Mitigation Federal 

Interagency Operational Plan 

Second Edition 

August 2016 

Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................ 1

AUDIENCE .......................................................................................................................................... 2

MISSION ............................................................................................................................................. 2

SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................. 3

MITIGATION CORE CAPABILITIES .................................................................................................... 4

SITUATION ......................................................................................................................................... 5

PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS AND CRITICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................ 6

CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................... 8

OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................................... 8

THE MITIGATION SPACE ................................................................................................................... 9

INTERDEPENDENT CORE CAPABILITIES .......................................................................................... 15

INCIDENT-SPECIFIC MITIGATION ................................................................................................... 19

FEDERAL MITIGATION MECHANISMS ............................................................................................. 19

FEDERAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ........................................................................................ 20

CONNECTION TO OTHER MISSION AREAS ...................................................................................... 26

OVERSIGHT, PLAN DEVELOPMENT, AND MAINTENANCE .............................................. 30

MITIGATION FIOP REVIEW CYCLE ............................................................................................... 30

AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 32

NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ......................................................... 32

DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY DIRECTIVES AND CONGRESSIONAL ACTS ......................................... 33

APPENDIX A: KEY TERMS AND LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................ A-1

KEY TERMS .................................................................................................................................... A-1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................... A-5

APPENDIX B: DELIVERY OF MITIGATION CORE CAPABILITIES ................................ B-1

THREATS AND HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION .................................................................................... B-1

RISK AND DISASTER RESILIENCE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ B-5

PLANNING ...................................................................................................................................... B-9

COMMUNITY RESILIENCE ............................................................................................................ B-17

PUBLIC INFORMATION AND WARNING ........................................................................................ B-22

i
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

LONG-TERM VULNERABILITY REDUCTION ................................................................................ B-28

OPERATIONAL COORDINATION ................................................................................................... B-36

APPENDIX C: CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR RISK ANALYSIS ........................................... C-1

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. C-1

RISK ANALYSIS FROM THE USER PERSPECTIVE ........................................................................... C-1

INTRODUCING A CONCEPTUAL MATURITY MODEL ...................................................................... C-2

BUILDING AND MAINTAINING RISK ANALYSIS CAPABILITIES...................................................... C-4

SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... C-5

ii 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Introduction

Threats and hazards present long-term risks to people and their property. Risk is the potential for an 

unwanted outcome resulting from an incident, event, or occurrence, as determined by its likelihood 

and the associated consequences. Risk is assessed based on applicable threats and hazards, 

vulnerabilities, and consequences. Mitigation is risk-management action taken to avoid, reduce, or 

transfer those risks. By reducing the impact of disasters, mitigation supports protection and 

prevention activities, eases response, and speeds recovery to create better prepared and more resilient 

communities. The National Mitigation Framework (NMF) establishes a common platform and forum 

for coordinating and addressing how the Nation manages risk through mitigation capabilities. This 

Framework describes mitigation roles across the whole community. The Framework addresses how 

the Nation will lessen the impact of disaster by developing, employing, and coordinating core 

mitigation capabilities to reduce loss of life and property. Building on a wealth of objective and 

evidence-based knowledge and community experience, the Framework seeks to increase risk 

awareness and leverage mitigation products, services, and assets across the whole community. 

The National Planning System includes the following elements: 

1. a set of National Planning Frameworks that describe the key roles and responsibilities to deliver 

the core capabilities required to prevent, protect, mitigate, respond, and recover; 

2. a set of Federal Interagency Operational Plans (FIOP), one for each mission area, that provides 

further detail regarding roles and responsibilities, specifies the critical tasks, and identifies

resourcing and sourcing requirements for delivering core capabilities; 

3. Federal department and agency operational plans to implement the FIOPs in all hazards; and 

4. comprehensive planning guidance to support planning by local, state, tribal, territorial, and 

insular area governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGO), and the private sector. 

This FIOP builds upon the NMF, which sets the strategy for how the whole community1

 builds, 

sustains, and delivers the Mitigation core capabilities identified in the National Preparedness Goal. 

This FIOP describes the concept of operations for integrating, synchronizing, and ensuring the 

continuity of existing national-level Federal capabilities to support local, state, tribal, territorial, 

insular area, and Federal plans, and it is supported by Federal department-level operational plans 

where appropriate. 

