reduce flood insurance premiums for the owner. The building has to 
either be raised above the BFE, or raised to a lower level but combined with other 
property protection actions. Flood insurance can be a great benefit to owners of historic 
structures. If the structure is kept in compliance with NFIP regulations and is damaged in 
a flood, the structure has a greater likelihood of being properly repaired because the 
owner can afford the repairs thanks to the insurance.

Elevation is often relatively cost-effective, with a number of qualified contractors 
available to perform the work. Before elevating a property, however, owners must 
ensure that a contractor has the experience and qualifications required to elevate 
historic structures. Your SHPO may be able to offer you additional advice on elevating 
buildings. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Publications on Elevating Flood-Prone Structures
FEMA has developed two publications that provide information on elevating flood-prone 
structures: FEMA 312: Homeowners Guide to Retrofitting and FEMA 348: Protecting 
Building Utilities from Flood Damage. These can be ordered free of charge from the FEMA 
Publications Warehouse. 
END SIDEBAR]

Because elevation may alter the appearance and scale of a historic building and 
redefine its relationship to its setting, it may have a negative impact on a buildings 
character-defining features. Every effort should be made to replicate or approximate the 
original scale and setting of the building when elevating it. If the building is raised only 
several feet, elevation should not severely alter scale (see graphic). 
Additionally, you can recommend the manipulation of certain landscape features to 
reduce the visual impact of a slight elevation. By adhering to the Secretary of the 
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and by minimizing elevation, 
a buildings original historic setting, scale, and distinctive features may be preserved.

[GRAPHIC: Regrading of elevated building.
SKETCH SHOWING BEFORE AND AFTER RESULTS OF A REGRADING PROJECT.
THE HOUSE IN THE AFTER SKETCH SITS ON A SLIGHT HILL.
END GRAPHIC]

Trying to retain original scale and setting is particularly important when employing 
another method of elevation, i.e., regrading the site and placing fill beneath the building 
in an attempt to maintain the original distance between building and grade. Special care 
should be taken when elevating a building set within a consistent street wall. For 
example, if the front doors of a block of houses in a historic district open directly onto the 
sidewalk, elevating the building may necessitate a stairway, which in turn would 
necessitate a setback further from the sidewalk (see graphic). This would 
disrupt the buildings relationship to surrounding buildings. A preservation-sensitive 
alternative would be the elevation of floors within the building, particularly feasible in 
historic commercial structures with tall ceilings, or elevating a neighborhood of structures 
rather than a single building. 
 
[GRAPHIC:
Elevation can affect setback from the street.
SKETCH SHOWING AERIAL VIEW OF HOUSE BEFORE AND AFTER AN ELEVATION 
PROJECT. THE HOUSE IN THE AFTER PICTURE IS MOVED BACK FROM THE STREET 
TO MAKE ROOM FOR A STAIRWAY TO THE ENTRANCE.
END GRAPHIC]

[CAUTION SIDEBAR:  Effective Elevation
Elevation can be an effective mitigation action if designed and constructed appropriately to 
withstand flood forces. Elevation is a practical solution for flooding problems, but the 
flooding conditions and other hazards at the site must be examined so that the most 
suitable technique can be determined. At a minimum, the foundation of the elevated 
structure must be able to withstand the expected loads from hydrostatic pressure, 
hydrodynamic pressure, and debris impact resulting from a flood. The foundation must 
also be able to resist undermining by any expected erosion and scour. 
END SIDEBAR]

[TIP SIDEBAR: Offsetting Mitigation Actions
To offset the impacts of mitigation actions involving ground disturbancesuch as 
foundation work during an elevation projectpartial excavation might be considered when 
an archeological site is identified. This type of excavation would allow professional 
archeologists to conduct a data recovery excavation of artifacts potentially buried in the 
surrounding ground. The cultural artifacts recovered during these meticulous excavations 
would then be studied and curated in an archive. 

Another offsetting measure would be the development of community-based histories. 
These documentary projects could include any of the following: 

A recording of oral histories; 

A compilation of written memories; 

The production of a historical documentary on video or for posting on the Internet;

The conservation of historic artifacts, documents, home movies, and historic 
photographs as part of a documented archival collection; and

Museum exhibits that document and explain the importance of local historic events to 
regional and national history. 
END SIDEBAR]

[TIP SIDEBAR:  A local success story in North Carolina 
The town of Belhaven, North Carolina, along the Pungo River, is subject to repeated 
flooding. In its last flood event, over 60% of the towns buildings were damaged, including 
most of the buildings in the National Register-listed Belhaven Historic District. In an effort 
to retain the towns historic and economic link to the waterfront, the decision was made to 
elevate 379 properties in place rather than relocate them to higher ground or demolish 
and rebuild them. 

[GRAPHIC: PHOTO.
CAPTION: Frame building elevated on concrete block foundation faced with brick 
veneer. Belhaven, North Carolina.  END GRAPHIC]

With assistance from the North Carolina SHPO office, plans were developed for an 
elevation project that would best preserve the historic character of the district. In the plans, 
frame buildings were raised onto concrete block foundations faced with brick veneer. Brick 
buildings were elevated onto continuous concrete block foundations, which were also 
faced with brick veneer. A projecting brick course was used to demarcate where the 
original house ended and the new foundation began. Additional guidance was drafted for 
preserving porches, railings, balusters, and steps, and for replacing old materials with 
appropriate new materials where necessary.

To prepare for the elevation project, large-format archival photographs were taken of each 
building that would be affected by the project. These photos provided a permanent record 
of the historic appearance of the district. Due to all of these extra planning efforts for 
preserving its historic properties, the Belhaven Historic District was able to maintain its 
National Register status.

By the time the next flood struck Belhaven, 32 of the planned 379 houses had been 
elevated. It is estimated that elevation of these 32 properties alone saved the town over 
$1.3 million in direct and indirect damages.
END SIDEBAR]

Relocation. Relocation means moving historic properties and cultural resources out of 
harms way. Your SHPO/THPO may maintain a list of qualified building movers in your 
jurisdiction, or may be able to refer you to other projects in which historic properties were 
moved. 

Relocation of buildings generally involves raising the building and placing it on a 
wheeled vehicle, usually a large flatbed trailer. The building is then transported to the 
new site and lowered onto a new foundation. The easiest buildings to move are one-
story frame structures. Multi-story and solid masonry buildings are more difficult because 
of their greater weight and size; even so, large buildings such as theaters have been 
successfully moved. Masonry buildings, buildings with stone or brick veneer, and 
buildings with chimneys may require extensive bracing to prevent cracking or structural 
failure.

One drawback to relocation is that it can be costly if the owner of the building needs to 
purchase a new lot on which to relocate the building. There is also the expense of 
preparing the new site. Moreover, permits for this site preparation may be required by 
local government, highway departments, and utility companies. 

[CAUTION SIDEBAR: Demolition
Removal of structures from the areas of risk is the most permanent form of hazard 
mitigation. While this may be the most practical solution for buildings subject to repetitive 
hazard events and that have sustained extensive structural damage, demolition of 
individual historic buildings or multiple buildings within historic districts has serious 
ramifications. When a historic building is demolished it is gone forever. Above all, 
indiscriminate demolition of historic buildings should be avoided because it can create a 
patchwork of remaining buildings in historic districts. Finally, if enough historic buildings 
are demolished in a district that is eligible for listing in the National Register, the remaining 
buildings may not possess sufficient significance or integrity for the district to retain its 
eligibility. Therefore, where technically feasible, other options besides acquisition and 
demolition should be considered for historic structures. Alternative options may make use 
of acquisition, but instead of demolishing the property, convert it to a different use. A 
community could acquire a historic mill in a floodplain and convert it into a public picnic 
area. Although structural improvements and basic exterior maintenance might be 
undertaken, the mill would not be occupied. Structural improvements could include 
modifying the foundation to increase flow-through of floodwater during a flood event.

[GRAPHIC: LEFT SIDE: AERIAL SKETCH OF A ROW OF HOUSES FACING A STREET.
RIGHT SIDE: AERIAL SKETCH OF SIX HOUSES ALL FACING DIFFERENT 
DIRECTIONS, CREATING A DISORDERLY APPEARANCE.
END GRAPHIC]

Historic buildings often share important features such as landscaping, outbuildings, 
alleyways, orientation, and setback  the distance between the buildings and the street. 
These contributing features often help to define a neighborhoods historic significance. 
Relocation should be carried out with extreme care to ensure that the 
relationship between individual historic buildings within a neighborhood is maintained. If 
important contributing features are neglected when historic buildings are relocated, 
historic neighborhoods may lose their sense of cohesiveness.
END SIDEBAR]

The relocation of several buildings out of a historic district can have a great impact on it; 
removing a house from among its neighbors may leave an inappropriate gap-toothed 
opening in the traditional streetscape. If too many structures are removed from their 
original locations, the character of a historic district may be seriously compromised. You 
must also consider whether the new neighborhood will be compatible with the period 
design of the building, and whether the building itself will be compatible with its new 
neighborhood. One option is to relocate historic buildings in groups to new 
neighborhoods that are likewise historically and aesthetically compatible.

[CAUTION SIDEBAR: Historic Emergency Response Facilities
The facilities in your community involved in first response to hazard events are sometimes 
historic properties requiring protection from hazards. These include hospitals, police or fire 
stations, schools, or emergency shelters. Because these facilities are often on the front 
lines of post-disaster response, their level of life-safety design is important in ensuring the 
safety of those who work within them or are brought there for treatment, shelter, and other 
types of emergency service. You will want to make sure that these first responders are 
located in buildings with a high degree of structural stability. Therefore, your team may 
need to evaluate if the level of life-safety design required by these buildings can be 
achieved without a negative impact on their character-defining historic features. If you do 
find conflicts between these two design considerations, try working with an experienced 
design professional to identify ways to retain important historic design features while 
allowing for first responder functionality.

In the event that the high level of life safety design required by a critical response facility 
seriously conflicts with its character-defining historic features, you should evaluate other 
uses for the building. For those buildings whose historic features are significant enough to 
warrant preservation, the critical response function could be moved to a new or existing 
facility more appropriate to serving this function. The original building could be evaluated 
for new uses that would affect its historic elements to a lesser degree, as well as for the 
possibility of rehabilitation. It is important that the community not simply abandon a historic 
facility because it cannot support its current use. One creative solution for funding the 
construction costs of the new facility could be commercial redevelopment of the original 
historic facility. In this way the building is converted to a new, more preservation-sensitive 
use, while still maintainingperhaps increasingits ability to generate revenue. 
In addition to emergency response facilities, other structures, such as flood control 
systems or shelters, may be significant to your communitys past. Some of these 
structures may represent important advances in the history of civil engineering and 
community planning. If they have outlived their usefulness you should work with an 
experienced architect to identify and evaluate solutions that would retain their important 
character-defining design features. 
END SIDEBAR]

Mitigation Action Category #3: Structural Diversions

Structural diversions are physical barriers that hold back floodwater, mud, and other 
debris resulting from hazard events such as floods and landslides. With their ability to 
protect whole neighborhoods, they offer the advantage of minimizing the need for 
retrofitting individual structures against hazards. Floodwalls and levees are two common 
types of structural diversions. Other examples include seawalls and landslide protection 
obstructions. 

Levees are embankments of compacted soil built to protect an area against floodwaters 
from rising waterways. If built alongside a waterway they have the potential to protect an 
entire community. Due to their massive size, however, levees can disrupt a community's 
relationship to the waterway, be extremely costly to construct and maintain, and require 
a large amount of land for their construction. 

More practical than levees for protecting individual structures, floodwalls are typically 
reinforced concrete and masonry structures that protect small lots and tight spaces from 
floodwaters of a few feet. They can be used to protect windows, doors, or bulkheads. 
For this reason, floodwalls are often used in conjunction with other flood protection 
methods. 

By significantly reducing the risk to a structure and its contents, structural diversions may 
make it possible to continue occupying a building during a hazard event. Another 
advantage they offer is that they may be built sufficiently distant from historic buildings 
as to be completely unobtrusive. Some flood-prone communities have considered the 
use of removable floodwalls, which are constructed shortly before an anticipated flood 
event.

While floodwalls can sometimes be small in scale, it can be difficult to design permanent 
floodwalls that blend into the unique setting of a historic district. Much success in the 
design depends on the height of the diversion structures and their distance from historic 
buildings. Levees and floodwalls may not only affect the visual character of a historic 
community, they can restrict access to the commercial and recreational uses of the 
waterway.

Another drawback to structural diversions is that they often create a false sense of 
security when floodwaters are higher than expected. Floodwalls and levees that are 
overtopped during a flood offer little or no protection at all. A failing levee or floodwall 
can be dangerous, producing high-velocity water flows that can cause massive structural 
damage to properties. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Invisible Flood Control Wall
One technological innovation does away with the wall part of the floodwall altogether, until 
a flood is imminent. Trademarked as the Invisible Flood Control Wall, the aluminum 
planks that comprise the wall are stored offsite until they are needed. They are attached to 
the reinforced concrete foundation and metal sill plate, which are the only elements of the 
flood wall that are permanently installed along the floodway. 

[GRAPHIC: PHOTO OF WORKERS PLACING AN ALUMINUM SLAT ON FLOODWALL.
CAPTION: Invisible flood control wall in Louisville, Kentucky. 
END SIDEBAR]

[TIP SIDEBAR: Community Beautification ProjectDecorative Floodwalls
A solution for unsightly floodwalls is to decorate them. Paducah, Kentucky, turned its huge 
concrete flood wall into an artistic amenity by covering it with a series of murals showing 
the history of the town. 

See more of the murals on the Web at 
http://www.kentuckylake.com/gallery/ontheroad/The%20 Wall/080802wall.htm. 

[GRAPHIC: 
PAINTING OF
The Strawberry Festival
END GRAPHIC]

[GRAPHIC: 
PAINTING OF 
Railroads and Railways
END GRAPHIC]

[GRAPHIC: 
PAINTING OF
The Broadway Scene
END GRAPHIC]

[GRAPHIC: 
PAINTING OF
The Paducah Flood
END GRAPHIC]
END SIDEBAR]

Mitigation Action Category #4: Public Education and Awareness

Mitigation actions involving public education and awareness include outreach projects, 
real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and both school-based and adult 
education programs.

A public education campaign can build on the public involvement tools used earlier in the 
planning process. Public education is often not enough to protect all of your communitys 
historic properties, but it can be effectively combined with other hazard mitigation 
actions. In the case of certain cultural resources, such as personal photographs and 
family collections, public education and awareness can be one of your most powerful 
tools. 

As you explore public education as a possible mitigation alternative you may find that 
historic preservation organizations are sponsoring ongoing outreach efforts in the area. If 
so, consider ways in which public education about hazard-prone historic properties and 
cultural resources can be linked to existing outreach campaigns.

Mitigation Action Category #5: Natural Resource Protection for Historic 
Landscape Features and Archeological Sites

[GLOSSARY SIDEBAR: Natural Resource Protection Actions for Historic Landscape 
Features
Actions that, in addition to minimizing hazards, also preserve or restore the functions of 
natural systems. Some natural resources either are historic properties in themselves or 
contribute to an understanding of historic properties. Such types of mitigation actions 
include sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed 
management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and 
preservation. 
END SIDEBAR]

In addition to mitigation actions that protect historic buildings and other historic features 
of the built environment, your team may also want to consider mitigation actions that 
protect natural features that played an important role in past human activities. These 
natural features may either be historic properties themselves, or contribute to an 
understanding of historic properties. They might include the gardens and designed 
landscapes of historic properties, rivers, or bays that served as transportation routes, 
wetlands that were used for farming, or traditional cultural properties. 

Some of these natural features may also possess economic value for your community, 
especially if they are visitor destinations or recreational sites. You will want to carefully 
consider actions that would protect the most important features of these sites, such as 
topography and vegetation, from natural hazards. 

Be aware, however, that some of these natural features, such as forested and riverine 
areas, may actually also comprise some of the natural hazards that threaten your 
community. 

Mitigation actions can serve to both mitigate natural hazards and preserve the natural 
resources that give rise to those hazards. For example, stream corridor restoration and 
erosion control, watershed management, and wetland restoration can protect against 
flooding while still preserving the integrity of these natural resources. Likewise, forest 
and vegetation management can protect against the threat of wildfire while still 
preserving a wildlife refuge. 

You will also want to evaluate mitigation alternatives for protecting locations known to 
contain or likely to contain buried archeological sites and artifacts. In situ archeological 
sites and features (which have not yet been excavated) are particularly vulnerable to 
exposure and disturbance by erosion, flooding, and landslides. One alternative for 
preserving these sites for study by future generations is to cover them over with earthen 
fill, which will offer some protection against hazard exposure.
END SPECIAL SUBJECT BOX]

Evaluating Mitigation Actions for Cultural Resources

Certain types of cultural resources, such as artwork, archival collections, and collections 
of artifacts, are uniquely vulnerable to hazard-related damage. You will want to evaluate 
a variety of mitigation actions to protect these cultural resources and develop 
appropriate storage procedures.

One aspect of cultural resource protection you should take into consideration is the 
impact that mitigation actions applied to buildings may have on the cultural resources 
stored or displayed within those buildings. Another important consideration is the 
relationship a resource has with its setting. While some resources, such as artwork 
displayed in a museum, may not have an important relationship to its setting, other 
resources, such as a mural located within a school, may have a very important historic 
relationship to its surrounding. 

In selecting mitigation actions for cultural resources that have an important relationship 
to their surroundings, you should consider actions that maintain that relationship as 
much as possible. For these resources, you will want to explore options for safer storage 
or display before considering relocation offsite (e.g., use of water-proof containers or 
removal to an upper floor of the same building). Your team should also consider ways in 
which ongoing maintenance of the resource might reduce further deterioration, or ways 
to better secure the resource to its base or storage mechanism. These strategies also 
apply to resources that must remain onsite, or whose relocation would be infeasible.
For those cultural resources that do not have a significant relationship to their setting
often called moveable resourcesrelocation can be an easy way to ensure their 
protection. For example, an archive of historic photographs found in a flood-prone library 
can be relocated to the local preservation societys office located outside of the 
floodplain. 

To protect cultural resources against tornadoes and wind-related hazard events, you 
should consider storing them in a safe room. A safe room is a room designed to a higher 
level of life-safety. These rooms are often constructed with the purpose of providing a 
secure location for valuables, as well as a safe refuge for people. For more information 
about safe rooms, please see Protecting Yourself from Tornadoes: Safe Rooms, 
available from FEMA at http://www.fema.gov/mit/saferoom. 

Mitigation actions for cultural resources should also take into account the physical 
placement of these resources in relation to hazards. For example, to protect against 
wind events and earthquakes, resources should be kept far away from heavy objects 
and windows that might be broken or knocked about during a hazard event. Particularly 
in earthquake-prone areas, resources should be placed on secured, reinforced shelving 
in such a manner as to prevent their breakage during an earthquake. As discussed 
above, relocation of resources to a safer elevation or alternate location can offer 
protection against flood events. 

To protect against fire, the placement of fire alarms and sprinklers should be evaluated 
to ensure they are appropriately placed in relation to storage or exhibit spaces. The 
materials and design used to construct those spaces should also be examined for their 
fire resistance. Some highly significant collections will need to be stored in locations with 
greater fire resistance (e.g., a storage area protected by a rated firewall). 

Likewise, the construction and type of material used in display cases and storage areas 
should be examined for their resistance to water. In addition, the locations of pipes and 
roof leaks should be assessed, since cultural resources might inadvertently be kept in 
locations that are vulnerable to leaking water.

Instructions for Worksheet #6

Use Worksheet #6 to record the alternative mitigation actions you identify for protecting 
the historic properties and cultural resources included in your preservation hierarchy. For 
each of the objectives you developed in Step 1, Task C, you should make a copy of 
Worksheet #6 and record that objective at the top of the worksheet, along with its 
corresponding goal. You will next begin the process of identifying appropriate alternative 
mitigation actions for addressing that objective. Once you have identified a set of 
alternative actions, you should list them in the Alternative Actions column of the 
worksheet. Additionally, at the bottom of each copy of Worksheet #6, check off the 
mitigation action categories that apply to the objective you wrote down at the top of the 
Worksheet. 

As you research possible mitigation action alternatives, you will likely consult a variety of 
sources to learn more about each. Please see pages 2-2 through 2-6 of FEMA 386-3 for more 
information on reviewing existing literature and success stories, and 
on soliciting public opinion and input. 

Once you have identified useful sources of information for each alternative mitigation 
action you identify, record that source in the Sources of Information column of 
Worksheet #6.

Now that you have identified possible mitigation alternatives, your next step is to start 
evaluating them for eventual selection and prioritization.

Task B. Identify and analyze State and local mitigation capabilities.

One of your first steps in evaluating the mitigation action alternatives your planning team 
has identified is to determine the levels of resources your community, State, or Tribe can 
devote to these preservation strategies. To accomplish this you should review your 
Tribal capability assessment or your State and local capability assessments. 

For more information on conducting such a review, please refer to pages 2-7 through 
2-11 of FEMA 386-3. Upon completion of your review, your team should have a 
fairly good idea of the types of technical assistance and funding that Tribal, State, and 
local governments can provide toward mitigation actions for historic properties and 
cultural resources.

Task C. Evaluate, select, and prioritize specific mitigation actions.

1. Evaluate alternative mitigation actions. 

Now that the planning team has completed Worksheet #6 and reviewed the applicable 
capability assessments, it must evaluate whether the alternative mitigation actions fulfill 
your objectives and if they are appropriate for your historic and cultural resources. There 
are several ways to develop and apply evaluation criteria. This guide discusses three 
methods for evaluating mitigation actions. The first is using your preservation hierarchy; 
the second is the Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and 
Environmental (STAPLEE) criteria analysis; and the third is the Benefit-Cost Analysis 
(BCA); they are explained in the following sections.

Your preservation hierarchy and areas of highest risk will help identify historic properties 
and cultural resources that should be treated with the most preservation-sensitive 
mitigation measures, those with the least possible negative impacts to character-defining 
features. The STAPLEE criteria (see previous paragraph) will help your team evaluate mitigation 
alternatives in the context of multiple community-identified goals. The BCA will help you 
determine which mitigation projects are the most cost-effective for your community. By 
cross-referencing your results from these three methods you should be able to select the 
mitigation actions most appropriate to your community. 

a. Evaluate alternative mitigation actions based on your preservation hierarchy 
and areas of highest risk.