Purpose

The Mitigation FIOP describes how the Federal Government delivers core capabilities for the 

Mitigation mission area. The purpose of this FIOP is to establish a joint system for supporting local, 

state, tribal, territorial, and insular area partners and delivering public resources in a coordinated, 

effective, and proficient manner. Building and sustaining a mitigation-minded culture within Federal 

1 The whole community includes individuals and communities, the private and nonprofit sectors, faith-based

organizations, and all levels of government (local, regional/metropolitan, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and

Federal). Whole community is defined in the National Preparedness Goal as “a focus on enabling the participation in

national preparedness activities of a wider range of players from the private and nonprofit sectors, including

nongovernmental organizations and the general public, in conjunction with the participation of all levels of

government in order to foster better coordination and working relationships.” The National Preparedness Goal is

located online at http://www.fema.gov. 

1 

 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

department and agency programs can contribute to making the Nation more socially, ecologically, 

and economically resilient before, during, and after an incident. 

To promote these goals, implementation of the Mitigation FIOP will:

 Establish opportunities for Federal partners to jointly discuss interagency mitigation priorities 

within their existing authorities and resources; 

 Identify gaps and support improvements to address current and future risks in current mitigation 

efforts, where needed; 

 Identify programmatic opportunities where appropriate to better align program funds, products, 

and services in support of the core capabilities through partnerships with each other and the 

whole community; 

 Promote the integration of continuity planning and operations to ensure Mitigation core 

capabilities and the coordinating structures can be provided during and after an incident; and 

 Describe how programs deliver core capabilities, outputs, and outcomes in the form of 

incentives, projects, products, guidance, technical assistance, and other services. 

Audience

While engaging the whole community is critical to successful integration, the Mitigation FIOP is 

directed toward Federal agency operations. This FIOP recognizes that success relies upon a whole 

community approach and is dependent upon Federal interagency collaboration and integration. 

Departments, agencies, Federal coordinating structures, and interagency partnerships should use this 

FIOP as a guide to build a hazard-resilient Nation through mitigation. Federal departments and 

agencies will develop and maintain department-level operational plans, as necessary, to deliver 

capabilities to fulfill responsibilities under the NMF and this FIOP. Departments and agencies may 

use existing plans, protocols, standard operating procedures, or standard operating guides for the 

development of such plans. 

Mission

Federal departments and agencies will successfully attain the National Preparedness Goal and the 

principles of the NMF when specific interagency mitigation outcomes are identified and achieved, 

and capability targets are met through implementation of joint objectives in the Concept of 

Operations (CONOPS). 

To connect the National Preparedness Goal to the CONOPS in this FIOP, mitigation outcomes 

should be established through a Federal dialogue with the whole community. The Mitigation 

Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG) will serve as a central coordination point for the 

development of joint interagency objectives. They strive to promote a risk-conscious culture that 

makes mitigation choices part of an adaptive, healthy, and more resilient community. 

Some initial outcomes for success might include the following: 

 Federal department and agency operational plans consider community, regional, or national risk 

awareness or resilience. 

 Community policies and planning, whether for economic development, capital infrastructure 

investments, or land use decisions, consider disaster-resilient, sustainable measures. They should 

also integrate continuity planning and operations inherent in preparedness. 

2 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

 A culture of preparedness is created when individuals, organizations, communities, and all levels

of government understand risk, plan for it, and take appropriate actions based on a mutually

acceptable level of risk. They strive to promote a risk-conscious culture that makes mitigation

choices part of an adaptive and healthy community.

 From the Federal level to the individual, mitigation actions reduce long-term risk. Existing

Federal resources, programs, and leadership help individuals, organizations, and communities

reduce their vulnerabilities and share best practices on investment decision making regarding

security and resilience to help mitigate impacts to incidents. Reducing long-term risk not only

helps to mitigate impacts, but to also mitigate hazards as much as possible so incidents do not

become disasters.

 Federal entities help reduce the risk and cost of disasters in partnership with local, state, tribal,

territorial, and insular area governments with regard to the environment, social stability, and

economy. Federal programs make the best use of assets and reduce redundancies in an effective

and efficient manner to support local capabilities and build capacity.

 Federal departments and agencies make available standardized, integrated data to support

decision makers on how to assess and mitigate risks.

Scope

This document presents a strategy and methodology that recognizes and respects the autonomy of 

Federal departments and agencies within their legal authorities and Executive Branch roles and 

establishes a system for departments and agencies to jointly discuss and pursue interagency 

mitigation initiatives (see the Authorities and References section). It does not organize deployment of 

resources, assign or adjudicate resources, or direct Federal departments and agencies in conducting 

mitigation actions. Nothing about the FIOP is intended to alter or impede the ability of Executive 

Branch departments and agencies to carry out their authorities or perform their responsibilities under 

law and consistent with applicable legal authorities and other Presidential guidance.2

The scope of this FIOP is not limited to disaster-focused authorities and capabilities, but 

encompasses a larger scope of authorities as described within the Authorities and References section. 

Within this broader scope, Federal departments and agencies deliver a capability or capabilities 

during steady state as well as before, during, and after an incident. Delivery may be a direct 

mitigation grant to reduce a community’s long-term vulnerability, for example. Application may also 

be indirect, as when a Federal department or agency incorporates mitigation into its projects and 

activities, such as locating a facility in a low-hazard area and complying with hazard resilient codes.

Mitigation actions are driven by historical and future risk. As stated above, mitigation is 

operationally delivered during steady state operations, not only in anticipation of or in the wake of 

disaster; hence this FIOP for mitigation is always in effect. This FIOP does not present a linear or 

phased approach to the deployment of resources in support of incidents, but describes how the core 

capabilities in the Mitigation mission area support delivery of core capabilities in other mission areas. 

For this reason, the focus of this FIOP is on describing the connections among different Mitigation 

core capabilities. 

2 Nothing in this FIOP is intended to interfere with the authority of the Attorney General or Director of the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with regard to the direction, conduct, control, planning, organization, equipment, 

training, exercises, or other activities concerning domestic counterterrorism, intelligence, and law enforcement 

activities.

3
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

As the Mitigation FIOP supports the framework and represents an evolving operational paradigm, it 

is a living document that should be periodically reviewed and updated (see the Oversight, Plan 

Development, and Maintenance section for more detail). 

Mitigation Core Capabilities

The National Preparedness Goal defines seven Mitigation core capabilities, and the NMF addresses 

the critical tasks to deliver the Mitigation core capabilities. This FIOP identifies and describes roles 

and responsibilities and introduces the CONOPS for delivering these core capabilities at the 

Federal level. These capabilities are listed and defined below in Table 1 and further described in 

Appendix B. 

Table 1: Description of Mitigation Core Capabilities 

Core Capability Description

Planning Conduct a systematic process engaging the whole community as appropriate 

in the development of executable strategic, operational, and/or tactical-level 

approaches to meet defined objectives.

Public Information and 

Warning

Deliver coordinated, prompt, reliable, and actionable information to the whole 

community through the use of clear, consistent, accessible, and culturally and 

linguistically appropriate methods to effectively relay information regarding 

any threat or hazard and, as appropriate, the actions being taken and the 

assistance being made available.

Operational 

Coordination

Establish and maintain a unified and coordinated operational structure and 

process that appropriately integrates all critical stakeholders and supports the 

execution of core capabilities.

Community Resilience Enable the recognition, understanding, communication of, and planning for 

risk, and empower individuals and communities to make informed risk 

management decisions necessary to adapt to, withstand, and quickly recover 

from future incidents.

Long-Term 

Vulnerability 

Reduction

Build and sustain resilient systems, communities, and critical infrastructure 

and key resources lifelines so as to reduce their vulnerability to natural, 

technological, and human-caused threats and hazards by lessening the 

likelihood, severity, and duration of the adverse consequences. 

Risk and Disaster 

Resilience 

Assessment

Assess risk and disaster resilience so that decision makers, responders, and 

community members can take informed action to reduce their entity’s risk and 

increase their resilience.

Threats and Hazards 

Identification

Identify the threats and hazards that occur in the geographic area; determine 

the frequency and magnitude; and incorporate this into analysis and planning 

processes so as to clearly understand the needs of a community or entity.

Capability Targets

Mitigation core capability targets are included in the National Preparedness Goal. These targets set 

performance threshold(s) for each core capability. In setting strategic outcomes for mitigation, it is 

important to be able to measure success and set targets for improvement. 

The capability targets set in the National Preparedness Goal are reviewed, updated, or replaced based 

on the National Preparedness Goal’s revision cycle. That process informs additional vetting and 

refinement of the initial mission-specific outcomes outlined in this FIOP. This vetting and refinement 

takes into consideration the perspective of the whole community and any changes to the risk

4 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

environment. The strategic direction for interagency mitigation; objectives and outcomes; and targets 

and performance measures can be defined, reviewed, and updated through the MitFLG. 

On an annual basis, the MitFLG will review the strategic direction and identify and assess gaps in 

interagency capabilities and capacity. This type of evaluation will help inform science and 

technology innovations in support of mitigation. This requires coordination across the National 

Preparedness and scientific communities to guarantee that scientific efforts are both relevant to and 

incorporated into National Preparedness efforts under the Mitigation mission area. A 

well-coordinated research-to-operations pipeline will ensure that operational needs are prioritized in 

scientific research and technology development and can advance operational capabilities. The 

MitFLG will coordinate with an appropriate interagency entity, such as the National Science and 

Technology Council Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, on these efforts. 