The list of preservation priorities you developed earlier will give your planning team an 
idea of the types of mitigation actions that are appropriate for certain historic properties 
and cultural resources. Generally, the least intrusive options should be considered and 
carefully evaluated for use on the most significant historic properties and cultural 
resources, while more intrusive options are considered for less significant properties and 
resources. With careful planning, you can help to ensure that your community faces 
reduced harm from hazards while retaining its unique sense of place. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: San Francisco City Hall Seismic Retrofit 

The City Hall of San Francisco, California, completed in 1915, is one of the finest 
examples of Beaux-Arts Classical architecture in the United States. The building is a four-
story-plus-basement office block of about 516,500 square feet; it covers two city blocks, 
and its dome is about 300 feet tall. The City Hall is a National Historic Landmark (NHL) 
and is located in a NHL District. The building value is estimated at approximately $430 
million with an additional $40 million in contents; and holds an average 1,460 weekday 
occupants. 

After being moderately damaged by the Loma Prieta Earthquake of 1989, FEMA funded 
temporary and permanent repairs to the building, and the City and County of San 
Francisco (CCSF) used this opportunity to request additional mitigation funding for the 
seismic retrofit of the entire City Hall. 

[GRAPHIC: PHOTO OF EXTERIOR OF SAN FRANCISCO CITY HALL. 
END GRAPHIC]

The structure was originally designed with a flexible first story, intended to dissipate 
ground movement from an earthquake before it reached the upper floors and dome. Now 
this type of building is recognized as having a soft first story, which is an extreme 
earthquake hazard. 

Because of this, CCSF elected to construct a base isolation system for the seismic retrofit, 
which was estimated at $180 million.

Initially, several seismic retrofit schemes were proposed for the City Hall but some of them 
would have resulted in significant impact to the historic fabric and/or were extremely 
expensive. It was decided that due to the buildings type of construction, the costs of the 
project, and the long-term implications for the City Hall building, a base isolation system 
would be the best way to protect the building and its inhabitants.

[GRAPHIC: PHOTO OF SAN FRANCISCO CITY HALL STEEL BRACING.
END GRAPHIC]

The completed base isolation design features 550 isolator bearings under all steel 
columns, isolators under new concrete shear walls on all sides of the light wells, and steel 
bracing at the dome, drum, and rotunda below. In addition to the base isolation system, 
the completed scope of work included asbestos removal, improved handicapped 
accessibility, HVAC upgrades, new telephone/telecommunications systems, and fire life 
safety system upgrades. City Hall staff and functions were relocated for about three years. 
FEMA funding for repairs and retrofit totaled approximately $121 million. 

The City Hall of San Francisco is now protected by the most advanced seismic retrofit 
solution known todaya solution that protects both the occupants and historic 
architecture of this unique structure. 
END SIDEBAR]

In summary, you will want to strike a balance between implementing cost-effective, 
possibly intrusive mitigation actions for less historically significant properties and cultural 
resources, and implementing more expensive, less intrusive measures for the most 
important historic properties and cultural resources in your community.

b. Evaluate alternative mitigation actions using the STAPLEE criteria.

Pages 2-12 through 2-21 of FEMA 386-3 present the STAPLEE opportunities 
and constraints of implementing a particular mitigation action in your community. These 
are called the STAPLEE evaluation criteria, and your answers to the questions they 
generate will help your team narrow down its list of potential mitigation actions.  

Instructions for Worksheet #7

Worksheet #7: Evaluate Alternative Mitigation Actions for Historic Properties and 
Cultural Resources (see Appendix C for blank worksheet) will guide you through your 
STAPLEE alternatives analysis. Before you begin the analysis, you should make a copy 
of this worksheet for each objective you identified in Step 1. Write this objective and its 
corresponding goal at the top of the worksheet, and then copy all of the alternative 
actions you identified for that objective from the first column of Worksheet #6 into the 
first column of Worksheet #7. You are now ready to begin your STAPLEE analysis. 

This guide covers the STAPLEE criteria as they relate specifically to historic properties 
and cultural resources. For more information on the general considerations of the 
STAPLEE criteria see FEMA 386-3.

As you determine the answers to each set of questions/considerations you develop for 
each STAPLEE criterion, you should score each mitigation alternative based on your 
answers. You will use Worksheet #7 to accomplish this scoring. On this worksheet, 
indicate a plus (+) if the consideration is favorable, or a minus (-) if the consideration is 
not favorable. For considerations that do not apply to the action, fill in N/A for not 
applicable. Leave a blank only if you do not know an answer. 
For those considerations left blank, make a note in the Comments column of the source 
you should consult to help you evaluate the consideration.

[SPECIAL SUBJECT BOX: 
The STAPLEE criteria for historic properties and cultural resources 

Social: The public must support the specific mitigation actions and the overall 
implementation strategy. Therefore, the actions will have to be evaluated in terms of 
community acceptance by asking questions such as: 

If you avoid mitigation actions that affect historic properties and cultural resources, 
will those properties and resources be at risk to hazard-related damage?

Will the action have a negative impact on certain historic properties and cultural 
resources? What is the community value and relative preservation priority of those 
resources? 

Does the action achieve other important community goals, such as economic 
revitalization? 

Your SHPO/THPO, community development staff, and planning team are key team 
members who can help you answer these questions. Another important resource will be 
your findings from the risk assessment you conducted in Phase 2.

Technical: It is important to determine if the proposed action is technically feasible, has 
minimal secondary impacts, and will help to reduce losses in the long term while 
preserving the important features of historic properties and cultural resources. In 
evaluating technical feasibility, your team can draw upon information about historic 
properties and cultural resources you gathered earlier, such as the preservation priority 
and performance evaluation. In evaluating the technical aspects of a mitigation action for 
historic properties and cultural resources, you will determine what kind of solution the 
action would presenta whole solution, a partial one, or none. To accomplish this, you 
should ask the following questions:

Is the action technically feasible? 

Are character-defining historic features affected? Are secondary impacts minimal?

Does the action address multiple hazards? 

Does the action solve a problem, or only a symptom of a problem? 

Will other nearby historic properties and cultural resources be harmed by the 
mitigation action? What are the preservation priorities and community values of 
these resources, relative to each other?

Key team members who can help answer these questions include a qualified 
preservation architect and building department staff.

Administrative: Under this part of the evaluation criteria, you will examine the 
anticipated staffing, funding, and maintenance requirements for the mitigation action. 
The results of your examination should determine if your community has capabilities 
necessary for implementing the action or whether outside help will be necessary. 
In evaluating the administrative aspect of a proposed mitigation action you should ask 
the following questions:

Does the action require the input of specialized historic preservation professionals? If 
so, what access do you have to these professionals? Can you hire a consultant or 
use a volunteer or educator? What are the budgetary implications?

If you anticipate that some actions may have substantial negative affects on historic 
properties and cultural resources, does your jurisdictions staff have the time and 
training to understand these issues? If your community is short on staff, what delays 
might be anticipated?

Political: Understanding how your current community and State political leadership feels 
about historic preservation issues will provide valuable insight into the level of political 
support you will have for a mitigation action. Proposed mitigation actions sometimes fail 
because of a lack of political acceptability, particularly when the proposal of these 
actions exposes divisions among leaders about the resources in question. Identifying 
preservation hot spots before you have selected an action alternative will help you 
identify the feasibility of implementation.

To gauge the likely level of political support for your mitigation action, ask yourself the 
following questions:

Are there political divisions on the subject of historic properties? Do the 
disagreements center on the evaluation of historic properties or on perceptions about 
the meaning or extent of designation?

Have political leaders participated in the mitigation planning process for historic 
properties to date? Are they properly informed about the important role that historic 
properties can play in the community?

Is there a local champion willing to help see the action through to completion? Does 
that local champion have a copy of this how-to guide and an adequate 
understanding of historic property and cultural resource considerations for mitigation 
planning?

Are preservation and other community interests represented in the stakeholder 
group? Have all of the stakeholders been offered an opportunity to participate in the 
planning process? Are they aware of the degree to which your committee has 
evaluated preservation-sensitive mitigation alternatives?

Legal: Without the appropriate legal authority, a proposed mitigation action for a historic 
property or cultural resource cannot lawfully be undertaken. When considering this 
criterion, you will determine whether your community has the legal authority at the local, 
State, or Tribal level to implement the action, or whether the jurisdiction must pass new 
laws or regulations. Each level of government operates under a specific source of 
delegated authority. As a general rule, most local governments operate under enabling 
legislation that gives them the power to engage in different activities.

You should identify the unit of government undertaking the mitigation action, and include 
an analysis of the interrelationships between local, regional, State, Tribal, and Federal 
governments. Your SHPO/THPO and local or regional planning authority can help you 
understand the differences between these laws and regulations regarding historic 
resources. In addition, the SHPO/THPO must be consulted about certain federally-
sponsored projects involving historic properties. 

Below are some questions you should ask in evaluating the legal aspects of your 
proposed mitigation actions:

Which unit of government would undertake the mitigation action? What is the extent 
of Federal involvement (e.g., funding and permitting)?

Does the proposed action follow all applicable preservation laws and ordinances? 

Does the proposed action follow other State or Federal governmental agency 
requirements for which permits may be required?

Does the proposed action follow other applicable zoning, floodplain management, 
land use ordinances, and building code requirements?

Will the community be liable for the action itself or for failing to undertake action? 

Is the action likely to be legally challenged by stakeholders who take issue with the 
negative impacts the action might have? If so, has your community developed a 
dialogue with those stakeholders and evaluated all potential ways to offset the 
negative impacts? If significant disagreement exists, has formal mediation or 
alternative dispute resolution been considered?

Your SHPO/THPO, local or regional planning authority, and your communitys legal 
counsel can help you make the above determinations. 

Economic: Every local, State, and Tribal government experiences budget constraints. In 
evaluating the economic aspect of a mitigation action for historic properties and cultural 
resources you must consider both the present economic base and projected growth. You 
will want to closely evaluate mitigation actions that encourage economic revitalization by 
preserving historic properties. 

Cost-effective mitigation actions that can be funded in current or upcoming budget 
cycles are much more likely to be implemented than mitigation actions requiring general 
obligation bonds or other instruments that would incur long-term debt for a community. 
States and local communities with limited budgets or budget shortfalls may be willing to 
undertake a mitigation initiative if it can be funded, at least in part, by external sources. 
This is why big ticket mitigation actions, such as large-scale acquisition and relocation, 
are often considered for implementation in a post-disaster scenario when additional 
Federal and State funding for mitigation becomes available. 

In evaluating the economic criterion of STAPLEE, you should ask the following questions 
about your mitigation action:

Will the action require outside funding? Can this funding be combined with existing 
funds for historic properties and cultural resources?

Does the action help achieve other community economic goals, such as capital 
improvements or economic development? Do those economic goals also encourage 
preservation of historic properties?

Has your community considered the potential economic impact if no action is taken? 
Will hazard-related damage discourage economic rehabilitation projects for historic 
areas?

Can existing programs such as Main Street downtown revitalization efforts, be re-
focused to relieve the budgetary burden of the action?

Environmental: The environmental impact of your proposed mitigation action is an 
important consideration because of public desire for sustainable and environmentally 
healthy communities and the many statutory considerations (e.g., NEPA and NHPA). 
Some of your alternative actions may harm historic properties or cultural resources. 
Examples include regulatory measures that limit growth of hazard-prone areas but 
encourage abandonment of historic properties, and measures such as elevation projects 
that involve significant ground disturbance, which may damage archeological sites. 
The decision to implement a mitigation action that would adversely affect historic 
properties should be made only after a thorough analysis of other mitigation options and 
consultation with a variety of parties, including your SHPO/THPO, members of the 
community, your planning team, and other interested groups. When such actions must 
be taken, you should consider additional measures to offset, or compensate, the loss or 
alteration of the resource. If there is Federal or State involvement in the mitigation 
project, you may be required to evaluate the use of preservation-sensitive options. This 
is especially true when the affected historic property is listed or eligible for listing in the 
National Register (see Phase 4, Consideration 2 for more information on this 
requirement). 

In evaluating the environmental aspect of a mitigation action you should ask the 
following questions:

Will the action threaten land, water, wetlands, endangered species, historic 
properties eligible for listing in the National Register, cultural resources, or other 
environmental assets? 

Are there mitigation action alternatives that preserve environmental resources 
(including historic properties and cultural resources) while also encouraging 
economic growth? 
END SPECIAL SUBJECT BOX]

c. Evaluate alternative mitigation actions using benefit-cost analysis (BCA) 

BCA is the last type of evaluation addressed in this guide. For a detailed explanation of 
how to carry out a BCA, you are referred to the Mitigation BCA Toolkit CD. This CD 
includes all of FEMA BCA software, technical manuals, training courses, and other 
supporting documentation to enable you to perform a BCA. For a qualitative benefit 
review assessment of mitigation actions, in cases where you do not have sufficient data 
to perform a BCA, see FEMA 386-5: Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Mitigation BCA Toolkit 
This CD is available free directly through the BC Helpline: bchelpline@dhs.gov or 
866-222-3580 (Toll-Free).   
END SIDEBAR]

[DMA SIDEBAR: Emphasize Costs and Benefits
DMA 2000 requires that every community submitting a plan prioritize its alternative 
mitigation actions with an emphasis on costs and benefits. A formal benefit-cost analysis 
is not mandatory, but an explanation of the analysis undertaken and why some actions 
were chosen above others is required. If detailed cost information is not available, a 
qualitative analysis will suffice.   
END SIDEBAR]

By performing a BCA, you will bring into your alternatives analysis the important 
consideration of cost-effectiveness. You will attempt to answer the following questions: 
How cost-effective is a particular mitigation action or project? How does the cost of 
implementation compare to the amount of damage it would prevent? 

To answer these questions, you must have an idea of the level of risk facing the historic 
resources for which an action or project would be implemented, the replacement value of 
those resources, and the cost of the action or project. You have already collected much 
of this information during the risk assessment you conducted in Phase 2. Other cost 
considerations to remember include the potential loss of local tax base resulting from 
alternatives such as the demolition or relocation of properties. 

The end product of your BCA will be a Benefit-Cost Ratio for each mitigation alternative 
you have identified. A Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.0 or higher indicates that a mitigation 
option is considered cost effective by FEMA (i.e., the benefits of preventing hazard-
related damage to the resource are worth the costs of investing in the action). 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Seeking a Proper Balance 
In selecting your mitigation alternatives you will want to evaluate a variety of mitigation actions, 
including a balance of cost-effective mitigation actions for properties with a lower preservation 
priority, and less intrusive actions for properties with a higher preservation priority, which could 
be more expensive. The resulting balance will be a cost-effective project that preserves 
important community resources while providing increased protection from hazard-related 
damage. To find this balance you will need to take into account the overall cost-effectiveness 
of all of the mitigation actions proposed for your community. You may want to combine multiple 
Benefit-Cost Ratios to provide an overall average Benefit-Cost Ratio for the community. 
END SIDEBAR]

As you determine the cost-effectiveness of each of your mitigation options, you should 
remember that cost-effectiveness is only one consideration among many that go into 
your alternatives analysis. Although BCA is an effective tool for aiding the alternatives 
selection process, it should not be the sole determinant for selecting an alternative. BCA 
offers a quantitative way to compare different alternatives. Less quantifiable factors also 
need to be considered as you select the most appropriate actions from among your 
many alternatives. These include the more subjective measure of community value and 
the various considerations generated by the STAPLEE analysis. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Evaluating flood mitigation alternatives: The Milton, Pennsylvania 
experience 
In Milton, Pennsylvania, the community identified planning goals as part of the process for 
selecting mitigation actions. Foremost among these goals was to avoid demolition or 
relocation of historic properties. In addition, the community identified the revitalization and 
retention of the historic commercial downtown neighborhood as a high-priority objective. 
Since most of the buildings extended to the lot line and shared party walls, elevation 
would be difficult. Therefore various flood-proofing measures, even the elevation of interior 
floors, were considered the most appropriate alternative.

For Milton the BCA for flood mitigation alternatives yielded several interesting results. For 
individual structures the cost-effectiveness of different hazard mitigation alternatives 
varied little, indicating that the difference between the cost-effectiveness of acquisition and 
demolition, and that of relocation or elevation would be fairly small. Therefore, future flood-
related damage could be mitigated without widespread demolition of historic structures. 
The BCA revealed that construction of a structural floodwall/levee would also be cost-
effective. Although they tend to increase the effects of a flood downstream and cannot 
absolutely prevent flood damage, they help protect local industry and infrastructure from 
flooding. When the community had previously considered a floodwall, they found it was 
too expensive. 

Stream channel modifications, such as dredging or the removal of central islands, were 
not found to be cost-effective. In addition to environmental impacts and high cost, they 
would reduce flood levels by no more than 6 inches.

The community decided that more intrusive, highly cost-effective projects (such as an 
elevation project with a Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.5) would be evaluated for Miltons less 
historically significant structures. Less structure-altering alternatives (such as a flood-
proofing project with a Benefit-Cost Ratio of 0.5) would be used for its highly significant 
historic properties. This project balances out some individual structures with very high 
Benefit-Cost Ratios for more intrusive projects, such as elevation, with individual 
structures that have a lower Benefit-Cost Ratio for a less intrusive project, such as flood-
proofing. The more intrusive (and more cost effective) hazard mitigation alternative was 
employed for a historic resource that ranked lower on the preservation hierarchy; the less 
intrusive project (and less cost-effective) was employed for a historic resource that ranked 
higher on the preservation hierarchy.

Although BCA revealed which hazard mitigation options were the most cost-effective for 
each property, it was not the sole factor in creating multiple-property hazard mitigation 
actions in historic Milton.

More information about Miltons planning process for historic flood-prone properties is 
online at http://www.fema.gov/ehp/milton.shtm. 
END SIDEBAR]

By carefully considering the three methods described in this document for evaluating 
mitigation alternatives you can develop your own decision-making process for selecting 
mitigation projects. You have several indicators to balance: the relative preservation 
priority, the most relevant questions from the STAPLEE criteria, and the Benefit-Cost 
Ratio of the hazard mitigation actions. Remember that you and your team are 
continuously balancing multiple community planning goals in your work. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: A local success story in Wisconsin 
Flooding is an ongoing part of life in the rural riverside town of Darlington, Wisconsin, 
having caused millions of dollars in property damage over the past decade. Following the 
devastating damage from the 1993 floods, the town could follow one of three routes: do 
nothing and continue to suffer the periodic rise of the river; move the central business 
district out of the floodplain and upset the local economy and sense of community; or do 
something innovative.

[GRAPHIC: PHOTO OF QUAINT STOREFRONT.
CAPTION: Restored and retrofitted building.
END GRAPHIC]

Darlington chose innovation. It found creative solutions to retain the historic charm of its 
nineteenth century business district while eliminating the threat of future flood devastation.
The town took advantage of the very high ceilings common to many of the older buildings 
in Darlington; their height allowed first floors to be elevated out of flood danger with 
minimal impact to other historic features. Basements were filled with sand and gravel, 
floodproofing that portion of the building most vulnerable to flooding, and all utilities were 
upgraded and raised. 

[GRAPHIC: SCHEMATIC OF FLOODWALL AND PORTABLE FLOOD SHIELDS.
CAPTION: To provide additional protection against floodwater, removable watertight 
floodgates were incorporated into the buildings. 
END GRAPHIC]

All of these measures were implemented without altering the exteriors or disrupting the 
basic historic integrity of these older buildings. Additionally, the residential area 
surrounding the downtown was relocated and the resulting space redeveloped as a 
recreational area, including a campground, a paved walking trail, and a portion of a 
regional multi-use trail.

These innovative techniques resulted in the successful floodproofing of the historic central 
business district against the 100-year flood event, as well as the revitalization of 
Darlingtons local economy. 

[GRAPHIC: PHOTO OF WORKER INSTALLING ELEVATED FOUNDATION.
CAPTION: Floodproofing in action in Darlington, Wisconsin.
END GRAPHIC]
END SIDEBAR]

The successful integration of historic preservation and hazard mitigation earned 
Darlington a Preservation Achievement Award from the State Historical Society of 
Wisconsin. More information is available at http://www.fema.gov/regions/v/ss/r5_n16.shtm. 

2. Select mitigation actions.

After evaluating the alternative mitigation actions, select those that are most appropriate 
for your community. One way to do this is by reviewing your notes from Worksheets #6 
and #7 on each action. Review the comment notes or expand upon them to explain any 
special circumstances that must be kept in mind in the next step. For example, if you 
found that one action is more effective when undertaken in conjunction with another, 
note this fact. See FEMA 386-3, page 2-25, for more information on selecting 
mitigation actions. 

3. Prioritize selected mitigation actions.

Worksheet #8: Prioritize Alternative Mitigation Actions for Historic Properties and 
Cultural Resources in Appendix C provides a way to organize your mitigation actions. 
In this worksheet you will list the alternative mitigation actions in order of priority, as well 
as the goals and objectives they address, and any other relevant information you might 
add to your hazard mitigation plan.

You can find detailed information about prioritizing mitigation actions in FEMA 386-3, 
pages 2-25 through 2-28. In brief, the following should be considered before 
you prioritize the selected actions:

Ease of implementation.

Ability to achieve multiple objectives.

The time needed for implementation.

The possibility of being funded and implemented in a post-disaster scenario.

See FEMA 386-3, pages 2-23 through 2-25, for more information.

You can use one of two common methods to prioritize actions. In multi-voting, every 
team member is given a total number of votes equal to half the number of total potential 
actions. If a team member feels strongly about a particular action, he or she could vote 
for it more than once. The action that garners the most votes becomes the top priority. 
Another useful prioritizing technique is numerical ranking. Team members assign a 
ranking to each action, with the lowest number being the highest rank. You then add the 
ranks given to each action, and the one with the lowest number is the highest priority. 
Public input into the planning process can be increased by opening up the prioritization 
process to a greater number of participants. 

This is the end of Step 2 of Phase 3. Following are questions you should ask yourself to 
determine if you have adequately identified and prioritized mitigation actions that 
address historic and cultural resources for incorporation into your communitys hazard 
mitigation plan. These are followed by a Review Test that you should use as a learning 
aid to help you become more comfortable in discussing the relative merits of various 
hazard mitigation actions.

Evaluate Your Community

Does your communitys draft mitigation plan contain any actions that would have a 
negative impact on historic properties or cultural resources?

Have you identified and analyzed State and local mitigation capabilities? 

Review Test (Select one answer for each question.)
1.	STAPLEE criteria are:
a.	Standards for disaster-resistant additions to historic buildings.
b.	A checklist to use when disaster-proofing historic buildings.
c.	A method of evaluating mitigation actions to ensure that they fulfill your 
objectives and are appropriate for your community.
d.	None of the above.

2.	A Benefit-Cost Ratio greater than one indicates that:
a.	The cost of a mitigation action is less than the cost of damage that would occur 
without the action (i.e., the action is cost effective).
b.	The action should automatically be undertaken.
c.	The action should automatically be discarded.
d.	None of the above.

3. Section 106 is:
a.	A portion of the tax code governing the repair of historic properties and cultural 
resources.
b.	The section of the National Historic Preservation Act requiring the evaluation of 
ways to avoid, minimize, or offset negative impacts to historic properties from 
projects in which the Federal government is involved (through funding, 
permitting, etc.).
c.	A standard way of designating the original rooms of historic properties from 
modern additions.
d.	None of the above.

(Answers in Appendix D  Answers to Review Tests.)

Step 3

Prepare an Implementation Strategy 

In Step 3, you will develop the strategies for implementing the mitigation actions you 
selected in Step 2. The implementation strategy identifies who is responsible for which 
actions, what funding mechanisms (e.g., grants, capital budget, and/or in-kind donations) and 
other resources are available, and the time frame for project completion. It is particularly 
important to focus on the coordination between the various stakeholders involved in the 
efforts, including your SHPO/THPO and other historic preservationists. 
The process is thoroughly addressed in FEMA 386-3, pages 3-1 through 3-10, 
and summarized below as it applies to historic properties and cultural resources.

Procedures and Techniques

Task A. Identify how mitigation actions will be implemented.

1. Identify parties, define responsibilities, and confirm partners.

As you move toward implementing mitigation strategies for historic properties and 
cultural resources you will want to stay in close contact with stakeholders who have 
helped you throughout the planning process. They will likely have had an important voice 
earlier (in the identification of important historic properties and cultural resources, and 
the evaluation of various mitigation options) and you should give these groups and 
individuals an opportunity to help decide how these actions will take place. 

Additionally you will want to identify resources that will help you implement your actions. 
You can call upon resources within local, regional, State, or Tribal government agencies, 
the Federal government, private sector organizations and businesses, and academic 
institutions. Remember to include people who have expertise in historic properties and 
cultural resources, including your SHPO/THPO. Together, your planning group can 
develop a realistic schedule for implementing prioritized actions.

2. Identify resources to implement the actions.

Funding Sources. A well-structured hazard mitigation project for historic properties and 
cultural resources will take advantage of funding sources that target not only hazard 
mitigation projects, but also a wide variety of other preservation and land-use initiatives. 
Please see Appendix B  Library of this guide for a listing of potential funding sources for 
your mitigation projects. 

Carefully evaluate your prioritized list of actions and identify projects whose goals 
address multiple community needs at once (e.g., affordable housing, recreation, and 
economic revitalization). If your hazard mitigation projects address multiple community 
planning goals, you may be able to pursueand combineseveral funding sources. For 
example, the rehabilitation of a hazard-prone historic apartment building that includes 
low-income rental units may be eligible for funding from a variety of sources, including: 

Hazard mitigation funding;

Tax credits for affordable housing;

Tax credits for rehabilitation of income-producing historic buildings;

Tax credits for elderly housing;

Grants or other incentive programs for commercial downtown revitalization;

Low-interest revolving loans or grants for the rehabilitation of historic buildings;

Facade easements;

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) credits and deductions available to 
businesses; and

Local planning and zoning incentives.

Other types of historic properties might be eligible for assistance from other financial 
programs: 

Grants for historic property surveys and historic preservation planning;

Grants for conservation and curation of cultural resources (such as artifacts and 
archival collections); and 

Transportation-related funding for historic buildings (e.g., Transportation Equity Act 
[TEA-21] enhancement program).

In evaluating funding vehicles for your mitigation projects, you should seek out 
incentives and partnerships that minimize financial or administrative burdens. For 
example, States and communities can provide tax rebates for code upgrades, offer 
reduced property taxes and insurance premiums to citizens and businesses taking steps 
to lower their exposure to hazards, offer tax incentives for rehabilitation projects, or 
provide lower rates for retrofit projects.

State Cooperation. Local governments often underestimate the wealth of resources 
that their States can provide. States are excellent sources of funding, support, and 
technical assistance. State geological surveys, water resources agencies, and 
departments of planning or natural resources often have useful data related to hazard 
identification and risk assessments. States may also have a GIS department that can 
provide data and support. Your SHPO may provide excellent information and technical 
expertise. If agency staff has the time, consider holding an interagency meeting or 
conference call early in your project.

Additionally, regional or statewide historic preservation and urban planning conferences 
(as well as broad public events, such as regional fairs) can be excellent opportunities to 
provide publicity for your planning efforts. 

In-Kind Resources. Federal or State grants for historic properties and cultural 
resources often require in-kind matching funds from local or regional partners. Some 
grant programs may allow local communities to provide a match using in-kind 
resources in lieu of a local financial commitment; this in-kind match may include 
volunteer time and/or the donation of materials and services from local professionals. 
When analyzing the feasibility of in-kind matches, carefully evaluate how reliable and 
effective your volunteers will be in implementing your project.

3. Define the time frame for implementing the actions.

Task B. Document the implementation strategy.

There are many ways to present the implementation strategy; one example is contained 
in the sidebar below.

[TIP SIDEBAR: A sample format for an implementation strategy form
Action: (From your list of selected actions).

Goal(s) and Objective(s) Addressed: (Sometimes the action will address more than one 
goal and objective).

Lead Agency: (Provide the name and a brief description of the agency).
Support Agency or Agencies: (Provide the name and a brief description of each support 
agency).

Budget: (Provide the dollar amount or an estimate, if known; put TBDto be 
determinedif not known; and/or indicate staff time if applicable).

Funding Source(s): (List the funding sourcese.g., operating budget, capital 
improvement budget, XYZ grant, and/or XYZ foundation).

Start and End Date: (Indicate start and end dates; short-term, long-term, or ongoing; and 
milestones for longer term projects).
END SIDEBAR]

Task C. Obtain the consensus of the planning team.

The planning team should look at the Tribal, State, or local capability assessment 
(whichever is applicable) to identify resources to implement the mitigation actions. The 
team should also examine resources from all levels of government, private sector 
organizations, and universities to explore many sources of assistance. 

Once the implementation strategy in this step is completed, it will serve as a roadmap for 
making the historic properties and cultural resources of your Tribe, State, or community 
more disaster resistant. With the strategy clearly laid out, your planning team has all the 
essential elements completed and is ready for the next step. 

If your planning team has difficulty agreeing on specific mitigation actions for historic 
properties and cultural resources, work together to retrace your planning process. 
Examine earlier documents and notes and try to understand when disagreements 
started to arise. Next try to define specific points of disagreement. Start by identifying 
controversial issues or actions (such as disagreement about the demolition of a historic 
building, or the failure to recognize a specific historic property or cultural resource as 
highly significant), then move toward the larger project goals, objectives, and problem 
statements connected to those specific issues. 

Your goal should be to find common ground. When you are able to return to the specific 
controversial issues or actions, revisit your preservation hierarchy and examine the 
feasibility of other mitigation actions that could also accomplish your shared goals and 
objectives. All parties should be willing to compromise in order to reach consensus. If 
needed, remind them that the failure to achieve a consensus will jeopardize the 
implementation of your plan and will likely expose your communitys historic properties 
and cultural resources to substantial hazard-related damage.

This is the end of Step 3 of Phase 3. Following are questions you should ask yourself to 
determine if you have developed an adequate implementation strategy for incorporation 
into your hazard mitigation plan. 

Evaluate Your Community

Have you identified which person, office, agency, etc., will implement each mitigation 
action?

Have you created timelines and budgets for each action?

Have you located funding sources for the mitigation actions?

Review Test (Select one answer for each question.)
1.	Examples of sources of funding to implement your mitigation actions are:
a.	Hazard mitigation grants from the government and preservation grants from 
foundations.
b.	Tax credits and low interest revolving loans.
c.	Economic development loans/grants and housing loans/grants.
d.	All of the above.

2.	In-kind resources are:
a.	Non-monetary donations such as volunteer time, materials, and professional 
services.
b.	Encouraging words offered by passersby when you are working on a project.
c.	Stone, concrete, steel, and other heavy construction materials that have to be 
handled by machine. 
d.	None of the above. 

3.	If the planning team is having trouble reaching consensus on specific mitigation 
actions, you as a team member can:
a.	Define specific points of disagreement.
b.	Hold fast to your own views even in the face of opposition from other team 
members.
c.	Find common ground. 
d.	a and c.

(Answers in Appendix D  Answers to Review Tests.)

Step 4

Incorporate Historic Property and Cultural Resource Protection 
Efforts into the Hazard Mitigation Plan 

You and the team have worked very hard up to this point; now is the time to pull all the 
pieces together that pertain to historic properties and cultural resources and integrate 
them into the appropriate sections of the hazard mitigation plan. The importance of 
protecting historic properties and cultural resources should be clearly written following 
the format, terminology, and organization of the hazard mitigation plan. You should 
prepare the following sections: 

A summary of the planning process itself, including the sequence of actions taken 
and a list of team members and stakeholders who participated; 

The results of the risk assessment and loss estimation; 

Mitigation goals and objectives aimed at reducing or avoiding the effects of natural 
and manmade hazards;

actions that will help the Tribe, State, region, or community accomplish the 
established goals and objectives; and

Implementation strategies that detail how the mitigation actions will be implemented 
and administered.

Your hazard mitigation plan should be written so that anyone who reads it can easily 
gain an understanding of the risks facing historic properties and cultural resources in the 
community, as well as the communitys intended strategies for mitigating those risks.
Detailed guidance for assembling your document is contained in pages 4-1 through 4-6 
of FEMA 386-3. 

This is the end of the last step of Phase 3.

Summary

Planning is a continuous process. As you implement the plan you will be evaluating your 
progress, learning which actions succeeded and which did notand whyand keeping 
track of changes in your community that may affect the relevance of your plan. Should a 
hazard event strike your community, some parts of your plan implementation may be 
suspended while post-disaster actions take priority. Also note that DMA 2000 regulations 
require the update and re-approval of local hazard mitigation plans every 5 years to be 
eligible for most FEMA funding. (States and Tribes applying as grantees must submit 
their plans for re-approval every 3 years.) These considerations, and others, are 
discussed in Phase 4.  

PHASE 4  IMPLEMENT THE PLAN AND MONITOR PROGRESS
 
[GRAPHIC: DIAGRAM SHOWING THE FOUR PHASES OF THE PLANNING PROCESS 
WITH PHASE 4 AND ITS 5 STEPS HIGHLIGHTED.
Mitigation Planning Process
1.	Organize Resources
2.	Assess Risks
3.	Develop a Mitigation Plan
4.	Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress
>	Sensitivity of Information
>	Required Regulatory Review
>	Interagency Coordination/Agreements
>	Evaluating and Updating Your Plan
>	Updating your Inventory Data
END GRAPHIC]

Overview

Implementation is the fourth and final phase of incorporating historic property and 
cultural resource considerations into the hazard mitigation planning process. The steps 
associated with this phase are described in detail in FEMA 386-4: Bringing the Plan to 
Life: Implementing the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Please consult this guide for basic 
information on implementing, monitoring, evaluating, and updating your mitigation plan. 
A number of considerations, however, pertain specifically to historic properties and 
cultural resources and form the basis for the remainder of the discussion: 

Consideration 1: Sensitivity of information.

Consideration 2: Required regulatory review.

Consideration 3: Interagency coordination/agreements.

Consideration 4: Evaluating and updating your plan.

Consideration 5: Updating your inventory data.

These considerations are discussed in detail below.

Consideration 1. Sensitivity of Information

In implementing the mitigation actions identified by your planning team in Phase 3, you 
should remember to include in the mitigation plan any cautions regarding information 
deemed sensitive for public disclosure. For example, disclosing the specific location of 
archeological sites, or details about certain cultural practices and traditions, or 
information on security systems used in the protection of historic properties and cultural 
resources could be detrimental and result in the destruction of the very resources your 
team is trying to protect. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Protecting Sensitive Locational Data
To avoid illegal removal of historic and cultural resource assets, it is important to protect 
specific locational data pertaining to archeological sites and/or suppress the description of 
a historic propertys contents in public documents. However, sometimes protecting this 
information may not be sufficient, as the destruction of the Slack Farm site in Uniontown, 
Kentucky, illustrates. 

Archeologists had long known about the Slack Farm site, which represented an important 
Native America Late Mississippian village, a community of wattle and daub houses where 
acres of maize, beans, and squash grew at the confluence of the Wabash and Ohio 
Rivers from AD 1450 to 1650. Although relic hunters had periodically visited the site to 
illegally dig for artifacts, the Slack family had always turned these individuals away. This 
changed when Mrs. Slack died. In the late 1980s, the new owner granted access to 
looters who paid an excavation fee of $10,000. With their rented tractors, the looters dug 
out graves, scattering bones and Late Mississippian pottery fragments. Today, the 
disturbed site sits as the looters left it.
 
[GRAPHIC: 2 PHOTOS, ONE AERIAL SHOWING FIELD WITH HOLES DUG IN IT, 
ONE AT GROUND LEVEL SHOWING EXCAVATIONS.
CAPTION: Damage to archeological sites at the Slack Farm. 
END GRAPHIC]

NOTE: The desecration and destruction of over 400 graves at this site helped galvanize a 
coalition of Native Americans and archeologists across the United States, who called upon 
Congress to enact new legislation to better protect Native American human remains, 
funerary objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. This effort culminated in 1990 with the 
passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). 
END SIDEBAR]

While your planning team must make decisions on a case-by-case basis regarding the 
release of sensitive information, your team should always consider the merit of providing 
such information in a general manner, i.e., without reference to sensitive details such as 
locations, security measures, dollar values, etc. 

In the course of your teams inventory of historic properties and cultural resources, you 
may have documented and evaluated traditional cultural practices of a particular social 
group; in some cases, this information relates to spiritual beliefs that are very personal 
and sensitive. Your planning team should consult with social groups that have historic 
ties to your project area to ensure that the cultural practices you have learned about 
during your inventory are not inappropriately treated in your hazard mitigation plan.  
Your SHPO/THPO will be able to provide additional guidance on proper handling of 
sensitive information. These measures will help you to avoid unnecessary anxieties 
about placing your valued historic properties and cultural resources at further risk.

Consideration 2. Required Regulatory Review

As noted in Phases 1 and 3 of this guide, a second consideration that will influence your 
planning teams activities during the implementation phase is the requirement for 
compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Any federally sponsored undertaking is 
subject to review under Section 106s implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 800, 
"Protection of Historic Properties." (Federal sponsorship can take the form of review, 
permitting, funding, or other type of involvement.) These regulations require Federal 
agencies, along with their State, Tribal, regional, and local partners, to evaluate ways to 
avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse impacts to historic properties listed, or 
eligible for listing, in the National Register. Adverse impacts can, in some cases, be 
offset by recordation, archeological data recovery, enhancement of GIS data, public 
interpretation and education programs, or remembrance and symbolic transfer 
ceremonies.

Public Interpretation and Education Programs. Design installations that interpret 
and explain historic resources offer one effective method to offset negative impacts 
to historic properties and cultural resources. These designs can include the following:

Simple plaques and text panels;

[GRAPHIC: PHOTO OF SKELETAL, METAL FRAME SHAPED LIKE A HOUSE.
CAPTION: Franklin Court Ghost Frame, Independence NHP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 
END GRAPHIC]

Installations and monuments that provide a creative visual interpretation of 
historic properties (Benjamin Franklins house, shown here, is a good example); and 

Heritage trails and corridors that link a neighborhood, city, or region with multiple 
historic properties. These may also be used to enhance existing tourism and 
park-related initiatives.

[TIP SIDEBAR: Archeological Site Documentation in Pennsylvania 
In 1999, flooding in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, severely damaged many buildings 
and structures, including a significant eighteenth-century stone house. Located next to a 
stream, this house had already experienced repeated flood-related damage. After 
determining that relocating the dwelling would not be feasible due to its large size and the 
complex engineering involved, the owners decided to have the house demolished.

So that future generations could learn about the house and its history, a detailed archival 
record was created. The archive included extensive large-format black and white 
photography, measured floor plans, a detailed written description, and a narrative history 
of the site. These materials were placed in a local repository.

[GRAPHICS: 3 PHOTOS:
CAPTION: 1. 18th century stone house before demolition, Delaware, County, Philadelphia, PA.  
CAPTION: 2. Archeologists excavating and documenting the Schoonmaker site. Delaware 
County, Philadelphia. 
3RD PHOTO SHOWS Excavation with marker.
END GRAPHICS]

Thus, despite the fact that a significant historic property was demolished, a complete 
historic record remains for the benefit of the community. 
END SIDEBAR]

Remembrance and Symbolic Transfer Ceremonies. Remembrance ceremonies 
sometimes can be used by community members to honor the loss of a historic 
property, a neighborhood, or an entire community when these have been demolished 
or relocated as a result of a hazard mitigation project. This type of ceremony allows 
those affected by the loss to come together to share their grief in a dignified and 
appropriate way. Ceremonies such as these also are a way to mark the anniversary 
of an event that has touched many people. 

Symbolic transfer ceremonies can also help communities effectively commemorate 
the loss of one place, while moving to a new location. In the case of one community 
that was relocated due to river valley flooding associated with the creation of a new 
reservoir, an extensive number of historic properties, including sacred sites, were 
lost. A service was held on the old site, and then on the new site, symbolically 
transferring and maintaining values from one site to the other.

Before implementing mitigation actions you identified in Phase 3, it is important that your 
planning team officially communicate with your SHPO/THPO regarding formal Section 
106 compliance. Section 106 compliance involves conducting an alternatives analysis in 
consultation with your SHPO/THPO and other interested parties, in which different 
mitigation actions are evaluated for their ability to minimize impacts to historic properties 
or cultural resources. Section 106 regulations also require consultation with your SHPO 
or THPO, including providing them the opportunity to comment on your recommended 
actions. Failure to secure formal Section 106 compliance can jeopardize Federal 
funding, permits, or approvals, and even prevent project implementation.

If your planning team has carefully followed the recommendations contained in this 
planning guide, you will have worked with your SHPO/THPO when you applied the 
STAPLEE criteria to evaluate a variety of alternative actions. If so, your team may have 
accomplished much of the work required for complying with Section 106. 

Your team should send a formal letter to your SHPO/THPO that carefully documents 
how your team has followed the recommendations contained in this guide. In writing the 
letter, your team should seek input from State and Federal environmental review staff 
involved in your planning effort. If the SHPO/THPO recommends additional work before 
formal Section 106 compliance can be completed, various sources of information can 
help you to reach compliance. These include recommendations from the SHPO/THPO 
themselves. 

[CAUTION SIDEBAR: Section 106 Project Review
Even if your communitys historic properties are not listed in the National Register, the 
mitigation actions you recommended in Phase 3 for protecting these properties will 
nevertheless be subject to Section 106 review if they will be funded by Federal (e.g., 
FEMA) dollars or require Federal permitting. Federally assisted projects that involve 
certain types of historic properties that are hidden from view, such as buried archeological 
sites, are subject to Section 106 review due to their potential significance. Before 
implementation of mitigation activities that involve ground disturbance, your community 
may be required to make an attempt to locate these properties.
In addition to Section 106 review, your projects may also be subject to other State and 
local review under State historic preservation and/or archeological laws and regulations.
END SIDEBAR]

If regulatory review by a SHPO/THPO is required, and your project involves Federal 
assistance that will adversely affect National Register eligible or listed properties, a 
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Federal agency involved and the 
SHPO/THPO is required. If your SHPO informs you that an MOA is required, it is not 
your responsibility to negotiate the MOA. You should speak with the appropriate Federal 
agency staff, who will coordinate and conclude the consultation process.

Consideration 3. Interagency Coordination/Agreements

During implementation, your planning team will want to continue to coordinate closely 
with all of the partners with whom it has been working throughout the planning process. 
These include your SHPO/THPO, local or regional planning entities, local building 
officials, and others who have helped your team to develop its goals and decide upon 
mitigation actions up to this point. As you implement the plan, your team may discover 
other interested parties and groups with historic ties to your planning area who may not 
have been involved in the earlier planning activities. Although it is preferable to have 
included these parties on your team before the implementation phase, it is important that 
your team open up its planning process to include these new sources of input, even if it 
means your planning team must revisit earlier decisions.

It is a good idea to prepare an interagency agreement between or among the involved 
agencies. Interagency agreements allow for the streamlining of regulatory review by 
providing a formal framework for integrating planning activities that are required by both 
the hazard mitigation planning process and Section 106 review. Redundancies are thus 
eliminated. For example, public input that is required during both of these processes is 
useful for gathering information on what mitigation alternatives are supported by the 
community and stand a better chance of being implemented. Moreover, an interagency 
agreement can expedite much of the Section 106 review work required if local, State, or 
Tribal agencies involved in the general mitigation planning process have or hire qualified 
individuals to perform the review of the various mitigation projects your team has 
proposed. These staff or consultants could include archeologists, historians, or 
preservation planners. 

Interagency agreements also provide an opportunity for formalizing the implementation 
of actions that minimize or compensate for impacts to historic properties and cultural 
resources, including spelling out the procedures to follow to balance historic preservation 
and mitigation needs. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: The Need for Interagency Agreements
Your SHPO/THPO, as well as your funding agency, can help you evaluate when the use 
of an interagency agreement is most appropriate.
END SIDEBAR]

If your team chooses not to undertake a formal interagency agreement, there are many 
other ways in which you can encourage interagency cooperation. Just as your team has 
pulled together a multitude of interests to advise on mitigation planning for historic 
properties and cultural resources, you can continue to engage these interests throughout 
the implementation process. Activities in which you can interact with those who can 
inform and guide the implementation process include attendance or speaking 
engagements at seminars, brown bag lunches, or conferences about historic properties 
and cultural resource preservation or hazard mitigation planning. Regularly scheduled 
progress meetings are also beneficial.