Situation 

Strategic Environment

Mitigation stakeholders exist in a strategic environment that includes threats and hazards from three 

categories: natural, technological/accidental, and adversarial/human-caused. Issues including 

globalization, technological innovation, demographic shifts, increasing population in vulnerable 

areas, escalating resource demands, climate changes, and security concerns, such as proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction and the movement of people across borders, contribute to the 

complexity of future disasters. These trends indicate a future environment that presents a wide range 

of problems that occur unpredictably and perhaps simultaneously. 

Constraints on resources at all levels continue to force the Nation to reconsider which resilience 

activities are truly affordable and how partnerships can be built to accomplish the objectives for a 

resilient Nation. The challenge is to build a culture of preparedness to empower the whole 

community to be resilient in the face of disruptions, disasters, and other crises while adapting to 

conditions that have changed as a result of an incident. 

Federal departments and agencies are advocates for and ensure that all populations have equal access 

to acquire, use, and contribute to the core capabilities that strengthen resilience. Engaging amembers 

of the whole community is essential to national preparedness, and individuals and communities are 

key components. With equal access to the pertinent knowledge and skills, all members of the 

community can contribute to national preparedness. This includes children, individuals with 

disabilities, and others with access and functional needs3

; those from religious, racial, and ethnically 

diverse backgrounds; and people with limited English proficiency. Their contributions must be 

integrated into preparedness efforts, and their needs must be incorporated as the whole community 

plans for and delivers the core capabilities. 

Strategic National Risk Assessment

Risk is the potential for an unwanted outcome resulting from an incident, event, or occurrence. Risk 

is assessed based on applicable likelihood of threats and hazards, vulnerabilities, and consequences. 

3 Access and functional needs refers to persons who may have additional needs before, during and after an incident

in functional areas, including but not limited to: maintaining health, independence, communication, transportation,

support, services, self-determination, and medical care. Individuals in need of additional response assistance may

include those who have disabilities; live in institutionalized settings; are older adults; are children; are from diverse

cultures; have limited English proficiency or are non-English speaking; or are transportation disadvantaged.

5 

 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

The Strategic National Risk Assessment (SNRA) identified the threats and hazards that pose the 

greatest risk to the Nation and provided the basis for establishing the National Preparedness Goal and 

the core capability requirements for all mission areas. The SNRA supports the National Preparedness

Goal and captures the threats and hazards that pose a significant risk to the Nation, which are 

grouped into three categories. Figure 1, from the NMF, represents examples from the three hazard

categories, though it is not an exhaustive list. Other threats and hazards may also become nationallevel events that pose significant risk.4

 Implementers of this FIOP should understand that this threat 

and hazard information was developed for an SNRA and does not present a full view of the risks 

facing local communities or differentiate among geographic locations. Appendix C introduces a 

conceptual model for conducting a threat and hazard identification and risk assessment that is 

appropriate to the level of risk and complexity of the environment. 

Mitigation core capabilities support the continued analysis and development of the SNRA, as well as 

the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessments (THIRA) conducted by local, state, tribal, 

territorial, and insular area jurisdictions, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and 

other Federal department and agency regional offices. Analysis that combines THIRAs and the 

SNRA provides a more comprehensive and granular picture for the Mitigation mission area. 

Additionally, specialized risk assessments conducted for specific events or situations also can be 

used by the mitigation community to better understand the risk environment. 

Figure 1: Examples of Threats and Hazards by Category

Planning Assumptions and Critical Considerations

The following information represents the planning assumptions and critical considerations used in 

the development of this FIOP. 

 The NMF and FIOP are based upon a broad definition of mitigation provided by the National

Preparedness Goal within the context of national preparedness that extends beyond its definition

in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, as amended

4 More information on the SNRA can be found at http://www.dhs.gov/strategic-national-risk-assessment-snra 

6 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

(Stafford Act; additional detail can be found in the Authorities and References section). 

Mitigation activities and actions are not limited to what is eligible within the Stafford Act. 

 Current authorizations and legislative language are unchanged by the NMF and FIOP. The NMF 

does not create new requirements. 

 The term “community resilience” is purposefully used with two distinct meanings: 

• Community resilience is an inclusive, informed process that addresses social, economic, 

health and well-being, natural and cultural, technical, and organizational dimensions within a 

community—preparing a community to consciously manage rather than ignore risks. 

• Resilience is an outcome—the state of being able to adapt to changing conditions and then 

withstand and rebound from the impacts of disasters and incidents.