By participating in such interagency activities, you will also be able to share your 
experiences with others facing similar collaborative challenges. 

Consideration 4. Evaluating and Updating your Plan

In implementing your hazard mitigation plan, your team will likely learn something new 
about your communitys historic properties and cultural resources. This may include 
clarification on preservation priorities, new intelligence about governmental provisions for 
protecting these resources, differing perspectives on mitigation as embodied in other 
parts of the hazard mitigation plan, and, as mentioned above, what is truly effective or 
ineffective for mitigating damage to certain properties and resources. 

For those projects whose implementation was not guided by the Secretary of the 
Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, your planning team should 
carefully document the reasons why those standards were not used, and evaluate 
alternative actions that would employ these standards. You should also extend such 
planning to properties and resources that are similar to the ones targeted by these 
projects. 

In the case of certain cultural resources, such as archives and collections, your team 
may wish to obtain feedback from a variety of professionals, including curators, as to 
their perceived effectiveness of mitigation efforts. Gathering specific information about 
the costs and successes of these efforts may be useful in your plan update. This 
information may also be useful to others who are contemplating development of 
mitigation plans with significant cultural resource collections and assets.

Your team will likely gain new knowledge about how your historic properties and cultural 
resources are viewed or administered. This new knowledge may include the introduction 
or revision of a State tax incentive for the rehabilitation of historic properties, which may 
provide additional opportunities for private developers not factored into your original 
plan. Socioeconomic changes may also transform the hierarchy of preservation 
priorities, so that certain priorities either become more pressing or lose some of their 
value. This, in turn, will influence the order in which implementation of mitigation actions 
should proceed. Shifts in development patterns that occur subsequent to the initial 
development of your plan may also have a dramatic impact on preservation priorities. 
For example, a recently suburbanized region may find that historic farmsteads, once 
plentiful, have become increasingly scarce and may seek to adjust its preservation 
priorities accordingly. 

New technologies and new study data on historic properties and cultural resources may 
emerge during the course of implementing your plan. For example, newly developed 
regional archeological predictive modelsnot available when your plan was created
could assist in the identification and evaluation of this specific type of historic property. 
Your planning team may also identify new types of mitigation methods that result in 
better benefits for your community.  

Armed with this new knowledge, your planning team will want to reassess its goals, 
objectives, and actions to determine the extent to which they are still applicable.

Updating the Plan 

After your planning team has evaluated implementation actions and identified new 
information that can affect future implementation strategies, you are ready to update the 
plan. Depending on the extent of the required changes, you may need to reformulate 
specific actions, objectives, or even goals. 

In deciding on revisions, your planning team should draw upon the same consensus-
driven prioritization methods it used earlier in the planning process, first and foremost 
being solicitation of public input. These methods are explained in greater detail earlier in 
this guide as well as in the other FEMA how-to guides mentioned throughout this 
document.  

[CAUTION SIDEBAR: Post-Disaster Recovery 
An important part of your communitys post-disaster response and recovery effort will be 
ensuring that historic property and cultural resource considerations are taken into account 
after a disaster, just as they were accounted for in the mitigation planning before the 
disaster. Your hazard mitigation planning team should work with the larger disaster 
response and recovery team, which, depending upon the extent of the disaster, may 
include FEMA, State, county, and local agencies to ensure that they are made aware of 
the major components of your mitigation plan for historic properties and cultural resources. 
Moreover, the locational dataparticularly the GIS datathat you have amassed during 
your inventory of historic properties and cultural resources may prove to be extremely 
helpful to emergency response planners as they attempt to make important decisions 
about which historic properties it would be worthwhile to repair. 

The post-disaster rehabilitation period offers an opportunity to acquire funding, through 
such programs as FEMAs Public Assistance Program, in the case of Presidentially 
declared disasters, that would not be available otherwise. With this infusion of funds, 
historic properties can be adaptively reused to meet larger community goals, including 
tourism development or heritage education. 

After a disaster event, some segments of the community may want to act quickly and 
demolish damaged buildings in order to show that progress is being made. This position 
can create conflict with others and the situation grows more complicated if the buildings 
are located in a minority neighborhood where residents have little voice in the decisions. 
Therefore, it is imperative that different community interests work together following a 
disaster event to make important decisions regarding historic properties. 

Following a disaster, some community members may wish to erase any visible evidence 
associated with hazard-related damage. For example, damaged historic properties that 
are good candidates for repair may be needlessly targeted for demolition. On the other 
hand, some community members may be unwilling to part with historic properties that are 
so extensively damaged that their repair and rehabilitation would not justify the costs 
involved. Thus, your team may find itself encountering many of the same prioritization 
issues it experienced during the earlier phases of the mitigation planning process.
END SIDEBAR]

[TIP SIDEBAR: A State Success Story
Disaster Planning for Floridas Historic Resources, prepared by the Florida Department of 
Community Affairs with assistance from the Florida Division of Historic Resources and 
1000 Friends of Florida, describes steps for preparing emergency response plans for 
individual historic resources, expediting review of repair and reconstruction permits in the 
event of damage, and improving coordination between emergency management and 
historic preservation efforts within a community in order to reduce disaster-related damage 
and rebuild local economies. 

[GRAPHIC: PICTURE OF FRONT COVER OF DISASTER PLANNING FOR 
FLORIDAS HISTORIC RESOURCES.
END GRAPHIC]

This guide is available at 
http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/publications/historic.pdf.
END SIDEBAR]

Consideration 5. Updating Your Inventory Data

As your team evaluates the implementation of your mitigation plan for historic properties 
and cultural resources you will also want to develop a strategy for revising and updating 
your inventory data based on your evaluation results. 

[CAUTION SIDEBAR:  Send Your Updated Survey to Your SHPO
Make sure you send a copy of your updated historic property surveys to your SHPO office 
for review/approval and/or inclusion in the State database. Determinations included in 
SHPO databases can be shared with FEMA and used more readily (in the event of multi-
agency consultations) than local surveys not approved by your SHPO. Local surveys may 
also disappear or not be available in the event of a disaster.
END SIDEBAR]

Although some level of update should occur at least every 10 years, certain 
circumstances, such as a surge in population growth or a serious disaster event, may 
warrant more frequent updates of inventory information. It may be worthwhile to update 
the inventory when the hazard mitigation plan itself must be updated: every 3 years for 
State plans and 5 years for local plans, if not before. 

Some historic properties may have been demolished since the inventory was last 
updated or other properties may have experienced a loss or gain of integrity as a result 
of alterations. Your cultural resources may have changed over time as well. Archives of 
important information may have been acquired by an institution or museum. This type of 
new information is essential to include in updates of the inventory and plan.
 
[TIP SIDEBAR: Make Sure Your Data is Up-to-Date
[GRAPHIC: PHOTO OF TOPPLED LIGHTHOUSE. 
END GRAPHIC]

Update your inventory data to reflect loss of historic buildings and structures. 
END SIDEBAR]

[TIP SIDEBAR: The Effect of Changing Perceptions on Your Inventory
Perceptions of which historic properties and cultural resources are significant can also 
change over time, and will affect your inventory. For example, a suburban neighborhood 
constructed after World War II, such as Levittown, may once have been regarded as 
ordinary, but now it has taken on a new level of significance. The accompanying 
photographs and information are illustrative of these near history resources.

Arapahoe Acres, Englewood, Colorado. Built between 1949 and 1957, this 33-acre 
postwar subdivision reflects the vision of developer-architect Edward Hawkins and site 
planner-architect Eugene Sternberg for a community of moderately priced small houses 
using modern principles of design. Breaking the ubiquitous grid of metropolitan Denver, 
the plan is distinctive for its curvilinear arrangement of streets, placement of houses on 
small uniformly sized lots to provide both views and privacy, and integration of landscape 
features, such as lawns, fences, hedges, shrubbery, and specimen trees, to organize 
space and give the landscape a flowing, sculptural quality. (Aerial photo courtesy of Clyde 
Mannon; streetscape by Diane Wray, courtesy of Colorado Historical Society.)

[GRAPHIC: 2 PHOTOS: 
CAPTION 1: 1949 aerial view of Arapahoe Acres.  
CAPTION 2: Arapahoe Acres streetscape circa 1950. 
END GRAPHIC]

Photographs of Arapahoe Acres are in a National Register publication entitled Historic 
Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the Nation Register 
of Historic Places (David Ames and Linda McClelland, 2002). You can download this 
publication from http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/suburbs/intro.htm    or 
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/suburbs/part2.htm for more information on 
how suburbseven some built after World War IIcan be nominated for listing in the 
National Register.
END SIDEBAR]

Lastly, other planning data may have been revised, which may have an impact on your 
historic properties and cultural resources inventory. For example, expansion of floodplain 
boundaries, whether due to more detailed study or actual infrastructure projects, should 
be integrated into your inventory. Such changes would affect not only your inventory, but 
your risk assessment of historic properties and cultural resources.

As part of your implementation process, your team will want to develop a strategy for 
updating your information about historic properties and cultural resources. Other 
planning initiatives may also be in need of updated information. Your local or regional 
planning office and SHPO/THPO may help your team identify potential resources and/or 
other planning groups in need of updated information. Consider the advantages of 
sharing information, resources, and costs with other project partners. 

[TIP SIDEBAR: Windshield Surveys
If your community has a large number of historic properties and cultural resources, or your 
team lacks the resources to undertake a detailed update of your entire inventory, your 
team should consider alternate methodologies for updating the inventory. These include a 
baseline windshield survey (see Phase 2), which uses representative concentrations of 
historic properties and cultural resources, or a phased approach, in which highest-priority 
resources are updated first. 
END SIDEBAR]

AFTERWORD

Your planning team has accomplished a challenging and worthwhile taskintegrating 
historic property and cultural resource considerations into the hazard mitigation plan. 
Following the four-phase planning process for hazard mitigation planning, as discussed 
in the core four guides of this how-to series, you gathered the necessary resources and 
enhanced the planning team to include experts and interested citizens to help you 
identify the historic properties and cultural resources in your Tribe, State, or community 
that are vulnerable to hazards. With the help of this guide, you were able to develop a 
preservation hierarchy that you then used to estimate losses as part of the last step in 
preparing your risk assessment. Based on this loss estimate, you identified hazard 
mitigation actions and an implementation strategy that will allow your Tribe, State, or 
community to build upon its unique sense of place while reducing risks from hazard 
events and positioning historic properties and cultural resources as economic building 
blocks for future development. As you obtain additional resources, you will be able to 
refine your historic property and cultural resource inventory and risk assessment data, 
updating this information as required by DMA 2000 for review and approval to continue 
your eligibility for FEMA-funded pre- and post-disaster programs. 

[GRAPHIC: PHOTO OF HISTORIC STOREFRONTS.
END GRAPHIC]

Now with your hazard mitigation plan in hand, your Tribe, State, or local community can 
access non-traditional technical and financial resources, opening up new possibilities for 
effective preservation of neighborhoods, properties, and artifacts. Because of your 
planning teams efforts, future generations will experience a safer future while your 
Tribe, State, or community retains its valuable heritage and cultural assets, all of which 
help create its unique sense of place. 

APPENDIX A  GLOSSARY

36 CFR Part 800: The Federal Regulations of the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP), entitled Protection of Historic Properties, that govern the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). These regulations were amended on August 5, 2004.

ABK Methodology for Seismic-Prone Buildings: An engineering design methodology for unreinforced masonry buildings developed by a team of engineers in Los Angeles. This methodology finds that masonry buildings respond differently from the way traditional codes and engineering approaches have assumed. Rather than amplifying the forces of an earthquake, heavy masonry-walled buildings have the effect of dampening the shaking by acting as a rigid rocking block on a soft soil base. Using the ABK Methodology, the computed force levels in an unreinforced masonry building are lower than found under conventional code analysis, and as such the amount of strengthening work required for such buildings is less than that needed when conventional code analysis is employed. Thus, this approach reduces retrofit intervention and costs.

Adverse Effect: Harm to historic properties directly or indirectly caused by a Federal agency's action. 
The adverse effect may diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. The regulations that set forth the adverse effect criteria are located in 36 CFR §800.5.

Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP): An independent Federal agency composed of a 19-member council that advises the President and Congress on historic preservation issues and administers the provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

Area of Potential Effects (APE): The geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. This area always includes the actual site of the undertaking, and may also include other areas where the undertaking will cause changes in land use, traffic patterns, or other aspects that could affect historic properties.

Certified Local Government: Local governments strengthen their local historic preservation efforts by achieving Certified Local Government (CLG) status from the National Park Service (NPS). NPS and State governments, through their State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), provide technical assistance and small matching grants to these communities. In turn, NPS and States gain the benefit of local government partnership in the national historic preservation program. Another incentive for participating in the CLG program is the pool of matching grant funds SHPOs set aside to fund CLG historic preservation subgrant projectsat least 10% of the State's annual Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) grant allocation. Grant funds are distributed through the HPF grant program, administered by NPS and SHPOs. 

Projects eligible for funding and the criteria used to select them are developed annually by the SHPO. Funding decisions are made by the State, not NPS. Among the kinds of activities funded are the following: architectural, historical, and archeological surveys; oral histories; nominations to the National Register; staff work for historic preservation commissions; design guidelines and preservation plans; public outreach materials such as publications, videos, exhibits, and brochures; training for commission members and staff; and rehabilitation or restoration of National Register listed properties. 

Comprehensive Planning: A process of developing broad plans that express community goals and objectives. Comprehensive plans are decision-making tools that establish broad, long-range policy guidelines for decisions relating to the development of a community. Comprehensive plans generally include three topics: 1) an inventory of existing conditions; 2) a statement of needs and goals; and 3) implementation strategies and timeframes. Communities often incorporate a series of elements, such as population, land use, economic development, transportation, natural and historic resources conservation, community facilities/services, and housing into such plans. This process addresses multiple facets of a community and integrates these into a coherent vision that guides orderly growth and development for the future.

Concurring Party: Organizations, groups, or individuals who are consulted as part of the Section 106 
process and who agree with the consensus of the consulting parties on the method to be used to resolve 
the adverse effects of a Federal undertaking. Although concurring parties may sign an agreement, they 
cannot amend or terminate it.

Consulting Party: Organizations, groups, or individuals who have consultative roles in the Section 106 
process. According to 36 CFR Part 800, any of the following may be a consulting party: State Historic 
Preservation Officers/Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO/THPOs); Indian Tribes and Native 
Hawaiian organizations; representatives from local governments; applicants for Federal assistance; the 
public or other individuals or organizations with a legal or economic relation to the undertaking or a 
demonstrated interest in the undertaking's effects on historic properties.

Contributing Property: A building, site, structure, or object that adds to the historic associations, historic 
architectural qualities, or archeological values for which a historic district is significant because it: was 
present during the period of significance; relates to the documented significance of the property and 
possesses historic integrity or is capable of yielding important information about the period; or 
independently meets National Register criteria.

Criteria Considerations: Under the four Criteria for Evaluation of National Register eligibility, cemeteries, 
birthplaces, or graves of historical figures; properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious 
purposes; structures that have been moved from their original locations; reconstructed historic buildings; 
properties primarily commemorative in nature; and properties that have achieved significance in the past 
50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, these properties will qualify if 
they are integral parts of historic districts that do qualify or fall into certain special categories. For a 
description of these categories, see National Register Bulletin #15, How to Apply the National Register 
Criteria for Evaluation.

Criteria for Evaluation: The nomination process for the National Register identifies four criteria that 
describe how properties are significant for their associations with important events or persons, for their 
importance in design or construction, or for their information potential. In order to be listed in the National 
Register, a property must be shown to be significant for one or more of the four Criteria for Evaluation.

Criterion A - Events: Properties can be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with events that 
have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

Criterion B - Person: Properties can be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with the lives of 
persons significant in our past.

Criterion C - Design/Construction: Properties can be eligible for the National Register if they embody the 
distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; possess 
high artistic values; or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual 
distinction.

Criterion D - Information Potential: Properties can be eligible for the National Register if they have yielded, or 
may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Cultural Resource: Non-living examples of objects acquired and preserved because of their potential 
value as examples, reference material, or objects of artistic, historic, scientific, educational, or social 
importance, either individually or as a collection. Often housed in libraries, museums, archives, historical 
repositories, or historic properties, these resources range from three-dimensional examples such as 
sculptures, historic furnishings or textiles, to two-dimensional examples such as family records, old 
photographs and maps, and other archival materials.

Curation: A treatment used by Federal agencies to avoid, minimize, or offset the adverse effects of a 
Federal action on historic properties. This measure removes certain features or architectural elements 
from a property for re-use or permanent curation at a museum or other facility. This also involves 
treatment of artifacts that result from archeological surveys.

Data Recovery: A treatment used by Federal agencies to avoid, minimize, or offset the adverse effects of 
a Federal action on historic properties. This measure, which obtains and recovers information about the 
historic property, specifically pertains to archeological sites adversely impacted by a FEMA undertaking. 
As a result of 2001 revisions to the Section 106 regulations, new guidance has been issued by the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) on the treatment of historic and prehistoric 
archeological resources. When a federally assisted project may affect one or more archeological sites 
listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register, Federal agencies must consider the impacts to such 
sites. Appropriate treatments may include preservation in place for future study or use, recovery or partial 
recovery of archeological data, or any combination of these other measures.

Determination of Eligibility: Under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), properties that are 
either listed in, or eligible for listing in the National Register, trigger Federal review under Section 106. 
Eligible historic properties meet one or more of the National Register Criteria for Evaluation and may be 
nominated to the National Register at a future date. If a property is not listed or previously determined 
eligible for listing in the National Register prior to the FEMA undertaking, FEMA must make a 
determination of eligibility for the property.

Displacement Cost: The expense for a business or service to be relocated to another structure because 
of a hazard event. This cost can include the rent for temporary building space per month and a one-time 
cost to set up operations in the new place.

Displacement Time: The number of days a business or service would operate away from its original 
location due to a hazard event.

Evaluation: The process by which the significance and integrity of a historic property are judged and 
eligibility for National Register listing is determined.

Federal Preservation Officer (FPO): Official designated by the head of each Federal agency to be 
responsible for coordinating the agency's activities under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

Federal Undertaking: Serving as the trigger for the Section 106 review under the National Historic 
Preservation Act (NHPA), an undertaking is any Federal project, activity, or program that involves the 
expenditure of Federal money and can result in changes in the character or use of historic properties. The 
project, activity, or program must be under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency or 
licensed or assisted by a Federal agency. These activities may include construction, rehabilitation and 
repair projects, demolition, licenses, permits, loans, loan guarantees, grants, Federal property transfers, 
and many other types of Federal involvement. 

NOTE: One technical amendment to 36 CFR Part 800, which became effective on August 5, 
2004, clarified that the Section 106 process does not apply to undertakings that are merely 
subject to State or local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal 
agency. This clarification was made in a revision to the definition of undertaking under § 
800.16(y).

Floodplain: As defined under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), any land area susceptible to 
being inundated by water from any source. 

Floodway: As defined under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the channel of a river or other 
watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood 
without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a certain height.

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): Map of a community, prepared by FEMA, that shows both the 
special flood hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community.

Functional Downtime: The number of days that a business would be closed due to damage from a 
hazard event before it could resume in another location.

Geographic Information System (GIS): A computer system for capturing, storing, checking, integrating, 
manipulating, analyzing, and displaying data related to positions on the Earth's surface. Typically, a GIS 
is used for handling maps of one kind or another. These might be represented as several different layers 
where each layer holds data about a particular kind of feature. Each feature is linked to a position on the 
graphical image of a map. GIS is becoming an important tool in promoting coordinated efforts between 
emergency management and historic preservation.

Goals: General guidelines that explain what you want to achieve. They are usually broad policy 
statements and represent long-term, global visions.

HABS/HAER: The Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) is the oldest Federal preservation 
program. Established in 1933 by the National Park Service (NPS) as a make-work program for jobless 
architects and photographers in the Depression, the program's mission is to create a lasting archive of 
American historic architecture. In 1969, the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) began as a 
companion program to document structures of technological and engineering significance. The program 
established qualitative standards for both architectural and photographic documentation and it directs the 
placement of the archives in the Library of Congress. FEMA often applies these standards when using 
recordation as a treatment measure.

Hazard Mitigation: Sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and 
property from natural hazards and their effects. Note that this emphasis on long-term risk distinguishes 
mitigation from actions geared primarily to emergency preparedness and short-term recovery.

Hazard Mitigation Actions: Specific actions that help you achieve your hazard mitigation goals and objectives. 

Hazard Mitigation Plan: A systematic evaluation of the nature and extent of vulnerability to the effects of 
natural hazards typically present in the planning area and includes a description of actions to minimize 
future vulnerability to hazards.

HAZUS: FEMAs nationally applicable standardized methodology and risk assessment software program 
for analyzing potential losses from floods, hurricane winds, and earthquakes. In HAZUS-MH, current 
scientific and engineering knowledge is coupled with the latest GIS technology to produce estimates of 
hazard-related damage before or after a disaster occurs.

Historic Context: Information about historic trends and properties grouped by an important theme in the 
prehistory or history of a community, State, or the nation during a particular period of time. Organized by 
theme, place, and time, they provide a framework for determining the significance of a property and its 
eligibility for National Register listing.

Historic District: A historic district is a National Register (or often State and local) designation referring 
to either historic properties having a number of resources that are relatively equal in importance, such as 
a neighborhood, or large acreage properties with a variety of historic properties.

Historic Preservation: An approach to conserving structures, sites, and objects that represent a physical 
connection with people and events from our past. Historic preservation utilizes various land use planning 
strategies, governmental programs, and financial incentives to protect historic resources. The 
preservation of historic structures and sites helps to create a unique environment and sense of place.

Historic Preservation Specialist: Historic Preservation Specialists are technical experts who identify 
and evaluate historic properties, apply the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines to 
proposed projects, and negotiate and draft agreement documents. They may work with FEMA program 
staff, other specialists, the applicant, and staff of the State Historic Preservation Office/Tribal Historic 
Preservation Office to bring a scope of work into conformance with the Standards or Guidelines.