5

 The interagency and partnering entities, to include local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and 

Federal governments, will operate within the constructs of current resources, to include funding 

sources, authorities, and programs. 

 Current and future risks will be addressed using the best available science to guide our actions. 

 Although the effects of international incidents on the United States will be considered, 

international mitigation efforts will not be addressed. 

 The Mitigation FIOP is based upon input from an extensive, but not exhaustive, group of 

representatives from Federal departments and agencies. The FIOP will be revised periodically as 

described in the Mitigation FIOP Review Cycle section. 

 Mitigation core capabilities have interdependencies with capabilities in other National Planning 

Frameworks. Three core capabilities span the National Planning Frameworks: Planning, 

Operational Coordination, and Public Information and Warning. Operations supporting two 

Mitigation core capabilities—Threats and Hazards Identification (THID) and Risk and Disaster 

Resilience Assessment (RDRA)—will inform and drive operational guidance in the other 

National Planning Frameworks. 

 Implementation of this FIOP will capitalize on existing programs and documents that address 

mitigation and promote resilience. 

 The mitigation discipline does not eliminate all risk from threats and hazards, but provides a 

mechanism for managing risk and a platform on which to base strategies for the continuation of 

essential government functions and critical infrastructure services. 

 “Federal” efforts refer solely to the Federal Government’s supportive role, or primary and 

potentially exclusive role, such as a military installation or Federal facility. “National” efforts 

encompass the whole community, including individuals; families; communities; nonprofit 

organizations; businesses; local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments; and the 

Federal Government. 

5 As defined in the National Preparedness Goal and the NMF. 

7 

 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Concept of Operations

Overview

This CONOPS provides the common platform for ensuring that Federal actions operate in concert to 

achieve joint interagency objectives and serves as the vehicle for synchronizing Federal mitigation 

efforts. It serves to coordinate the delivery of Federal capabilities only. As described in the 

introduction, this FIOP is always in effect, spans steady state and incident-driven environments, and 

focuses on the connections among Mitigation core capabilities and the integration with other 

National Planning Frameworks and FIOPs.

The Mitigation core capabilities (listed and defined in Table 1 above and further described in 

Appendix B) can be delivered through numerous mechanisms, such as: 

 Effective policy changes;

 Improved program efficiencies;

 A culture of sharing resources and data;

 Transitioning research and innovation into capabilities;

 Incentives that drive behavior;

 Strong partnerships and leadership; and

 Collectively integrating and leveraging analytical capabilities.

The Mitigation Concept of Operations section is organized into subsections around key concepts, 

which are shown in Table 2 below and discussed in detail in the following pages.

Table 2: Mitigation CONOPS Sections

Section Description

Overview The CONOPS provides the common platform for synchronizing mitigation

efforts.

The Mitigation Space Mitigation capabilities are delivered both during steady state operations and 

incident-driven operations and are impacted by adaptive risk management

factors.

Interdependent Core 

Capabilities

Mitigation’s core capabilities provide mutually supportive actions that are 

overlapping and seldom delivered in isolation.

Incident-Specific 

Mitigation

Incidents create windows of opportunity for the delivery of Mitigation core 

capabilities, and the characteristics of an incident dictate the need for certain 

kinds of Mitigation activity.

Federal Mitigation 

Mechanisms

Federal Mitigation operations span three broad categories or mechanisms: 

Federal administrative structures, transfer of resources, and capacity 

building.

Federal Roles and 

Responsibilities

Federal roles and responsibilities to guide the Federal Government’s 

implementation of the NMF

Connections to Other 

Mission Areas

Description of integration between the Mitigation Mission Area and the other 

four Mission Areas

8 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Tasks and responsibilities identified in this CONOPS are provided as guidance to Federal 

departments and agencies for implementation of mitigation. This document is not directive of Federal 

resources but serves as the organizing document for how the Federal Government delivers mitigation 

capabilities or supports their delivery around joint interagency objectives. Table 3 summarizes 

coordinated mitigation delivery.

Table 3: Coordinated Delivery of Mitigation

Entity Role

Mitigation Framework Leadership 

Group

Coordinate mitigation efforts across the Federal Government 

and assess the effectiveness of mitigation capabilities

Identify joint interagency goals and objectives

Provide joint interagency leadership

Promote knowledge and awareness of mitigation mission and 

goals within departments and agencies

Federal Coordinating Structures (e.g., 

memorandums of understanding 

[MOU], working groups)

Facilitate the preparedness and delivery of capabilities to 

achieve joint interagency goals and objectives

Federal Partners Build, maintain, and deliver Mitigation core capabilities

Mitigation successes are realized at the individual, local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and 

national levels, as well as by industry. 

Federal departments and agencies support mitigation activities (e.g., building capacity, delivering 

resources) and apply specific Mitigation core capabilities using their own resources (e.g., hurricane 

advisories, regulatory risk maps, engineering and design tools for resilience) in conjunction with 

Federal laboratories, testing facilities, and universities. This includes Federal research and 

development programs on new and advanced technology and practices to make Mitigation core 

capabilities more effective and efficient. Many research and development efforts are funded and 

conducted by Federal departments and agencies, often in conjunction with the private sector. 

Mitigation efforts are also coordinated by Federal departments and agencies through existing 

coordination structures such as the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). The NSTC 

Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction can provide further support in coordinating a communications 

pipeline with the scientific community to ensure that scientific efforts, education, and investments are 

relevant to mitigation needs. 

The Mitigation Space

Mitigation operations are managed under multiple management systems, and the associated 

Mitigation capabilities are delivered both during steady state operations and incident-driven 

operations. Figure 2 shows that Mitigation core capabilities are delivered across multiple operational 

states on a continuing basis, including when a disaster occurs. 

9
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Figure 2: Mitigation Operational Paradigm

 Steady state/continuous operations. Mitigation efforts conducted during routine operations 

incorporate program management structures around shared goals, principles, department and 

agency initiatives, and coordinating structures to maximize and ensure continued Federal 

performance. 

 Incident-driven operations. When Mitigation core capabilities are employed to support 

incident-driven operations, departments and agencies follow the National Incident Management 

System (NIMS).

 Adaptive risk management. Adaptive risk management applies to both steady state and 

incident-driven activities and offers opportunities for course correction within each. Operational 

paradigms for steady state and incident-driven operations include identifying opportunities for 

continuous improvement. For instance, advances in technology create new and more accurate 

ways to assess and mitigate hazards, and Federal mitigation action may change based on such 

advancements.

Mitigation capabilities work effectively as part of all operational environments and bring risk-based

decisions to support activity across the whole community of national preparedness. The following 

sections describe the three conditions—steady state/continuous operations, incident-driven 

operations, and adaptive risk management—that shape risk management strategies and operational 

paradigms.

Steady State/Continuous Operations

Federal departments and agencies conduct mitigation on the basis of current and future risks, not 

solely in response to disasters. Mitigation actions conducted during steady state or ongoing 

operations may be informally coordinated or bring together differing coordination structures and 

diverse program expertise, scientific knowledge, and authorities. Steady state mitigation activities 

require clearly articulated goals, shared strategic objectives, and mutually supportive standards of 

practice. Mitigation capabilities are delivered continuously in a wide array of departments’ and 

10
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

agencies’ programs to support the whole community. These capabilities are delivered by 

professionals from diverse backgrounds, under varied operating procedures, policies, and standards 

and in a broad range of environments. Examples of diverse Federal programs and delivery 

mechanisms are shown below. 

Examples:

 Multiple departments or agencies, single mechanism: Includes alignment of planning grants

from Department of Housing and Urban Development, FEMA, and Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) to support sustainable and resilient communities.

 Multiple departments or agencies, single mechanism: Includes shared objective programs such

as risk transfer through insurance (Department of Agriculture [USDA] crop insurance and FEMA

National Flood Insurance Program [NFIP]).

 Multiple departments or agencies, multiple mechanisms: Includes development of sustainable

and stronger, more resilient homes and buildings such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) installations research, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Science and

Technology program on resilient, high-performance design of buildings, and FEMA Building

Sciences group.

 Multiple programs, single department or agency: FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

(HMGP) and hazard mitigation funding under Section 406 of the Stafford Act, Public Assistance.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)’s At-Risk Resiliency Initiative provides public

health authorities with data and mapping tools and resources to better anticipate, plan for, and

expedite response and recovery for at-risk populations with access and functional needs.

 Single program, multiple mechanisms: The FEMA Risk MAP (Risk Mapping, Assessment, and

Planning) program affects different communities at different times. It is an activity which involves

congressional mandate, strategic planning, program management, procurement action, training,

interaction with a community, and a final deliverable that becomes a regulatory product.

One Federal action to address risks is often mutually supportive of other Federal activity, policy, 

regulation, and executive responsibility. Coordinating and sharing the value of research, 

development, and expended Federal resources enables mutually supportive resilience activity across 

all levels of government and the private sector. Discussing opportunities for joint initiatives and 

demonstrating the shared value of Federal risk management action is the responsibility of the 

mitigation coordinating structures, such as the MitFLG. 