Historic Property: As defined by 36 CFR Part 800, means any prehistoric or historic district, site, 
building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register maintained by 
the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and 
located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religions and cultural 
importance to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria 
(Source: 36 CFR §800.16 [I][1]).

Historic Property Survey: A survey of historic properties in a State, which usually involves the collection 
of background research on each property, fieldwork that includes photographic and architectural 
documentation of the property and a written description of the property, and the reporting of this 
information. The survey is normally conducted as part of the State Inventory of Historic Properties.

Historic Review: The Federal process of taking into account whether a Federal action will have an effect 
on any property included in or eligible for the National Register. Historic Review is synonymous with 
Section 106 review.

Identification: Process through which information is gathered about historic properties in an 
undertakings Area of Potential Effects (APE) in order to identify the National Register Evaluation Criteria 
and determine eligibility for their listing on the National Register. This is one of the first, and most 
important, initial steps in the Section 106 review process (§800.4[b]). 

Indian Tribe: An Indian Tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including a native 
village, regional corporation, or village corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 3 of the Alaska 
Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602), which is recognized as eligible for the special programs 
and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians (Source: 36 CFR 
Part 800).

In-Kind Repair: Work that returns a facility to its pre-disaster condition and substantially matches the 
original form, workmanship, and materials.

Integrity: The authenticity of a property's historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical 
characteristics that existed during the property's prehistoric or historic period. Historic integrity is the 
composite of seven qualities, including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and 
association. It is an important qualification for National Register listing.

Keeper of the National Register: The person at the National Park Service (NPS) responsible for 
administering the National Register program and maintaining a database of the completed nominations.

Locally Designated Historic Properties: Historic properties nominated for official designation at the 
local level through a historic preservation ordinance or a local preservation/historical organization.

Loss Estimation Table: Projects the losses likely to be sustained due to a specific type of hazard event 
(e.g., floods) based on observed past damages. Estimated losses are provided for different magnitudes of 
the hazard and are expressed as a percentage of replacement cost.

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA): An agreement, resulting from consultation, that outlines measures 
Federal agencies will take to avoid, reduce, or offset the effects on historic properties as the agency 
carries out its undertaking. The MOA is signed by the agency, the State Historic Preservation 
Officer/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, if 
participating. Other consulting parties assigned responsibilities in the Agreement must also be 
signatories.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Signed into law by President Nixon in 1969, the National 
Environmental Policy Act establishes the broad national framework for protecting the environment, 
including historic properties. NEPA's basic policy is to ensure that all branches of government give proper 
consideration to the environment prior to undertaking any major Federal action that significantly affects 
the environment. In general, this law established a national policy which would 1) encourage productive 
and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; 2) promote efforts which would prevent or 
eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; and 3) 
enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation.

The NEPA process subsumes the review of proposed actions under an array of other Federal laws. In 
regard to historic properties, the most significant Federal law is the National Historic Preservation Act of 
1966 (NHPA  see below). To achieve improved project streamlining, NEPA and NHPA requirements are 
sometimes combined. The Advisory Council for Historic Preservations (ACHP) regulations that 
implement Section 106 of NHPA, 36 CFR Part 800, allow Federal agencies to coordinate the two 
processes. Guidance may be found under §800.8(a). 

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): Federal program created by Congress in 1968 that makes 
flood insurance available in communities that enact minimum floodplain management regulations as 
indicated in 44 CFR §60.3.

National Historic Landmark (NHL): Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects found to possess 
national significance in illustrating or representing the prehistory and history of the United States. 
Designated by the Secretary of the Interior, NHLs comprise less than four percent of the properties listed 
in the National Register. Section 110(f) of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and 36 CFR 
§800.10 outline special requirements for undertakings affecting NHLs.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): In response to the rapid loss of historic resources from 
urban renewal in the 1950s and 60s, Congress passed this Act in 1966 to ensure that Federal agencies 
integrate historic properties in their project planning and execution, and encourage States to begin their 
own historic preservation programs. The primary components of the NHPA are: adoption of the National 
Register as the countrys official list of historic properties; creation of the Advisory Council for Historic 
Preservation (ACHP) and State Historic Preservation Offices; requirement of Federal agencies to 
establish historic preservation programs, designation of a Federal Preservation Officer, and consideration 
of the effects of Federal undertakings on historic properties.

National Park Service (NPS): Responsible for performing many of the responsibilities specifically vested 
in the Secretary of the Interior under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). NPS maintains a 
large cultural resources professional staff with expertise in the broad range of historic preservation 
activities authorized under the NHPA.

National Register of Historic Places (National Register): The national list of districts, sites, buildings, 
structures and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture, 
maintained by the Secretary of the Interior under authority of Section 101(a)(1)(A) of the National Historic 
Preservation Act (NHPA).

Natural Resource Protection Actions: Actions that, in addition to minimizing hazards, also preserve or 
restore the functions of natural systems. Some natural resources either are historic properties in 
themselves or contribute to an understanding of historic properties. Such types of mitigation actions 
include sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and 
vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation.

Non-Contributing Property: A building, site, structure, or object that does not add to the historic 
associations, historic architectural qualities, or archeological values for which a historic district is 
significant because it: was not present during the period of significance; does not relate to the 
documented significance of the property and does not possess historic integrity or is not capable of 
yielding important information about the period; or, it does not independently meet National Register 
criteria.

Objectives: Define strategies or implementation steps for attaining the identified goals. Unlike goals, 
objectives are specific and measurable.

Planning: The act or process of making or carrying out plans; the establishment of goals, policies, and 
procedures for a social or economic unit.

Planning for Post-Disaster Reconstruction: The process of planning (preferably prior to an actual 
disaster) those steps the community will take to implement long-term reconstruction with one of the 
primary goals being to reduce or minimize its vulnerability to future disasters. These steps can include a 
wide variety of land-use planning tools, such as acquisition, design review, zoning, and subdivision review 
procedures. It can also involve coordination with other types of plans and agencies but is distinct from 
planning for emergency operations, such as the restoration of utility service and basic infrastructure.

Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program: A FEMA program to provide technical and financial assistance 
to States and local governments to assist in the implementation of pre-disaster hazard mitigation actions. 
These measures must be cost-effective and designed to reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage and 
destruction of property, including damage to critical services and facilities under the jurisdiction of the 
States or local governments.

Prehistoric: A term that refers to the period prior to recorded history. In American society, prehistoric 
refers to the period prior to the arrival of Europeans in the New World because few documents or records 
exist to supplement any physical evidence that may exist.

Preservation: A treatment to a historic property which is specifically the act or process of applying 
measures to sustain the existing form, integrity and material of a building or structure, and the existing 
form or vegetative cover of a site. It may include initial stabilization work, where necessary, as well as 
ongoing maintenance of the historic building materials.

Professional Qualification Standards: Criteria set forth in the Secretary's Standards (48 FR 44739) and 
36 CFR Part 61 Appendix A that define minimum education and experience required to perform 
identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment activities associated with historic properties.

Programmatic Agreement: An agreement that defines the roles and responsibilities of Federal and 
State/Tribal partners and streamlines the Section 106 historic review process. The Programmatic 
Agreement is typically developed for a large or complex project or a class of undertakings that would 
otherwise require numerous individual requests for Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP) 
comments under Section 106. Under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Programmatic 
Agreement replaces the Section 106 process outlined in 36 CFR Part 800. 

Protection: A treatment to a historic property, which is specifically the act or process of applying 
measures designed to affect the physical condition of a property by defending or guarding it from 
deterioration, loss, or attack, or to cover or shield the property from danger or injury. In the case of 
buildings or structures, such treatment is generally of a temporary nature and anticipates future historic 
preservation treatment; in the case of archeological sites, the protective measure may be temporary or 
permanent.

Public Assistance (PA) Program: A FEMA program that provides grants to State and local 
governments, Tribal organizations, eligible private non-profit organizations, and other public entities for 
losses sustained in disasters and other related needs. Eligible projects include debris removal, 
emergency protective measures, and permanent restoration. 

Public Participation: The involvement of parties in the Section 106 consultation process who may be 
concerned with the possible effects of an agency action on historic properties. This involvement is 
outlined in the Section 106 regulations that govern the historic review process.

Recordation and Documentation: One measure used by Federal agencies for treating the adverse 
effects of an undertaking, recordation and documentation is the process of conducting fieldwork and 
background research for a property, including measured drawings, photographs, an architectural 
description, and a historic narrative. This information is then filed with the State Historic Preservation 
Office/Tribal Historic Preservation Office or other archive, as identified in the Memorandum of Agreement 
(MOA).

Redevelopment: The process of rebuilding a communitys economic activity similar to the process of 
reconstruction. Redevelopment differs from economic recovery in that it goes beyond the process of 
merely restoring disrupted economic activity to the creation of new economic opportunities and 
enterprises in the aftermath of the recovery period, particularly including those that arise as by-products 
or direct outcomes of the disaster itself.

Rehabilitation: One measure used by Federal agencies for treating the adverse effects of an 
undertaking, rehabilitation is the process of returning a historic property to a state of utility, through repair 
or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and 
features of a property which are significant to its historical, architectural, and cultural values.

Relocation: One measure used by Federal agencies for treating the adverse effects of an undertaking, 
relocation is an option for individual property owners when technically and financially feasible. While it is 
preferred to keep a property in its historic context, when possible, relocation often provides the 
opportunity to satisfy the needs and concerns of all parties involved.

Replacement Value: Represents the approximate cost of the contemporary reconstruction of an existing 
building, structure, or cultural resource. The replacement value is used in determining the cost-
effectiveness of various hazard mitigation alternatives.

Restoration: A treatment measure for a historic property, restoration is the act or process of accurately 
recovering the form and details of a property and its setting as it appeared at a particular period of time.

Risk: The potential loss associated with a hazard, defined in terms of expected probability and frequency, 
exposure, and consequences. Also, the estimated impact that a hazard would have on people, services, 
facilities, and structures in a community; or the likelihood of a hazard event resulting in an adverse 
condition that causes injury or damage. Risk is often expressed in relative terms such as a high, 
moderate, or low likelihood of sustaining damage above a particular threshold due to a specific type of 
hazard event. It also can be expressed in terms of potential monetary losses associated with the intensity 
of the hazard.

Risk Assessment: Measuring the potential for property damage, economic loss, injury, and death that 
may result from both natural and manmade hazards. Specifically, it involves identifying potential hazards 
and assessing a communitys ability to survive them, diminish their impact, or avoid them completely. Risk 
assessment is central to the hazard mitigation planning process, and is described fully in FEMA 386-2: 
Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses.

Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archeology and Historic Preservation: Professional 
standards that address results to be achieved by Federal agencies when planning for the identification, 
evaluation, registration, and treatment of historic properties.

Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: The section of the overall preservation project 
standards that addresses the most prevalent treatment (in 36 CFR 67) of a propertys characteristics that 
are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.

Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: A series of concepts 
about maintaining, repairing, and replacing historic materials, as well as designing new additions or 
making alterations; as such, they cannot, in and of themselves, be used to make essential decisions 
about which features of a historic property should be saved and which might be changed. Once an 
appropriate treatment is selected, the Standards provide philosophical consistency to the work.

Section 106: The review process established under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 
(NHPA) that addresses results to be achieved by Federal agencies when planning for the identification, 
evaluation, registration, and treatment of historic properties. The NHPA under Section 106 requires that 
every Federal agency "take into account" how each of its undertakings could affect historic properties. An 
agency must also afford the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity 
to comment on the agency's undertakings.

Seismic Rehabilitation/Seismic Retrofit: Technical measures used to reduce a buildings earthquake 
vulnerability. Includes the development of an objective, the determination of a design event, a preliminary 
building evaluation, including the concept of building redundancy, a classification of building elements into 
primary and secondary, and the development of a preliminary rehabilitation or retrofit design specific to 
the building and the area in which it is located. For more information please see FEMA 274, NEHRP 
Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, October 1997. 

Significance: Historic significance is the importance of a property to the history, architecture, archeology, 
engineering, or culture of a community, State, or the nation. Historic significance is based on four criteria 
(see Criteria for Evaluation above) and is an important qualification for National Register listing.

Sound Land Management and Use: The process wherein the governmental body responsible for land 
use regulation in a political jurisdiction plans and regulates the use of land within its jurisdiction in order to 
promote the reduction of property exposure to flood hazard and the protection of environmental values of 
floodplains. Sound use of land acquired with FEMA funds and transferred to local governments is used 
primarily for open space and recreational purposes to minimize potential for any future flood damage.

Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA): Land area subject to inundation by a flood having a 1-percent or 
greater probability of being equaled or exceeded during any given year (base, or 100-year flood).

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO): In cooperation with Federal agencies, SHPOs are 
responsible for directing and conducting a comprehensive statewide survey of historic properties and 
maintaining inventories of such properties under Section 101(b)(3) of the National Historic Preservation 
Act (NHPA). These State officials maintain important information on historic properties in inventories and 
in Comprehensive Statewide Historic Preservation Plans, and are required to have qualified preservation 
professionals on staff. Federal agencies are directed in Section 110 of the NHPA to cooperate with 
SHPOs in establishing programs to locate, inventory, and nominate historic properties to the National 
Register. 

State Inventory of Historic Properties: Based on State Historic Property Surveys (HPSs), the State 
Inventory is a listing of all historic resources in the State, including those of local or regional significance. 
This inventory is the responsibility of the State Historic Preservation Office.

State Register of Historic Places: Based on State Cultural Resource Surveys (CRSs) and the State 
Inventory of Cultural Resources, States maintain a list of historic properties of State significance. 
Although the State Registers contain National Register properties, they usually contain more properties 
and are based on different criteria than the National Register. Designated by a State Review Board and 
administered by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), State Registers are often the first hurdle 
for obtaining National Register status for historic properties.

Structure: As defined under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a walled and roofed building, 
including a storage tank for gas or liquid, that is principally above ground, as well as a manufactured 
home. 

Within the historic preservation community, the term structure refers to a specific type of historic 
property. This term is used to distinguish from buildings those historic properties made for purposes other 
than human shelter. Representative examples include a bandstand, canal, earthwork, gazebo, grain 
elevator, lighthouse, silo, tunnel, and windmill.

Traditional Cultural Property (TCP): A property eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of 
its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are rooted in that community 
and are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. An example of a TCP is 
a location associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its origins, its cultural 
history, or the nature of the world. Federal agencies must treat TCPs as historic properties under Section 
106. For further guidance, see National Register Bulletin #38, Guidelines for Evaluating and 
Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties.

Treatment: A measure used by a Federal agency to avoid, reduce, minimize, or offset the adverse 
effects that a Federal undertaking may have on a historic property. Although there are some treatment 
measures that are typically used by the agency (see Recordation and Documentation; Data Recovery; 
Curation; Relocation), Federal agencies are not limited to these measures and can use any measure 
upon which the involved parties agree. Treatment does not have to have a direct impact on the adverse 
effect for a specific historic property, but may include educational and planning tools or other measures to 
promote historic preservation awareness and practice in a community.

Tribal Government: The recognized governing body of an Indian Tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or 
community, including any Alaska Native Village defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688) (Source: FEMA Tribal Policy).

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO): The Tribal equivalent to a State Historic Preservation 
Officer (SHPO). The THPO may assume a role parallel to that of State government in administering the 
national historic preservation program on reservations. Tribes will tailor the program to accommodate 
Tribal values and address Tribal priorities. The 1992 Amendments to the National Historic Preservation 
Act (NHPA) recognized the Tribes' growing capabilities in historic preservation and the Tribes' rightful 
place in the national program. Specifically, the 1992 Amendments provide for Tribes, at their request, to 
assume responsibilities for such functions as identifying and maintaining inventories of culturally 
significant properties, nominating properties to the National Register, conducting Section 106 review of 
Federal agency projects on Tribal lands, and administering educational programs on the importance of 
preserving historic properties. 

Tribal Lands: All lands within the exterior boundaries of any Indian reservation and all dependent Indian 
communities (Source: 36 CFR Part 800).

APPENDIX B LIBRARY

The library contains many sources for helping you with historic properties, cultural resources, and hazard 
mitigation. Below is an outline to help find information for your specific needs.

I. 	Site-Specific Emergency Response Plans

II. 	Funding Tools
A.	Primary Federal Programs 
B.	Other Federal Programs
C.	Primary State Programs
D.	Other State Programs
E.	Non-Profit Organizations

III.	Contact Information
A.	Federal Government
B.	State Governments
C.	Tribal Governments
D.	Non-Profit Organizations

IV.	Publications

V.	Other Useful Web Sites

I. Site-Specific Emergency Response Plans 

Development of site-specific emergency response plans should be strongly considered for historic 
properties with extensive collections of cultural resources. Ideally, each plan should cover continuation 
and staffing, pre-disaster planning, actions to be taken immediately prior to the disaster, if possible, and 
actions to take in response to the disasters. 

A number of publications and Web sites can provide guidance on developing a site-specific emergency 
response plan:

Preparedness

California Preservation Clearinghouse (http://cpc.stanford.edu/disasters/index.html) includes a generic 
disaster plan, information on other sites to visit for sample disaster plans and case histories, and a 
disaster plan exercise to test an existing disaster plan and train staff.

Federal Alliance for Safe Homes (FLASH) (http://www.flash.org) can assist with mitigation planning and 
insurance issues.

Mitigation 

Archaeological Stabilization Guide: Case Studies in Protecting Archaeological Sites (Florida 
Department of State, 2000, http://www.flheritage.com) contains useful techniques for stabilizing and 
protecting archeological resources, including vegetation, hay bales, renourishment, and sandbags.

Best Management Practices: An Owners Guide to Protecting Archaeological Sites (Florida 
Department of State, 2000, http://www.flheritage.com) overviews stabilization and protection techniques.

Federal Emergency Management Agencys Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Program 
(http://www.fema.gov/ehp) includes ideas on how to mitigate disaster damage to historic and cultural 
resources.

Hurricane Readiness Guide for Owners and Managers of Historic Resources (National Trust for 
Historic Preservations Information Series, http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/presbhom.htm) focuses on 
various techniques to protect historic structures from hurricane damage and to employ in the recovery 
process.

Preserving History from Fire: Bridging the Gap Between Safety Codes and Historic Buildings (Old 
House Journal, November/December 2000) addresses fire code issues for historic buildings.

Response and Recovery 

FEMA Job Aid for Photographing Historic Properties After a Disaster (FEMA, 2001, call 
1.800.480.2520 and ask for Job Aid #9580.6) provides clear direction on how to take photographs 
necessary to document a site for the purposes of determining National Register eligibility after a disaster.

Georgia Historic Preservation Division 
(http://www.gashpo.org/assets/documents/1996_after_the_flood.pdf) contains a publication about 
recovering from a flood.

Heritage Emergency National Task Force (http://www.heritagepreservation.org) has a series of useful 
publications, including the Emergency Response and Salvage Wheel, Resources for Recovery: Post-
Disaster Aid for Cultural Institutions, and Cataclysm and Challenge: Impact of September 11, 2001, on 
Our Nations Cultural Heritage (2002). This Web site also includes useful links to numerous disaster 
preparedness and response sites for cultural institutions.

North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (http://www.hpo.dcr.state.nc.us/disaster.htm) 
includes extensive information for owners of damaged buildings following a natural disaster.

Treatment of Flood-Damaged Older and Historic Buildings (National Trust for Historic Preservations 
Information Series, http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/presbhom.htm) identifies ways to deal with 
foundation erosion, wood rot, saturated insulation, damage to interior finishes, and other recovery 
concerns.

Disaster Planning for Cultural Institutions

Central New York Library Resources Council (http://www.clrc.org) provides information on completing 
a disaster plan for libraries, museums, and cultural institutions.

The Getty Conservation Institute (http://www.getty.edu/conservation) provides information on disaster 
preparedness and response for cultural institutions.

II. Funding Tools

Several sources of funds are available for the protection of historic resources in hazard-prone 
communities. Various State, Federal, and private programs provide assistance to local communities and 
homeowners, although grant funds may be limited in amount. Some of the major programs available to 
local communities, individual businesses, and homeowners are listed below. Many of these funding tools 
may be combined in hazard mitigation projects which protect historic resources.

Note that the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP) has provided an exhaustive list of funding 
sources for historic and cultural resource projects, only some of which are described here. To learn more 
about this list, visit http://www.achp.gov/funding.html. 

A. Primary Federal Programs

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides help to States and communities for 
disaster assistance and hazard mitigation activities under the following programs:

Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Program. Formerly known as the State 
and Local Assistance Program, the EMPG is another potential source of funds. A Federal 
program that is administered by your State emergency management agency (SEMA), EMGPs 
purpose is to encourage communities to develop comprehensive disaster preparedness and 
assistance plans, programs, and capabilities. Congress appropriates funds for the EMGP 
program, and grants are available on a 50 percent matching basis. Additional information about 
this program may be requested from a grant administrator.

Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program. Funding under this program provides grants to 
States and communities to plan and carry out activities designed to reduce the risk of flood 
damage to structures covered under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The program 
provides planning and project grants for activities that are technically feasible, cost-effective, and 
proposed projects that meet minimum NFIP Standards and are cost-beneficial to the NFIP. This 
is an annual FEMA program with funding levels for each State based upon the number of insured 
properties in that State. For more information, see http://www.fema.gov/fima/mitgrant.shtm. 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). This program provides grants to States for their use 
in conducting mitigation activities, implementing State or local hazard mitigation plans, and 
funding mitigation actions in disaster-prone areas. Funding for the HMGP is set at 7.5% of the 
total Federal disaster assistance grants made under a Presidentially declared disaster. States 
with Standard Plans may be granted this percentage. For States with Enhanced Plans, HMGP 
grants of up to 20% may be provided. Individual property owners should contact their local 
jurisdiction for application procedures. Further information is available on 
http://www.fema.gov/fima/mitgrant.shtm. 

Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC). Coverage that may be available to historic structures 
covered by a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) under the National Flood Insurance 
Program (NFIP). ICC is an endorsement of the flood insurance policy that provides a claim 
payment directly to a property owner for the cost to comply with State or community floodplain 
management laws or ordinances after a direct physical loss caused by a flood. When a building 
covered by an SFIP under the NFIP sustains a loss and the State or community declares the 
building to be substantially or repetitively damaged, ICC will help pay up to $30,000 for the cost to 
elevate, floodproof, demolish, or relocate the building. ICC is not available on a historic structure 
if it is exempt under the communitys ordinance from the floodplain management requirements or 
is granted a variance. ICC is also not available for mitigation actions that do not bring the building 
into compliance with the communitys floodplain management ordinance. Additional information is 
available at http://www.fema.gov/nfip/icc.shtm. 

Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program. This program was authorized by §203 of the Robert T. 
Stafford Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C., as amended by 
§102 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Funding for the program is provided through the 
National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund to assist States, Tribes, and local governments in 
implementing cost-effective hazard mitigation activities that complement a comprehensive 
mitigation program. Additional information is available at http://www.fema.gov/fima/pdm.shtm. 

Most FEMA funding programs are administered through the State emergency management agencies 
(SEMAs). Further information on these and other FEMA funding programs may be obtained at 
http://www.fema.gov. 

B. Other Federal Programs

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). Administered by State community development 
agencies and local governments on the behalf of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) to provide decent housing and a suitable living environment, principally for low-to-
moderate-income individuals. CDBG activities may include the acquisition, rehabilitation, and 
reconstruction of disaster-damaged properties and the redevelopment of disaster-affected 
neighborhoods. Additional information is available at http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/rrr/cdbg.html. 

Disaster Assistance Loans. The Small Business Administration (SBA) provides low-interest disaster 
assistance loans of up to $200,000 for the repair or replacement of a primary residence; low-interest 
loans of up to $40,000 for the repair and replacement of household and personal property; and low-
interest loans of up to $500,000 for business owners and non-profit organizations for the repair, 
rehabilitation, or replacement of property. SBA assistance is generally available following a major disaster 
declaration. This may be useful for hazard-prone historic commercial districts. Further information is 
available on the SBA's homepage at http://www.sba.gov/disaster_recov/index.html.

Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit. Federal law provides a Federal income tax credit equal to 20% of the 
cost of rehabilitating a historic building for commercial use. To qualify for the credit, the property must be 
a certified historic structurethat is, on the National Register or contributing to a registered historic district. 
(Non-historic buildings built before 1936 qualify for a 10% tax credit.) A substantial rehabilitation is 
necessary, and the work must meet the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The historic 
preservation tax credit has been a powerful tool for neighborhood revitalization. Applications for the credit 
are available through State Historic Preservation Offices and the final decisions are made by the National 
Park Service (NPS). More information is available at http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/tax/index.htm. 

Historic Preservation Fund Grants-in-Aid. Grants provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior, 
National Park Service (NPS) for the identification, evaluation, and protection of historic properties. These 
grants are awarded through State Historic Preservation Offices for survey and planning activities, and in 
some instances, for improvements to historic properties through matching acquisition and development 
grants. Further information is available through your State Historic Preservation Office. More information 
is available at http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/clg/index.htm. 

Planning Assistance. The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides planning 
assistance for watershed protection projects, water quality improvement projects, wetland preservation, 
and management for agricultural and rural communities. Many rural communities may feature hazard-
prone historic resources. Further information is available on the NRCS's homepage at 
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov.

Technical Assistance Program. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Technical Assistance Program 
provides services to communities for the revitalization of single-family, multi-family, and commercial 
buildings. DOE staff are experienced in performing housing assessment needs, and in identifying 
financing mechanisms, especially those that include funds for energy efficiency. Further information is 
available on the DOE's homepage at http://www.energy.gov_engine/content.do.

Another DOE program, the Departments Center for Excellence for Sustainable Development, works with 
communities to help them define and implement sustainable development strategies as part of their 
comprehensive community planning efforts. The Center provides technical assistance to disaster-affected 
communities as they plan community-scale long-term recovery efforts, including relocation, repairs, and 
reconstruction by introducing a wide array of environmental technologies and sustainable redevelopment 
planning practices. Further information is available by visiting the DOEs Web site 
http://www.sustainable.doe.gov.

Transportation Enhancements Funding. In 1991, Congress created a special fund to encourage States 
to dedicate transportation money to projects that enhance local communities. In the legislationnormally 
referred to as ISTEAthat established that fund, Congress listed specific activities, including acquisition 
of historic or scenic sites, historic highway programs with heritage tourism components, rails to trails 
programs, and rehabilitation of historic transportation buildings, and archeological planning as 
"transportation enhancements." Since 1991, States have dedicated nearly $1 billion in Federal-aid 
highway funds to thousands of transportation-related historic preservation projects; historic resources 
have also benefited from enhancement money for landscaping, land acquisition, historic bridge and road 
activities, and streetscapes in historic commercial districts. 

For more information on transportation enhancements funding, download Building on the Past, Traveling 
to the Future, a free guide prepared by the National Trust and the Federal Highway Administration, or visit 
http://www.enhancements.org, http://www.tea21.org, http://www.transact.org.

C. Primary State Programs

State Emergency Management Agencies (SEMAs) provide disaster assistance to local communities 
and hazard mitigation grants to residents and business owners. Through the Stafford Act, a SEMA 
administers many of FEMAs funding programs. For more information on three Federal programs 
administered by your SEMA, see:

Emergency Management Performance Grant Program;

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; and

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program.

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) offices provide the following funding programs:

Historic Preservation Fund (HPF). Provides grants to Tribes, States, and local governments to 
use for activities such as education, preparation of National Register nominations, and 
development of comprehensive preservation plans. Established in 1976 as an amendment to the 
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, the HPF receives annual appropriations from 
Congress, and this Federal money is matched by State dollars. The fund is administered in a 
partnership between the National Park Service (NPS) and the States through SHPO offices, 
Tribes, and local governments. To learn more, visit http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/hpf/index.htm.

State Grant Programs. Many States provide matching funds to carry out historic preservation 
activities. Project work includes such activities as rehabilitation and restoration of historic 
properties, survey and evaluation of historic properties, educational materials, and development 
of local historic preservation programs. For more information, contact your local SHPO office.

State Tax Credits. Many States offer historic preservation tax incentive programs including 
credits, reductions, freezes, and abatements for owners of commercial and residential historic 
properties. The National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP), a non-profit organization, 
maintains a State-by-State list of available tax incentive programs at 
http://www.nationaltrust.org/help/taxincentives.pdf.

D. Other State Programs

Statewide, Regional, and Local Main Street Programs. Numerous communities across the nation have 
participated in the National Main Street Program, which has been a valuable mechanism for the 
revitalization of historic downtown areas. An important part of the Main Street approach to downtown 
revitalization involves the rehabilitation of downtown facades. In addition to assisting communities in 
improving the appearance of their downtown areas and promoting historic preservation, the program has 
also been an economic stimulus in that it has led to the creation of new businesses and jobs in these 
communities. The organizational structure of Main Street programs is often a public-private partnership, 
but varies from State to State. Further information is available at http://www.mainstreet.org/.

E. Non-Profit Organizations

The National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP). Assists individual historic property owners with 
financial help and advice. The NTHP provides low-interest, short-term loans for property stabilization. 
Grants are also awarded to governments, non-profit organizations, and private property owners for 
professional assistance in rehabilitating historic structures. These grants may be used to plan for the 
rehabilitation of hazard-prone historic resources. Further information is available on the National Trust's 
homepage at http://www.nthp.org/help/grants/html.

The Preservation Services Fund. Provides non-profit organizations and public agencies 
matching grants from $500 to $5,000 (typically from $1,000 to $1,500) for preservation planning and 
education efforts. Funds may be used to obtain professional expertise in areas such as architecture, 
archeology, engineering, preservation planning, land-use planning, fund raising, organizational 
development, and law, as well as preservation education activities to educate the public.

The Johanna Favrot Fund for Historic Preservation. Provides non-profit organizations and public 
agencies grants ranging from $2,500 to $10,000 for projects that contribute to the preservation or the 
recapture of an authentic sense of place. Individuals and for-profit businesses may apply only if the 
project for which funding is requested involves a National Historic Landmark. Funds may be used for 
professional advice, conferences, workshops, and education programs.

The Cynthia Woods Mitchell Fund for Historic Interiors. Provides non-profit organizations and 
public agencies grants ranging from $2,500 to $10,000 to assist in the preservation, restoration, and 
interpretation of historic interiors. Individuals and for-profit businesses may apply only if the project for 
which funding is requested involves a National Historic Landmark. Funds may be used for professional 
expertise, print and video communications materials, and education programs.

The Save America's Treasures (SAT) Funding. Program founded by the White House Millennium 
Council and the National Trust for Historic Preservation to celebrate America's great historic and cultural 
legacy. SAT fosters pride in our heritage by identifying and raising resources to preserve historically 
significant sites and collectionsthe enduring symbols that define us as a nation. Each year, a 
competitive process awards Federal grants to eligible historic resources for approved preservation 
activities. These grants require non-Federal dollar-for-dollar matches and are administered by the 
National Park Service (NPS), in partnership with the National Endowment for the Arts. For more 
information, visit http://www.saveamericastreasures.org/funding.htm.

III. Contact Information

A. Federal Government

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

The ACHP is an independent Federal agency that promotes the preservation, enhancement, and 
productive use of our Nation's historic resources, and advises the President and Congress on national 
historic preservation policy. The ACHP also serves as the primary Federal policy advisor to the President 
and Congress; recommends administrative and legislative improvements for protecting our Nation's 
heritage; advocates full consideration of historic values in Federal decision-making; and reviews Federal 
programs and policies to promote effectiveness, coordination, and consistency with national preservation 
policies.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 809 
Old Post Office Building 
Washington, DC 20004 
Telephone: 202-606-8503 
http://www.achp.gov  

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): Federal agency created in 1979 to provide a single 
point of accountability for all Federal activities related to disaster mitigation and emergency preparedness, 
response, and recovery. In 2003, it was absorbed into the newly created Department of Homeland 
Security.

FEMA Headquarters 
500 C Street SW 
Washington, DC 20472 
Telephone: 202-566-1600 
http://www.fema.gov

FEMA Publications Warehouse 
1-800-480-2520

Environmental, Historic Preservation, and Cultural Resources Programs 
http://www.fema.gov/ehp

Hazard Mitigation Planning Resources 
http://www.fema.gov/fima/planning.shtm

State and Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guides 
http://www.fema.gov/fima/resources.shtm

National Park Service (NPS)

Created in 1916 within the U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS supports the preservation of natural and 
historic places. NPS administers the National Register of Historic Places and offers services to citizens 
and communities to identify, evaluate, protect, and preserve historic properties for future generations of 
Americans.

National Register of Historic Places 
National Park Service 
1201 Eye St., NW, 8th Floor 
Washington, DC 20005 
Telephone: 202-354-2213 
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr

Heritage Preservation Services 
National Park Service 
1201 Eye Street, NW, 6th Floor (2255) 
Washington, DC 20005 
Telephone: 202-513-7270 
http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps

B. State Governments

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO)

Every State and territory has a State Historic Preservation Office. For an up-to-date listing and current 
contact information, please visit the Web site of the following organization:

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers 

Suite 342 Hall of the States 
444 North Capitol Street, NW  
Washington, DC 20001-1512 
Telephone: 202-624-5465 
Facsimile: 202-624-5419 
http://www.ncshpo.org/  

The NCSHPO is the professional association of the State government officials who carry out the national 
historic preservation program as delegates of the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the National 
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470). The NCSHPO acts as a 
communications vehicle among the State Historic Preservation Offices and their staffs and represents the 
State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) with Federal agencies and national preservation 
organizations. Questions about historic preservation (i.e., a Federal project, listing in the National 
Register, tax incentives, etc.) in individual States should be directed to the respective State. 

The NCSHPO, a 501(c)(3) corporation registered in the District of Columbia, is governed by a Board of 
Directors elected by the member States. The NHPA names the NCSHPO as the point of contact for the 
SHPOs. The president of the NCSHPO is an ex-officio member of the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation.

C. Tribal Governments

National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO)

NATHPO, founded in 1998, is a national, non-profit corporation composed of Tribal Historic Preservation 
Officers and associate member Tribes. NATHPOs overarching purpose is to support the preservation, 
maintenance, and revitalization of the culture and traditions of Native peoples of the United States. This is 
accomplished most importantly through the support of Tribal Historic Preservation Programs approved by 
the National Park Service (NPS). 

National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers 
P.O. Box 19189 
Washington, DC 20036-9189 
Telephone: 202-628-8476 
Facsimile: 202-628-2241 
http://www.nathpo.org 

Additional information on Tribal Historic Preservation Offices may be found on the following Web sites:

http://www.achp.gov/thpo.html

http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tribal/tribaloffices.htm

D. Non-Profit Organizations

American Association for State and Local History (AASLH)

The AASLH is a non-profit organization which serves to meet the diverse needs of regional historians and 
historical organizations. 

American Association for State and Local History

1717 Church Street 
Nashville, TN 37203-2991 
Telephone: 615-320-3203 
http://www.aaslh.org/  
 

American Institute of Architects (AIA)

The AIA is a professional association which provides ongoing professional training and accreditation for 
architects, in addition to promoting the creation of a better built environment. The AIA also maintains 
multiple local and regional chapters, and many special interest committees, including the Historic 
Resources Committee.

The American Institute of Architects 
1735 New York Ave., NW 
Washington, DC 20006 
Telephone: 800-AIA-3837 
http://www.aia.org/hrc/ 

American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC)

The AIC is a professional non-profit organization which sponsors training sessions, a juried research 
publication, and annual meetings for conservators  individuals who manage, care for, preserve, or treat 
cultural objects, including artistic, historical, archeological, scientific, or religious objects.

American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works

1717 K Street NW, Suite 200 
Washington, DC 20006 
Telephone: 202-452-9545 
http://aic.stanford.edu 
 

American Planning Association (APA)

The APA is a non-profit public interest and research organization committed to urban, suburban, regional, 
and rural planning. APA and its professional institute, the American Institute of Certified Planners, 
advance the art and science of planning to meet the needs of people and society. The APA maintains a 
number of regional and local chapters, as well as a number of special interest divisions.

American Planning Association 
122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600 
Chicago, IL 60603 
Telephone: 312-431-9100 
http://www.planning.org/  

Association for Preservation Technology International (APT)

The APT is a non-profit professional organization dedicated to advancing the application of technology to 
the conservation of the built environment. The APT sponsors a juried publication, and organizes training 
programs on a wide variety of historic preservation topics.

Association for Preservation Technology International 
4513 Lincoln Ave., Suite 213  
Lisle, IL 60532-1290 USA  
Telephone: 630-968-6400 

Facsimile (Toll Free): 888-723-4242 
http://www.apti.org  

American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA)

The ASLA is the national professional association representing landscape architects. The ASLA promotes 
the landscape architecture profession and advances the practice through advocacy, education, 
communication, and fellowship.

American Society of Landscape Architects 
636 Eye Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20001-3736 
Telephone: 202-898-2444 
http://www.asla.org/  

Disaster Research Center (DRC)

The DRC at the University of Delaware conducts field and survey research on group, organizational and 
community preparation for, response to, and recovery from natural and technological disasters and other 
community-wide crises. DRC researchers have carried out systematic studies on a broad range of 
disaster types, including hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, hazardous chemical incidents, and 
plane crashes.

Disaster Research Center 
87 East Main Street 
Newark, DE 19716-2581 
Telephone: 302-831-6618 
http://www.udel.edu/drc 

Heritage Preservation

Heritage Preservation is a non-profit information clearinghouse which works to ensure the preservation of 
America's collective heritage. The Heritage Emergency National Task Force is co-sponsored by Heritage 
Preservation and FEMA, and features a broad membership of over 30 Federal agencies and national 
service organizations. The Heritage Emergency National Task Force allows for libraries and archives, 
museums, historical societies, and historic sites to better protect their collections from natural disasters 
and other emergencies. It promotes preparedness and mitigation measures and provides expert 
information on response and salvage to institutions and the public.

Heritage Preservation 
1012 14th St., NW Suite 1200 
Washington, DC 20006 
Telephone: 202-233-0800 
http://www.heritagepreservation.org/  

National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP)

A private non-profit organization with more than a quarter million members, the NTHP is the leader of the 
vigorous preservation movement that is saving the best of our past for the future. The NTHP features a 
variety of services, including an information clearinghouse, advocacy and support services, legal 
services, training, and outreach.

The NTHP's regional and field offices bring the programs and tools of the NTHP to local communities 
across the country. They offer technical assistance through consultations and field visits and financial 
assistance, primarily through small grants to help jump start local efforts. The NTHP convenes 
educational programs for professional preservationists, and it works to foster preservation-friendly public 
policies which affect historic places. The NTHP also provides leadership on issues that concern entire 
regions, such as saving historic schools, fighting urban sprawl, and revitalizing cities through historic 
preservation.

National Trust for Historic Preservation 
1785 Massachusetts Ave., NW 
Washington, DC 20036-2117 
Telephone: 202-588-6000 
http://www.nthp.org

Regional Alliance for Preservation (RAP)

The RAP is a cooperative program of 14 organizations created to foster cooperation among various 
Preservation Field Service Programs and to assist a wide variety of cultural institutions with collections 
care activities. The mission of the RAP is to provide comprehensive preservation information to cultural 
institutions and the public throughout the United States. As a collaborative umbrella organization, RAP 
does not maintain its own headquarters or staff. For a list of participating organizations and additional 
information on RAP, please see their Web site at http://www.rap-arcc.org

IV. Publications

Baker, John Milnes A.I.A.
1994	American House Styles: A Concise Guide. New York: W.W. Norton and 
Company.

Berke, Philip R., Jack Kartez, and David Wenger
1994	Recovery After Disasters: Achieving Sustainable Development, Mitigation and 
Equity. College Station: Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, Texas A & M 
University.

Burton, Ian, Robert W. Kates, and Gilbert F. White
1993	The Environment as Hazard, 2nd edition. New York: Guilford Press.

Calloway, Stephen and Elizabeth Cromley
1991	The Elements of Style. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Carley, Rachel
1997	The Visual Dictionary of American Domestic Architecture. New York: Henry Holt 
and Company.

Cole, Robert Vail, George Alexander, Robert Ballard, et al.
2000	Historic Preservation Project Planning and Estimating. Kingston, Massachusetts: 
R. S. Means Company, Inc.

De Sario, Jack, and Stuart Langton, eds.
1987	Citizen Participation in Public Decision Making. Westport, Connecticut: 
Greenwood Press.

Design Center for American Urban Landscape
1994	Recover and Resettlement: A First Look at Post-Flood Recovery Planning Issues 
in the Upper Mississippi River Valley. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Drabek, Thomas E., and Gerard J. Hoetmer, eds.
1991	Emergency Management: Principles and Practice of Local Government. 
Washington, DC: International City Management Association.

Fram, Mark
1992	Well-Preserved, rev. ed. Erin, Ontario, Canada: Boston Mills Press.

Friedman, Donald
1995	Historical Building Construction: Design, Materials, and Technology. New York: 
W. W. Norton & Company.

Frieseman, H. Paul, et al.
1979	Aftermath: Communities After Natural Disasters. Beverly Hills, California: Sage 
Publications.

Geipel, Robert
1982	Disaster and Reconstruction. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

Georgia State Historic Preservation Office 
1998	Historic Preservation Natural Disaster Assistance Plan. Historic Preservation 
Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, Georgia.

Haas, J. Eugene, Robert W. Kates, and Martyn J. Bowden, eds.
1977	Reconstruction Following Disaster. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Heritage Preservation Services and National Park Service
1998	Caring for Your Historic House. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. 

Hiss, Tony
1990	The Experience of Place. New York, Alfred A. Knopf.

Historic Preservation Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources
1997	After the Flood: Rebuilding Communities through Historic Preservation. Historic 
Preservation Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, 
Georgia.

May, Peter J.
1985	Recovering from Catastrophes: Federal Disaster Relief Policy and Politics. 
Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester
1991	A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Missouri State Emergency Management Agency
1993	Out of Harms Way: The Missouri Buyout Program. Missouri State Emergency 
Management Agency, Jefferson City, Missouri.

National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior
1989	Emergency Stabilization and Conservation Measures. The Frances R. Edmunds 
Center for Historic Preservation, Historic Charleston Foundation, Charleston, 
South Carolina.

National Science Foundation
1980	A Report on Flood Hazard Mitigation. Washington, DC: National Science 
Foundation.

National Wildlife Federation
1997	Higher Ground: A Report on Voluntary Property Buyouts in the Nations 
Floodplains, A Common Ground Solution Serving People at Risk, Taxpayers and 
the Environment. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC. 
http://nwf.org/floodplain/higherground/index.html (October 26, 2001).

Nelson, Carl L.
1991	Protecting the Past from Natural Disasters. Washington, DC: Preservation Press, 
National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Nigg, J. M., Jasmin K. Riad, Tricia Wachtendorf, Angela Tweedy, and L. Reshaur
1998	Executive Summary, Disaster Resistant Communities Initiative: Evaluation of the 
Pilot Phase, Year One. Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware.

Nobel, Allen G. and Richard K. Cleek 
1997	The Old Barn Book: A Field Guide to North American Barns and Other Farm 
Structures. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Palm, Risa I.
1990	Natural Hazards: An Integrative Framework for Research and Planning. 
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Petak, William J. and Arthur A. Atkisson
1982	Natural Hazard Risk Assessment and Public Policy: Anticipating the Unexpected. 
New York: Springer-Verlag.

Rubin, Claire B., with Martin D. Saperstein and Daniel G. Barbee
1985	Community Recovery from a Major Natural Disaster. Monograph #41. Boulder: 
University of Colorado Institute of Behavioral Science.

Schwab, Jim, Kenneth Topping, Charles Eadie, Robert Deyle, and Richard Smith
1998	Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction. American Planning 
Association, Chicago.

Sheaffer, John R.
1967	Introduction to Flood Proofing. Chicago: Center for Urban Studies, University of 
Chicago.

Skinner, Nancy and Bill Becker
1995	Pattonsburg, Missouri: On Higher Ground. Presidents Council on Sustainable 
Development, Washington, DC.

South Florida Regional Planning Council
1990	Post-Disaster Redevelopment Planning: Model Plans for Three Florida 
Scenarios. South Florida Regional Council, Tampa, Florida.

Spennemann, Dirk H. R. and David W. Look. 
1998	Disaster Management Programs for Historic Sites. Association for Preservation 
Technology, Western Chapter, San Francisco; U.S. National Park Service, 
Washington, DC; and The Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University, Albury, 
New South Wales, Australia.