Connecting departments and agencies without compromising their authorities and autonomy requires 

a decentralized management model that creates linkages, fosters creativity, and capitalizes on the 

strengths of individual partners to maximize the expertise and capability of different groups, teams, 

and communities of expertise. This model of management supports autonomous structures and 

systems without imposing external organization or command and control structures. Federal partners 

deliver Mitigation core capabilities under their legal authorities and around shared interagency 

objectives with a set of common principles. 

Leadership

 Leadership articulates shared interagency objectives through Federal departmental and agency

leaders, and the MitFLG serves as the central coordination point for Federal mitigation activities.

Leadership promotes organizational knowledge of how components support mitigation,

composes joint interagency objectives, and empowers action.

 Federal department and agency leadership provides common vision in delivery of their respective

missions.

11
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Autonomy 

 Federal departments and agencies and programs operate under their existing authorities and 

develop and deliver solutions by encouraging initiative at the lowest level possible. 

 Autonomy is the ability to self-direct with the capacity to make decisions. Autonomy is not 

isolation, and requires operational coordination and an environment that fosters collaboration. 

 Experts are allowed the independence to define solutions. 

Contribution and Initiative 

 Localized change is powered by effective innovation. 

 Federal partners work to maximize the impact of individuals, programs, offices, and departments 

and agencies contributing to mitigation.

 Trust in individual components to deliver their authorized capabilities is based on shared 

objectives.

Self-Organization 

 Federal departments and agencies are best suited to determine their own organizational structures 

when conducting their authorized responsibilities. 

 Non-uniform organizational structures provide constructive results when coordinated around 

shared objectives. 

Clear Objectives

 Departments and agencies deliver Mitigation core capabilities in support of clear joint 

interagency objectives.

Incident-Driven Operations

As the other National Planning Frameworks and interagency operational plans identify phases, states, 

or stages, they will serve as the platform for integrating mitigation into their activities. Disasters 

require the use of Mitigation core capabilities. Many integrate into specific operational structures and 

trigger the exercise of additional authorities, funding sources, and program coordination requirements 

for Federal departments and agencies. For the majority of events, when Mitigation core capabilities 

are delivered in support of response and recovery operations, they are subject to the administration 

and implementation of the National Response Framework (NRF), National Disaster Recovery 

Framework (NDRF) or associated response and recovery plans. 

12
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Examples:

 Informing response and recovery operations with risk analysis, de-escalating an incident, and 

remediating loss following a disaster are considered short-term mitigation under this CONOPS. In 

response to flooding in Minot, North Dakota, in 2011, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), FEMA, 

and Department of Commerce (DOC)/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

partnered to link mitigation expertise in data collection and analysis to support disaster response 

efforts with risk analysis—providing near real-time assessment of flood levels and estimated 

damages to decision makers. This activity highlights the benefits of DOC/NOAA’s and the National 

Weather Service’s “Weather Ready Nation” initiative through the provision of key decision support 

information to our partners.

 Hazard Mitigation funding under Section 406 of the Stafford Act provides discretionary authority to 

fund mitigation measures in conjunction with the repair of the disaster-damaged facilities. Use of 

Section 406 of the Stafford Act mitigation funds is authorized by disaster declarations and managed 

primarily through Joint Field Offices located near the disaster site, occurring in an operational 

environment administered under NIMS within the NRF and NDRF.

When mitigation capabilities are delivered in support of incidents requiring a coordinated response, 

in most cases Federal departments and agencies operate in support of the NRF/NDRF and in 

accordance with NIMS. 

NIMS provides a systematic, proactive approach to guide departments and agencies at all levels of 

government to work to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of 

incidents in order to reduce the loss of life and property and minimize harm to the environment. 

Recommended activities for the private sector and NGOs have also been established that support 

NIMS implementation and closely parallel the implementation activities that have been required of 

local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments. NIMS is applicable regardless of the 

cause, size, location, or complexity of a given event. NIMS provides organized and standardized 

tenets and practices, which enable organizations and departments and agencies to work together in a 

predictable, coordinated manner. Components of NIMS operate under the following principles: 

 Flexibility: The components of NIMS are adaptable to any situation, from routine, local incidents 

to incidents requiring the activation of interstate mutual aid to those requiring a coordinated 

Federal response, whether planned (e.g., major sporting or community events), notice (e.g., 

hurricane), or no-notice (e.g., earthquake). This flexibility is essential for NIMS to be applicable 

across the full spectrum of potential incidents, including those that require multidepartment, 

multiagency, multijurisdictional (such as incidents that occur along international borders), or 

multidisciplinary coordination. 