Strangstad, Lynette
1995	A Graveyard Preservation Primer. Walnut Creek, California: Alta Mira Press.

Thurow, Charles, William Toner, and Duncan Erley
1975	Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands: A Practical Guide for Local 
Administrators. Planning Advisory Service Report #307/308. American Planning 
Association, Chicago.

Topping, Kenneth C.
1991	Key Laws, Codes, and Authorities Affecting Recovery and Reconstruction. 
Consultant Report #1, Los Angeles.

Trust for Public Land
1995	Doing Deals: A Guide to Buying Land for Conservation. Land Trust Alliance, 
Washington, DC.

Tyler, Norman
2000	Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles, and Practice. New 
York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Uguccioni, Ellen and Joseph Herndon
1997	Hurricane Readiness Guide for Owners and Managers of Historic Resources. 
National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, DC.

Upton, Dell
1986	Americas Architectural Roots: Ethnic Groups That Built America. New York: 
Preservation Press.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
1995	Planning for Disaster Debris. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Washington, DC.

Weaver, Martin E.
1997	Conserving Buildings: A Guide to Techniques and Materials, rev. ed. New York: 
Preservation Press.

Whiffen, Marcus
1993	American Architecture Since 1780: A Guide to the Styles, rev. ed. Cambridge, 
Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Wright, James D., Peter H. Rossi, Sonia R. Wright, and Eleanor Weber-Burdin
1979	After the Cleanup: Long-Range Effects of Natural Disasters. Beverly Hills, 
California: Sage Publications.

Articles

Alderson, Caroline and Paul Westlake, Jr. and Bayard Whitmore
2004	Perimeter Security Retrofitting for Historic Buildings, Association for 
Preservation Technology, Vol. XXXV, No. 3:37-47.

Burby, Raymond J., Peter J. May, and Robert C. Patterson
1998	Improving Compliance with Regulations: Choices and Outcomes for Local 
Government, Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(3).

Dessauer, Peter F., and David G. Wright
2001	Disaster Preparedness During Construction in Danger Areas, Cultural 
Resources Management, Vol. 24, Number 8:19-21. National Park Service, 
Washington, DC.

Eck, Christopher R.
2000	Earth, Wind, Fire, and WaterHistoric Preservation Disaster Planning in Miami-
Dade County, Florida, Cultural Resources Management, Vol. 23, Number 6:11-
13. National Park Service, Washington, DC.

Estes, Judith
2000	Disaster PreparednessHow Ready Are You?, Cultural Resources 
Management, Vol. 23, Number 6:14-16. National Park Service, Washington, DC.

Gardner, David
2004	The Federal Emergency Management Agency and Its Role in Historic 
Preservation, Association for Preservation Technology, Vol. XXXV, No. 1:49-53.

Goldenberg, Nancy
2004	Repairing Blast Damage at the South Portico of the California State Capitol, 
Association for Preservation Technology, Vol. XXXV, No. 3:31-36. 

Innes, Judith E.
1996	Planning through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive 
Planning Ideal, Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4):460-72.

Look, David W. and Dirk H. R. Spennemann
2000	Disaster Management for Cultural Properties, Cultural Resources Management, 
Vol. 23, Number 6:3-5. National Park Service, Washington, DC.

2001	Disaster Preparedness, Planning, and Mitigation, Cultural Resources 
Management, Vol. 24, Number 8:3-4. National Park Service, Washington, DC.

Martin, Mary Catherine and Lila King
2000	A Lesson Well LearnedNew Methods of Disaster Preparation for Atlantas Fox 
Theatre, Cultural Resources Management, Vol. 23, Number 6:17-19. National 
Park Service, Washington, DC.

Ohlsen, Christine and Claire B. Rubin
1993	Planning for Disaster Recovery, MIS Report, Vol. 25, Number 7. International 
City Management Association, Washington, DC.

Park, Sharon and Claire Schofield Mastroberardino
2004	Guidance for Security Enhancements to Historic Buildings, Association for 
Preservation Technology Bulletin, Vol. XXXV, No. 1:3-12.

Roy, Charity
2001	Disaster Recovery, Developing a Plan, Cultural Resources Management, Vol. 
24, Number 8:13-15. National Park Service, Washington, DC.

Schwab, Jim
1993	Nature Bats Last: The Politics of Floodplain Management, Environment and 
Development (January/February):1-4.

1997	Zoning for Flood Hazards, Zoning News (August):1-4.

1998	Post-Disaster Zoning Opportunities, Zoning News (August):1-4.

Stone, Hollice F.
2004	Protective Design of Exterior Building Components in Twentieth-Century Historic 
Structures, Association for Preservation Technology, Vol. XXXV, No. 1:23-29.

Topping, Kenneth C. and Mark Sorensen
1996	Building Disaster-Resistant Communities, Environment and Development 
(May/June):11.

Tweedy, Angela
2000	Beyond Disaster ResponsePublic Policy Challenge of the New Millennium, 
Cultural Resources Management, Vol. 23, Number 6:6-10. National Park Service, 
Washington, DC.

Usman, Lisa
2000	MitigationFact or Fiction? Cultural Resources Management, Vol. 23, Number 
6:32-34. National Park Service, Washington, DC.

Waite, John and Nancy A. Rankin
2004	Tweed Courthouse: New Approach to Life-Safety Management in a Landmark 
Public Building, Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin, Vol. XXXV, 
No. 1:15-21.

Miscellaneous

1000 Friends of Florida

2001	Pre- and Post-Disaster Planning for Historic Resources. 1000 Friends of Florida 
Web site. http://www.1000friendsofflorida.org (November 16, 2001).

Federal Emergency Management Agency Publications

1984	Elevated Residential Structures. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
Washington, DC.

1990	Post-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance for State and Local 
Governments. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.

1994a	Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Volume 1- 
Summary, 2nd Edition (FEMA 156), Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
Washington, DC. 

1994b	Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Volume 2- Supporting 
Documentation, 2nd Edition, (FEMA 157), Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, Washington, DC.

1995a	Mitigation: Cornerstone for Building Safer Communities. Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, Washington, DC.

1995b	National Mitigation Strategy: Partnerships for Building Safer Communities. 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.

1996	Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning. Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, Washington, DC.

1997a	A Guide to Federal Aid in Disasters. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
Washington, DC.

1997b	Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment: A Cornerstone of the National 
Mitigation Strategy. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.

1997c	Report on Costs and Benefits of Natural Hazard Mitigation. Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, Washington, DC.

1998	Homeowners Guide to Retrofitting (FEMA 348) and Protecting Building Utilities 
From Flood Damage (FEMA 312), Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
Washington, DC. 

2000a	Planning for a Sustainable Future. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
Washington, DC.

2000b	Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 
356-357), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.

2002	Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, 
2nd Edition (FEMA 154), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 
DC.

2003	A Guide to the Disaster Declaration Process and Federal Disaster Assistance. 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate, Washington. DC. Available online at 
http://www.fema.gov/rrr/dec_guid.shtm.

nd	Safeguarding Your Historic Site: Basic Preparedness and Recovery Measures 
for Natural Disasters. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Boston, MA.

Hom, Darrick B. and Chris D. Poland 
2003	ASCE 31 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil 
Engineers / Structural Engineering Institute, Reston, Virginia.

Kartez, Jack D., and Charles E. Faupel
1994	Comprehensive Hazard Management and the Role of Cooperation Between 
Local Planning Departments and Emergency Management Offices. Unpublished 
Paper.

Morton, W. Brown III, Gary L. Hume, Kay D. Weeks, and H. Ward Jandl
1992	The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation with Illustrated 
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Government Printing Office.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior Publications
1995	The Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 
National Park Service. Washington, DC.

2000	Disaster Management Thematic Issue of Cultural Resources Management, Vol. 
23, Number 6. National Park Service, Washington, DC.

2001	Cultural Resource Protection and Emergency Preparedness Thematic Issue of 
Cultural Resources Management, Vol. 24, Number 8. National Park Service, 
Washington, DC.

Spennemann, Dirk H. R. and David G. Green
1998	A Special Interest Network on Natural Hazard Mitigation for Cultural Heritage 
Sites, in Disaster Management Programs for Historic Sites, Dirk H. R. 
Spennemann and David W. Look, eds. Presentations from the June 1997 
Symposium sponsored by the National Park Service and the Association for 
Preservation Technology, San Francisco, California.

Spennemann, Dirk H. R. and David W. Look, eds.
1998a	Disaster Management Programs for Historic Sites. Presentations from the June 
1997 Symposium sponsored by the National Park Service and the Association 
for Preservation Technology, San Francisco, California.

1998b	From Conflict to Dialogue, From Dialogue to Cooperation, From Cooperation to 
Preservation, in Disaster Management Programs for Historic Sites, Dirk H. R. 
Spennemann, and David W. Look, eds. Presentations from the June 1997 
Symposium sponsored by the National Park Service and the Association for 
Preservation Technology, San Francisco, California.

U.S. Department of Energy
nd	Operation Freshstart: Using Sustainable Technologies to Recover from 
Disasters. http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/freshstart.

Weeks, Kay D. and Anne E. Grimmer
1995	The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties 
with Illustrated Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and 
Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Government Printing Office.

National Register Bulletins (available from the National Park Service)

See http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins.htm.

The Basics

How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation 

How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form 

How to Complete the National Register Registration Form 

How to Prepare National Historic Landmark Nominations 

Researching a Historic Property 

For information about property types as well as general guidance and technical 
assistance for preparing nominations, see 
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins.htm.

Preservation Briefs

See http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/presbhom.htm.

Preservation Technical Notes

See http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/technotes/tnhome.htm.

Technical Reports

Keeping it Clean: Removing Dirt, Paint, Stains, and Graffiti from Historic Exterior 
Masonry. Anne E. Grimmer. 

Metals in America's Historic Buildings: Uses and Preservation Treatments. Margot Gayle, 
David W. Look, AIA, and John G. Waite, AIA. 

Moving Historic Buildings. John Obed Curtis.

National Trust for Historic Preservation Publications

1993	Information Booklet No. 82: Treatment of Flood-Damaged Older and Historic 
Buildings. National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, DC.

1997	Hurricane Readiness Guide for Owners and Managers of Historic Resources. 
National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, DC.

2001	Controlling Disaster: Earthquake-Hazard Reduction for Historic Buildings. 
National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, DC.

V. Other Useful Web Sites

FEMA

For information about FEMA funding for stabilization and treatment of collections and individual 
objects of exceptionally significant cultural value located within or on the property of public or non-
profit facilities after a disaster, see FEMAs Collections and Individual Objects Policy at 
http://www.fema.gov/rrr/pa/9524_6.shtm.

For information on Darlington, Wisconsins historic property flood mitigation efforts, see 
http://www.fema.gov/regions/v/ss/ r5_n16.shtm.

For information on HAZUS, see http://www.fema.gov/hazus/.

For information on Milton, Pennsylvanias planning process for historic flood-prone properties, 
see http://www.fema.gov/ehp/milton.shtm.

For information on safe rooms and community shelters, see http://www.fema.gov/mit/saferoom.

National Park Service

For information about the appropriate design of additions to historic buildings, see 
http://www.cr.nps.gov/tps/standguide/rehab/rehab_newadd.htm.

For information on historic contexts, see http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/research/contexts.htm and 
http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/arch-stnds_1.htm.

For State historic preservation plans, see http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/pad/stateplans/planlist.htm.

Other

For a copy of Disaster Planning for Floridas Historic Resources, see 
http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/publications/historic.pdf.

For a copy of the National Capital Urban Design and Security Plan (October 2002) see 
http://www.ncpc.gov/publications_press/publications.html. 

For economic benefits of historic preservation in the Loudoun County, Virginias heritage area, 
see http://www.mosbyheritagearea.org/Report/renovate.html.

To learn more about economic benefits of historic preservation in the State of Florida, see 
http://www.flheritage.com/files/economic_impact.pdf.

For information on the 113 Calhoun Street Foundation and the rehabilitation of this historic 
Charleston, South Carolina, building as a center for sustainable living, see 
http://www.113calhoun.org.

To view the artistic Paducah, Kentucky, floodwall murals, see 
http://www.kentuckylake.com/gallery/ontheroad/The%20Wall/080802wall.htm

To learn more about the American Institute for the Conservation of Artistic and Historic Works 
(AIC) guidelines for selecting a qualified conservator, see 
http://aic.stanford.edu/public/select.html. For a complete list of AIC online publications, including 
those pertaining to disaster response and recovery, see 
http://aic.stanford.edu/library/online/index.html.

For more information on the care and treatment of cultural resources damaged through disasters, 
see the CoOL Web site at http://palimpsest.stanford.edu.

For the H. George Friedman, Jr. postcard collection and Decatur, Illinois, Transfer House, see 
http://www-faculty.cs.uiuc.edu/~friedman/decatur/Decatur.htm.

For additional information about Marylands building rehabilitation code, see 
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/education/growfromhere/LESSON15/MDP/SMARTCODE/SMARTCODE00.HTM.

For additional guidance regarding New Jerseys building rehabilitation code, see 
http://www.state.nj.us/dca/codes/rehab/index.shtml.

APPENDIX C: WORKSHEETS
WORKSHEET #1	Expand the Planning Team
WORKSHEET #2	Determine the Extent and Value of Historic Properties
WORKSHEET #3	Inventory Historic Property and Cultural Resource Assets
WORKSHEET #4	Determine Community Value for Historic Property and Cultural Resource 
Assets
WORKSHEET #5	Estimate Total Losses for Historic Properties and Cultural Resources
WORKSHEET #6	Identify Alternative Mitigation Actions for Historic Properties and Cultural 
Resources
WORKSHEET #7	Evaluate Alternative Mitigation Actions for Historic Properties and 
Cultural Resources
WORKSHEET #8	Prioritize Alternative Mitigation Actions for Historic Properties and 
Cultural Resources

[Worksheet #1	Expand the Planning Team	Phase 1, Step 2
Date
Step 2 of Getting Started (FEMA 386-1) discusses establishing a planning team with a broad 
range of backgrounds and experiences represented. This worksheet suggests additional 
individuals, agencies, and organizations that should be included on the team to address historic 
properties and cultural resource considerations in the hazard mitigation planning process. State 
organizations can be included on local teams when appropriate to serve as a source of 
information and to provide guidance and coordination.
Use the checklist as a starting point for expanding your team.

The worksheet has three columns. The first column has the titles of potential members of the 
planning team. The second column contains the heading of on team. The third column contains 
the heading of add to team. The second and third columns each have a blank check-off box that 
lines up to the right of each planning team members title so that you can place a check mark in 
one box if the person is on the planning team or in the other box if that person should be added to 
the team. 

Under the general heading of Specialists for Historic Properties and Cultural Resource 
Preservation are the following job titles. To the right of each are the two empty check-off boxes

-	Archeologist
-	Architectural Historian
-	Archivist (State/Local)
-	Business/Development Organizations for Historic Commercial Districts
-	Collections Manager
-	Historian
-	Historical Society (State, Regional, Local)
-	Historic Preservation Architect
-	Historic Preservation Planner
-	Historic Restoration/Rehabilitation Professional
-	Librarian
-	Museum Director or Specialist
-	Non-profit Historic Preservation Organization (insert name)
-	State Historic Preservation Officer
-	Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

END WORKSHEET #1]

[Worksheet #2	Determine Extent and Value of Historic Properties	Phase 2, Step 3
Date:

Fill in Columns 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 11. Fill in Columns 4 and 10 after completing Worksheet #3. 
Divide Column 1 by Column 2 and multiply by 100 to calculate the percentage of properties in the 
hazard area (Column 3). This process can be used to determine the percent value of properties 
within the hazard area (Column 6), the percentage of historic properties in the community 
(Column 9) and their percent value (Column 12).

13 column table listing type of structure, number of properties, value of properties, number of 
properties, and value of properties. The types of structure are: residential, commercial, industrial, 
religious/non-profit, government, and education. Column 1 under number of properties is number 
of historic properties in hazard area; column 2 is number of all properties in hazard area; column 
3 is percentage of properties that are historic; column 4 under value of properties is dollar value 
of historic properties in hazard area; column 5 is dollar value of all properties in hazard area; 
column 6 is property value of historic properties as percentage of total property value. Column 7 
under number of properties is number of historic properties in community or state; column 8 is 
number of all properties in community or state; column 9 is percentage of properties that are 
historic. Column 10 under value of properties is dollar value of historic properties in community or 
state; column 11 is dollar value of all properties in community or state; column 12 is property 
value of historic properties as percentage of total property value. The last row of the table is for 
total.
END OF WORKSHEET #2]

[Worksheet #3	Inventory Historic Property and Cultural Resource Assets	Phase 2, Step 3
Hazard:		Date:

Make a copy of a blank worksheet for each hazard of concern.  Fill in the name of the hazard and 
the date.  List the name and address of vulnerable historic properties and cultural resources in 
Column 1. For each property/cultural resource (row) fill out Columns 2 to 10 to complete the 
information about the asset. For Columns 11 to 15, use results from Worksheet #5 to fill in the 
applicable columns. For Column 16, use the ranking from Column 7 of Worksheet #4. See the 
Building Data Requirement table below to determine what additional columns to add to this 
worksheet, depending on the hazard.  
Examples of the types of information to fill in for Columns 3, 5, and 6:
Column 3:  Type of Property/Resource (include, but not limited to, buildings, structures, objects, 
sites, and districts)
Column 5:  Structural System (e.g., concrete, wood frame, or steel)
Column 6:  Primary Material(s) of Property/Resource (e.g., brick veneer, concrete, or plaster)
8 column table, titled Building Data Requirements by Hazard, lists building characteristics, 
flood, earthquake, tsunami, tornado, coastal storm, landslide, and wildfire. In column 1, the 
building characteristics are: Building Type/Type of Foundation, Building Code Design 
Level/Date of Construction, Roof Material, Roof Construction, Vegetation, Topography, and 
Distance from the Hazard Zone. This table shows you at a quick glance the type of data required 
when addressing the selected seven hazards.

Hazard: Flood. Building Characteristics: 1. Building type/type of foundation, yes. 2. Building code 
design level/date of construction, yes. 3. Roof material, no. 4. Roof construction, no. 5. 
Vegetation, no. 6. Topography, yes. 7. Distance from the hazard zone, yes.

Hazard: Earthquake. Building Characteristics: 1. Building type/type of foundation, yes. 2. Building 
code design level/date of construction, yes. 3. Roof material, no. 4. Roof construction, no. 5. 
Vegetation, no. 6. Topography, no. 7. Distance from the hazard zone, no.

Hazard: Tsunami. Building Characteristics: 1. Building type/type of foundation, yes. 2. Building 
code design level/date of construction, yes. 3. Roof material, no. 4. Roof construction, no. 5. 
Vegetation, no. 6. Topography, no. 7. Distance from the hazard zone, yes.

Hazard: Tornado. Building Characteristics: 1. Building type/type of foundation, no. 2. Building 
code design level/date of construction, yes. 3. Roof material, yes. 4. Roof construction, yes. 5. 
Vegetation, no. 6. Topography, no. 7. Distance from the hazard zone, no.

Hazard: Coastal Storm. Building Characteristics: 1. Building type/type of foundation, yes. 2. 
Building code design level/date of construction, yes. 3. Roof material, yes. 4. Roof construction, 
yes. 5. Vegetation, no. 6. Topography, yes. 7. Distance from the hazard zone, yes.

Hazard: Landslide. Building Characteristics: 1. Building type/type of foundation, no. 2. Building 
code design level/date of construction, no. 3. Roof material, no. 4. Roof construction, no. 5. 
Vegetation, no. 6. Topography, yes. 7. Distance from the hazard zone, yes.
Hazard: Wildfire. Building Characteristics: 1. Building type/type of foundation, no. 2. Building code 
design level/date of construction, yes. 3. Roof material, yes. 4. Roof construction, yes. 5. 
Vegetation, yes. 6. Topography, yes. 7. Distance from the hazard zone, yes.
Below the Building Data Requirement table there is a 16 column table listing name and address 
of asset subject to hazard, date of construction/creation, type of property/type of resource, square 
footage, structural system, primary material(s) of property/resource, current function/use, current 
condition, is owner interested in mitigation? (yes/no), level of property vulnerability (High, 
Medium, Low), loss of structure ($), loss of contents ($), loss of function or use ($), displacement 
cost, total loss for hazard event, and level of community value for ranking purposes (High, 
Medium, Low).
END OF WORKSHEET #3]

[Worksheet #4	Determine Community Value for Historic Property and Cultural Resource Assets
	Phase 2, Step 3
Date:
List the name and address of vulnerable historic properties and cultural assets. For each asset 
(row), fill in columns 1 to 6. Define High, Medium, and Low for Columns 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 at the 
bottom of this worksheet (optional). Fill in Column 7 by qualitatively adding Columns 3 to 6. Enter 
the results of Column 7 in Column 16 of Worksheet #3.
8 column table lists name and address of asset, historic designation (National Register, Local 
Landmark, etc.)*, geographic context of significance (National, Tribal/State, Local), level of 
significance (High, Medium, Low), public sentiment (High, Medium, Low), economic importance 
(High, Medium, Low), degree of integrity (High, Medium, Low), and total level of community value 
(High, Medium, Low).
For column 1, historic designation, the asterisk means the designation level does not 
automatically correlate to the level of community value for ranking purposes.
END OF WORKSHEET #4]

[Worksheet #5	Estimate Total Losses for Historic Properties and Cultural Resources	Phase 
2, Step 4
Hazard:		Date:

Make a copy of this worksheet for each hazard of concern.  Note the date and the hazard at the 
top of the worksheet. List each historic property or cultural resource asset. For each asset (row) 
calculate the structure, contents, function, and displacement losses. Enter each loss and total 
loss on Worksheet #3, as indicated.

14 column table. The first column is name/description of structure.
Calculate structure loss.
Structure replacement value ($) multiplied by
Percent damage (%) equals
Loss to structure (Worksheet 3, column 11)
Add losses for all structures to obtain total loss to structures.

Calculate contents loss.
Replacement value of contents (professionally appraised for historic contents) multiplied by
Percent damage (%) equals 
Loss of contents (Worksheet 3, column 12) 
Add content losses for all structures to determine total loss of contents.

Calculate loss of function.
Average daily operating budget multiplied by 
Functional downtime in number of days equals
Total function loss (Worksheet 3 column 13)
Add functional loss for all structures to determine total loss of function.

Calculate displacement cost.
Displacement cost per day multiplied by
Displacement time equals
Total displacement cost (Worksheet 3, column 14)
Add displacement cost for all structures to determine total displacement cost.

To obtain the total loss for hazard event, add structure loss plus content loss plus function loss 
plus displacement cost (Worksheet 3, column 15).

END OF WORKSHEET #5]

[Worksheet #6	Identify Alternative Mitigation Actions for Historic Properties and Cultural 
Resources	Phase 3, Step 2
Hazard:		Date:

Fill in the goal and its corresponding objective developed in Step 1. Use a separate copy of this 
worksheet for each objective. Make sure you note the sources of information you consulted in 
identifying alternative actions. Use Worksheet Job Aid #1 as a starting point for identifying 
potential mitigation actions.

Goal:
Objective:

3 column table:
Alternative Actions.	
Sources of Information. (Include sources you consulted for future reference and documentation.)	
Comments. (Note any initial issues you may want to discuss or research further.)

Have you considered alternative mitigation actions from other mitigation action categories? Do 
those options have negative impacts to historic properties or cultural resources?  Among the 
categories below, check off the ones that apply to this objective.

Below there are 6 boxes you can check off, these list: prevention, property protection, structural 
diversions, public education and awareness, natural resource protection for historic landscape 
features, and offsetting the impacts of mitigation actions on historic resources.

END OF WORKSHEET #6]

[Worksheet #6 Job Aid #1: Alternative Mitigation Actions by Hazard

Job Aid #1 from FEMA 386-3: Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation Actions and 
Implementation Strategies has been included in this guide for your convenience. You can use this 
job aid when filling out Worksheet #6.  This job aid shows you at a quick glance the type of 
actions that can address the selected seven hazards. A description of each action is included in 
the glossary in Appendix A of FEMA 386-3.

You can use this job aid when filling out Worksheet #16. This job aid shows you at a quick glance 
the type of actions that can address the selected seven hazards. A description of each action is 
included in the glossary in Appendix A of FEMA 386-3.

[6 multi-columned tables.  Job Aid #1, table 1:

Hazard: Floods. Alternative Mitigation Actions: Prevention. 1. Building codes, yes. 2. Coastal 
zone management regulations, yes. 3. Density controls, yes. 4. Design review standards, yes. 5. 
Easements, yes. 6. Environmental review standards, yes. 7. Floodplain development regulations, 
yes. 8. Floodplain zoning, yes. 9. Forest fire fuel reduction, no. 10. Hillside development 
regulations, no. 11. Open space preservation, yes. 12. Performance standards, yes. 13. 
Shoreline setback regulations, yes. 14. Special use permits, yes. 15. Stormwater management 
regulations, yes. 16. Subdivision and development regulations, yes. 17. Transfer of development 
rights, yes.

Hazard: Earthquakes. Alternative Mitigation Actions: Prevention. 1. Building codes, yes. 2. 
Coastal zone management regulations, no. 3. Density controls, yes. 4. Design review standards, 
yes. 5. Easements, yes. 6. Environmental review standards, yes. 7. Floodplain development 
regulations, no. 8. Floodplain zoning, no. 9. Forest fire fuel reduction, no. 10. Hillside 
development regulations, yes. 11. Open space preservation, yes. 12. Performance standards, 
yes. 13. Shoreline setback regulations, no. 14. Special use permits, yes. 15. Stormwater 
management regulations, no. 16. Subdivision and development regulations, yes. 17. Transfer of 
development rights, yes.

Hazard: Tsunamis. Alternative Mitigation Actions: Prevention. 1. Building codes, yes. 2. Coastal 
zone management regulations, yes. 3. Density controls, yes. 4. Design review standards, yes. 5. 
Easements, no. 6. Environmental review standards, yes. 7. Floodplain development regulations, 
no. 8. Floodplain zoning, no. 9. Forest fire fuel reduction, no. 10. Hillside development 
regulations, no. 11. Open space preservation, yes. 12. Performance standards, yes. 13. 
Shoreline setback regulations, yes. 14. Special use permits, yes. 15. Stormwater management 
regulations, no. 16. Subdivision and development regulations, yes. 17. Transfer of development 
rights, yes.

Hazard: Tornadoes. Alternative Mitigation Actions: Prevention. 1. Building codes, yes. 2. Coastal 
zone management regulations, no. 3. Density controls, no. 4. Design review standards, yes. 5. 
Easements, no. 6. Environmental review standards, yes. 7. Floodplain development regulations, 
no. 8. Floodplain zoning, no. 9. Forest fire fuel reduction, no. 10. Hillside development 
regulations, no. 11. Open space preservation, no. 12. Performance standards, yes. 13. Shoreline 
setback regulations, no. 14. Special use permits, no. 15. Stormwater management regulations, 
no. 16. Subdivision and development regulations, yes. 17. Transfer of development rights, no.

Hazard: Coastal Storms. Alternative Mitigation Actions: Prevention. 1. Building codes, yes. 2. 
Coastal zone management regulations, yes. 3. Density controls, yes. 4. Design review standards, 
yes. 5. Easements, yes. 6. Environmental review standards, yes. 7. Floodplain development 
regulations, yes. 8. Floodplain zoning, yes. 9. Forest fire fuel reduction, no. 10. Hillside 
development regulations, no. 11. Open space preservation, yes. 12. Performance standards, yes. 
13. Shoreline setback regulations, yes. 14. Special use permits, yes. 15. Stormwater 
management regulations, no. 16. Subdivision and development regulations, yes. 17. Transfer of 
development rights, yes.

Hazard: Landslides. Alternative Mitigation Actions: Prevention. 1. Building codes, yes. 2. Coastal 
zone management regulations, no. 3. Density controls, yes. 4. Design review standards, yes. 5. 
Easements, yes. 6. Environmental review standards, yes. 7. Floodplain development regulations, 
no. 8. Floodplain zoning, no. 9. Forest fire fuel reduction, yes. 10. Hillside development 
regulations, yes. 11. Open space preservation, yes. 12. Performance standards, yes. 13. 
Shoreline setback regulations, yes. 14. Special use permits, yes. 15. Stormwater management 
regulations, no. 16. Subdivision and development regulations, yes. 17. Transfer of development 
rights, yes.

Hazard: Wildfires. Alternative Mitigation Actions: Prevention. 1. Building codes, yes. 2. Coastal 
zone management regulations, no. 3. Density controls, yes. 4. Design review standards, yes. 5. 
Easements, yes. 6. Environmental review standards, yes. 7. Floodplain development regulations, 
no. 8. Floodplain zoning, no. 9. Forest fire fuel reduction, yes. 10. Hillside development 
regulations, yes. 11. Open space preservation, yes. 12. Performance standards, yes. 13. 
Shoreline setback regulations, no. 14. Special use permits, yes. 15. Stormwater management 
regulations, no. 16. Subdivision and development regulations, yes. 17. Transfer of development 
rights, yes.

END JOB AID #1, TABLE 1.]

[Job Aid #1, Table 2:
Hazard: Floods.  Alternative Mitigation Action: Property Protection. 1. Acquisition of hazard-prone 
structures, yes. 2. Construction of barriers around structures, yes. 3. Elevation of structures, yes. 
4. Relocation out of hazard areas, yes. 5. Structural retrofits (e.g., reinforcement, flood-proofing, 
storm shutters, and/or bracing), yes. 

Hazard: Earthquakes. Alternative Mitigation Action: Property Protection. 1. Acquisition of hazard-
prone structures, yes. 2. Construction of barriers around structures, no. 3. Elevation of structures, 
no. 4. Relocation out of hazard areas, yes. 5. Structural retrofits (e.g., reinforcement, flood-
proofing, storm shutters, and/or bracing), yes. 

Hazard: Tsunamis. Alternative Mitigation Action: Property Protection. 1. Acquisition of hazard-
prone structures, yes. 2. Construction of barriers around structures, yes. 3. Elevation of 
structures, yes. 4. Relocation out of hazard areas, yes. 5. Structural retrofits (e.g., reinforcement, 
flood-proofing, storm shutters, and/or bracing), yes. 

Hazard: Tornadoes. Alternative Mitigation Action: Property Protection. 1. Acquisition of hazard-
prone structures, no. 2. Construction of barriers around structures, no. 3. Elevation of structures, 
no. 4. Relocation out of hazard areas, no. 5. Structural retrofits (e.g., reinforcement, flood-
proofing, storm shutters, and/or bracing), yes. 

Hazard: Coastal Storms. Alternative Mitigation Action: Property Protection. 1. Acquisition of 
hazard-prone structures, yes. 2. Construction of barriers around structures, yes. 3. Elevation of 
structures, yes. 4. Relocation out of hazard areas, yes. 5. Structural retrofits (e.g., reinforcement, 
flood-proofing, storm shutters, and/or bracing), yes. 

Hazard: Landslides. Alternative Mitigation Action: Property Protection. 1. Acquisition of hazard-
prone structures, yes. 2. Construction of barriers around structures, no. 3. Elevation of structures, 
no. 4. Relocation out of hazard areas, yes. 5. Structural retrofits (e.g., reinforcement, flood-
proofing, storm shutters, and/or bracing), no.  

Hazards: Wildfires. Alternative Mitigation Action: Property Protection. 1. Acquisition of hazard-
prone structures, yes. 2. Construction of barriers around structures, no. 3. Elevation of structures, 
no. 4. Relocation out of hazard areas, yes. 5. Structural retrofits (e.g., reinforcement, flood-
proofing, storm shutters, and/or bracing), no.  

END JOB AID #1, TABLE 2.]

[Job Aid #1, Table 3:
Hazard: Floods.  Alternative Mitigation Action: Public Education & Awareness.  1. Hazard 
information centers, yes. 2. Public education and outreach programs, yes. 3. Real estate 
disclosure, yes.

Hazard: Earthquakes. Alternative Mitigation Action: Public Education & Awareness.  1. Hazard 
information centers, yes. 2. Public education and outreach programs, yes. 3. Real estate 
disclosure, yes.
 
Hazard: Tsunamis. Alternative Mitigation Action: Public Education & Awareness.  1. Hazard 
information centers, yes. 2. Public education and outreach programs, yes. 3. Real estate 
disclosure, yes.

Hazard: Tornadoes. Alternative Mitigation Action: Public Education & Awareness.  1. Hazard 
information centers, yes. 2. Public education and outreach programs, yes. 3. Real estate 
disclosure, yes.

Hazard: Coastal Storms. Alternative Mitigation Action: Public Education & Awareness.  1. Hazard 
information centers, yes. 2. Public education and outreach programs, yes. 3. Real estate 
disclosure, yes.

Hazard: Landslides. Alternative Mitigation Action: Public Education & Awareness.  1. Hazard 
information centers, yes. 2. Public education and outreach programs, yes. 3. Real estate 
disclosure, yes.

Hazards: Wildfires. Alternative Mitigation Action: Public Education & Awareness.  1. Hazard 
information centers, yes. 2. Public education and outreach programs, yes. 3. Real estate 
disclosure, yes.

END JOB AID #1, TABLE 3.]

[Job Aid #1, Table 4:
Hazard: Floods. Alternative Mitigation Action: Natural Resource Protection. 1. Best Management 
Practices (BMPs), yes. 2. Dune and beach restoration, no. 3. Forest and vegetation 
management, yes. 4. Sediment and erosion control regulations, yes. 5. Stream corridor 
restoration, yes. 6. Stream dumping regulations, yes. 7. Urban forestry and landscape 
management, yes. 8. Wetlands development regulations, yes.

Hazard: Earthquakes. Alternative Mitigation Action: Natural Resource Protection. 1. Best 
Management Practices (BMPs), yes. 2. Dune and beach restoration, no. 3. Forest and vegetation 
management, no. 4. Sediment and erosion control regulations, no. 5. Stream corridor restoration, 
no. 6. Stream dumping regulations, no. 7. Urban forestry and landscape management, no. 8. 
Wetlands development regulations, no.

Hazard: Tsunamis. Alternative Mitigation Action: Natural Resource Protection. 1. Best 
Management Practices (BMPs), no. 2. Dune and beach restoration, yes. 3. Forest and vegetation 
management, no. 4. Sediment and erosion control regulations, yes. 5. Stream corridor 
restoration, no. 6. Stream dumping regulations, no. 7. Urban forestry and landscape 
management, no. 8. Wetlands development regulations, no.

Hazard: Tornadoes. Alternative Mitigation Action: Natural Resource Protection. 1. Best 
Management Practices (BMPs), no. 2. Dune and beach restoration, no. 3. Forest and vegetation 
management, no. 4. Sediment and erosion control regulations, no. 5. Stream corridor restoration, 
no. 6. Stream dumping regulations, no. 7. Urban forestry and landscape management, no. 8. 
Wetlands development regulations, no.

Hazard: Coastal Storms.  Alternative Mitigation Action: Natural Resource Protection. 1. Best 
Management Practices (BMPs), yes. 2. Dune and beach restoration, yes. 3. Forest and 
vegetation management, no. 4. Sediment and erosion control regulations, yes. 5. Stream corridor 
restoration, no. 6. Stream dumping regulations, no. 7. Urban forestry and landscape 
management, no. 8. Wetlands development regulations, yes.

Hazard: Landslides. Alternative Mitigation Action: Natural Resource Protection. 1. Best 
Management Practices (BMPs), yes. 2. Dune and beach restoration, no. 3. Forest and vegetation 
management, yes. 4. Sediment and erosion control regulations, yes. 5. Stream corridor 
restoration, yes. 6. Stream dumping regulations, no. 7. Urban forestry and landscape 
management, yes. 8. Wetlands development regulations, yes.

Hazard: Wildfires. Alternative Mitigation Action: Natural Resource Protection. 1. Best 
Management Practices (BMPs), yes. 2. Dune and beach restoration, no. 3. Forest and vegetation 
management, yes. 4. Sediment and erosion control regulations, no. 5. Stream corridor 
restoration, no. 6. Stream dumping regulations, no. 7. Urban forestry and landscape 
management, yes. 8. Wetlands development regulations, yes.

END JOB AID #1, TABLE 4.]

[Job Aid #1, Table 5:
Hazard: Floods. Alternative Mitigation Action: Emergency Services. 1. Critical facilities protection, 
yes. 2. Emergency response services, yes. 3. Hazard threat recognition, yes. 4. Hazard warning 
systems (community sirens, NOAA weather radio), yes. 5. Health and safety maintenance, yes. 6. 
Post-disaster mitigation, yes.  

Hazard: Earthquakes. Alternative Mitigation Action: Emergency Services. 1. Critical facilities 
protection, yes. 2. Emergency response services, yes. 3. Hazard threat recognition, yes. 4. 
Hazard warning systems (community sirens, NOAA weather radio), yes. 5. Health and safety 
maintenance, yes. 6. Post-disaster mitigation, yes.  

Hazard: Tsunamis. Alternative Mitigation Action: Emergency Services. 1. Critical facilities 
protection, yes. 2. Emergency response services, yes. 3. Hazard threat recognition, yes. 4. 
Hazard warning systems (community sirens, NOAA weather radio), yes. 5. Health and safety 
maintenance, yes. 6. Post-disaster mitigation, yes. 

Hazard: Tornadoes. Alternative Mitigation Action: Emergency Services. 1. Critical facilities 
protection, yes. 2. Emergency response services, yes. 3. Hazard threat recognition, yes. 4. 
Hazard warning systems (community sirens, NOAA weather radio), yes. 5. Health and safety 
maintenance, yes. 6. Post-disaster mitigation, yes.

Hazard: Coastal Storms. Alternative Mitigation Action: Emergency Services. 1. Critical facilities 
protection, yes. 2. Emergency response services, yes. 3. Hazard threat recognition, yes. 4. 
Hazard warning systems (community sirens, NOAA weather radio), yes. 5. Health and safety 
maintenance, yes. 6. Post-disaster mitigation, yes. 

Hazard: Landslides. Alternative Mitigation Action: Emergency Services. 1. Critical facilities 
protection, yes. 2. Emergency response services, yes. 3. Hazard threat recognition, yes. 4. 
Hazard warning systems (community sirens, NOAA weather radio), yes. 5. Health and safety 
maintenance, yes. 6. Post-disaster mitigation, yes.	
			
Hazard: Wildfires. Alternative Mitigation Action: Emergency Services. 1. Critical facilities 
protection, yes. 2. Emergency response services, yes. 3. Hazard threat recognition, yes. 4. 
Hazard warning systems (community sirens, NOAA weather radio), yes. 5. Health and safety 
maintenance, yes. 6. Post-disaster mitigation, yes. 

END JOB AID #1, TABLE 5.]

[Job Aid #1, Table 6:
Hazard: Floods. Alternative Mitigation Action: Structural Projects. 1. Channel maintenance, yes. 
2. Dams/reservoirs, yes. 3. Levees and floodwalls, yes. 4. Safe room/shelter, no. 5. 
Seawalls/bulkheads, no.

Hazard: Earthquakes. Alternative Mitigation Action: Structural Projects. 1. Channel maintenance, 
no. 2. Dams/reservoirs, no. 3. Levees and floodwalls, no. 4. Safe room/shelter, no. 5. 
Seawalls/bulkheads, no.

Hazard: Tsunamis. Alternative Mitigation Action: Structural Projects. 1. Channel maintenance, no. 
2. Dams/reservoirs, no. 3. Levees and floodwalls, yes. 4. Safe room/shelter, no. 5. 
Seawalls/bulkheads, yes.

Hazard: Tornadoes. Alternative Mitigation Action: Structural Projects. 1. Channel maintenance, 
no. 2. Dams/reservoirs, no. 3. Levees and floodwalls, no. 4. Safe room/shelter, yes. 5. 
Seawalls/bulkheads, no.

Hazard: Coastal Storms. Alternative Mitigation Action: Structural Projects. 1. Channel 
maintenance, yes. 2. Dams/reservoirs, no. 3. Levees and floodwalls, yes. 4. Safe room/shelter, 
yes. 5. Seawalls/bulkheads, yes.

Hazard: Landslides. Alternative Mitigation Action: Structural Projects. 1. Channel maintenance, 
no. 2. Dams/reservoirs, no. 3. Levees and floodwalls, no. 4. Safe room/shelter, no. 5. 
Seawalls/bulkheads, no.	
			
Hazard: Wildfires. Alternative Mitigation Action: Structural Projects. 1. Channel maintenance, no. 
2. Dams/reservoirs, no. 3. Levees and floodwalls, no. 4. Safe room/shelter, no. 5. 
Seawalls/bulkheads, no.

END JOB AID #1, TABLE 6.] END JOB AID #1]

[Worksheet #7	Evaluate Alternative Mitigation Actions for Historic Properties and Cultural 
Resources	Phase 3, Step 2
Date:

1.	Fill in the goal and its corresponding objective.  Use a separate worksheet for each objective.  
The considerations under each criterion are only suggestionsyou may revise these to reflect 
your own considerations.
2.	For each objective, fill in the alternative actions you listed under that objective in Worksheet 
#6.
3.	For each consideration for each action, indicate a plus (+) for favorable and a minus (-) for 
less favorable. 

When you complete the scoring, minus signs will indicate gaps or shortcomings in the particular 
action, which can be noted in the Comments section.  For considerations that do not apply, fill in 
N/A for not applicable.  Leave a blank only if you do not know an answer.  In this case, make a 
note in the Comments section (page 3 of this worksheet) of the expert or source to consult to 
help you evaluate the criterion.
Below there are two blank lines.  Fill in the goal on one line and the objective on the other. 

8 column table. In the table itself, the first column is for listing alternative actions. In the following 
columns you can score each of the STAPLEE criteria.

S(Social). Considerations: Community Acceptance, Effect on Segment of Population.	
T(Technical). Considerations: Technical Feasibility, Long-term Solution, Secondary Impacts. 
A(Administrative). Considerations: Staffing, Funding Allocated, Maintenance/ Operations.
P(Political). Considerations: Political Support, Local Champion, Public Support.
L(Legal). Considerations: State Authority, Existing Local Authority, Potential Legal Challenge. 
E(Economic). Considerations: Favorable Benefit-Cost Ratio, Contributes to Economic Goals, 
Outside Funding Required.
E(Environmental). Considerations: Effect on Land/Water, Effect on Endangered Species, Effect 
on HAZMAT/Waste Sites, Consistent with Community Environmental Goals, Consistent with 
Federal Laws, Adverse Effects to Historic Properties and Cultural Resources. 

Below the STAPLEE Criteria table is a two column table, which is also part of Worksheet #7.  
The first column is for listing Alternative Actions, and the second column is for Comments.

END OF WORKSHEET #7]

[Worksheet #8	Prioritize Alternative Mitigation Actions for Historic Properties and Cultural 
Resources	Phase 3, Step 2
Date:

List the Alternative Mitigation Actions, in order of priority. Identify the goal(s) and corresponding 
objective(s) each action addresses, and note the sources of information for easy reference and 
any comments or issues to keep in mind when implementing the action.

4 column table:
Alternative Actions (In Order of Priority).
Goal(s) and Objective(s) (From Worksheet #6).
Source(s) of Information (From Worksheet #6).
Comments (From Worksheets #6 and #7).

END OF WORKSHEET #8]
	

APPENDIX D  ANSWERS TO REVIEW TESTS

Phase One Answers
Steps 1-3
1.	d
2.	b
3.	d
4.	a

Phase Two Answers
Step 3
1.	d
2.	b
3.	d
4.	c
5.	b
6.	Best answer:  c., the library.  This building provides a valuable community service, is listed in 
the National Register, and contains a valuable collection of historic records.

	Next best answer:  a., the block of bungalows.  Although some of the houses have been 
altered, the block as a whole is important as an example of buildings that reflect a prominent 
architectural style of the early 20th century.  In addition, they are important because of their 
association with a prominent local architect.

	Last in the hierarchy:  b., the privately owned house.  Although this building is more 
significant than any single bungalow, it is just one historic property and therefore would rank 
lower in the hierarchy than an entire block of architecturally significant buildings.

Step 4
1.	b
2.	c
3.	a
4.	c
5.	a
6.	c

Phase Three Answers
Step 1
1.  a
2.  b
3.  c

Step 2
1.  c
2.  a
3.  b

Step 3
1.  d
2.  a
3.  d