 Standardization: Flexibility to manage incidents of any size requires coordination and 

standardization among emergency management and homeland security personnel and their 

affiliated organizations. NIMS provides a set of standardized organizational structures that 

improve integration and connectivity among jurisdictions and disciplines, starting with a 

common foundation of preparedness and planning. NIMS provides and promotes common 

terminology, including the establishment of plain language (clear text communication standards) 

which fosters effective communication among response organizations and agencies.6

6 National Incident Management System (http://www.fema.gov/national-incident-management-system).

13

 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Adaptive Risk Management

Evolving risks and emerging capabilities drive and shape the future operational environment. 

Adaptive management is critical to success, allowing Federal mitigation partners to be flexible and to 

modify programs and policies, when permissible, to reflect emerging challenges and new 

technologies. The importance of understanding risk for the future is vital to mitigation operations. 

Innovation, new regulation, climate change, population demographics, population health status, 

political and economic realities, international incidents, global trends, and changes in Federal 

involvement all affect risk management.

The study of the effects of evolving change and variability on vulnerability, and the ability to adapt 

to changes in hazards, is a relatively new field of research that brings together diverse experts. 

Ongoing research influences the field of risk management. FEMA’s Strategic Foresight Initiative 

conducted and used analysis in this field to identify sociology and demographics, politics, 

technology, climate change, economics, and security and terrorism as key focus areas. Analyzing 

these efforts allows Federal partners engaged in research to prioritize research and implementation 

requirements. 

Examples:

 The EPA has implemented adaptive risk management in many projects. Among the most notable 

are the Mississippi River Basin project, which uses models and monitoring to reduce the 

uncertainties surrounding the biochemical mechanisms of hypoxia, and the Lake Superior Lakewide 

Management Plan, which calls for a less structured periodic refining of management strategies 

based on new information and public input.

 DOC/NOAA uses adaptive management, especially in its coastal management and coastal habitat 

restoration activities. The adaptive management process implemented in these cases is passive, 

involving iterations of a five-step cycle: plan, act, monitor, evaluate, and adjust. DOC/NOAA 

emphasizes the monitoring and evaluation elements of adaptive management (note, adaptive risk 

management follows generally accepted standards of planning, including the five-step planning 

process).

Changes in the frequency and severity of threats and hazards, along with evolving background 

conditions and community evolution and growth, mean that Federal risk management practices must 

be adaptive. Evolving risks are drivers that require a coordinated Federal approach to adaptive risk 

management in how Federal departments and agencies evaluate and address risks and deliver 

Mitigation core capabilities, regardless of what threats or hazards arise. Federal departments and 

agencies exploit technology, innovation, and advances in science and engineering practices in the 

delivery of core capabilities. Efforts and developments should be coordinated and shared for 

optimized application and utilization. This coordination can be accomplished through the various 

multiple department or agency groups and organizations already in place with which the MitFLG 

will establish communication and coordination. 

Example:

 Local, state, and tribal officials develop and adopt mitigation plans to meet the requirements of the 

Stafford Act. Approved mitigation plans must be updated regularly in order to accurately reflect 

changes in community risk. As hazards change, communities evolve, and mitigation takes place, the 

risk facing that community changes. The FEMA role in supporting these plans is to review their 

content, help communities identify risks and emerging options for risk reduction, and promote 

action.

14
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Summary

Mitigation core capabilities are delivered across multiple National Planning Frameworks and 

integrate into multiple organizational structures, which include both decentralized models and 

command and control systems. Under this CONOPS, Federal partners adhere to the appropriate 

management systems, which are necessary or required to administer their actions during steady state 

and incident-driven operations. Change outside of incidents (e.g., demographic shifts, calendar 

events, evolving risks, and developing technologies) drives mitigation activity in the same way 

incidents do. Mitigation operational structures by operational state are depicted in Table 4. 

Table 4: Mitigation Operational Structures

Mitigation Operational Structures

Steady State Operations Incident-Driven Operations

Adaptive Risk Management

Federal departments and agencies deliver Mitigation

core capabilities around their objectives and shared 

interagency objectives with a set of common principles:

 Leadership

 Autonomy

 Contribution and initiative

 Self-organization

 Clear objectives

When Mitigation core capabilities are 

delivered under incident-driven National 

Planning Frameworks (NRF and NDRF), 

Federal departments and agencies will 

adhere to the appropriate management 

systems identified for Response or Recovery 

interagency operations (NIMS):

 Flexibility

 Standardization

Interdependent Core Capabilities

Mitigation’s core capabilities are mutually supportive, overlapping actions seldom delivered in 

isolation. In order for effective mitigation to occur, understanding the connections among capabilities 

is as critical as understanding the internal disciplines and requirements of each capability. 

Individual capabilities are examined and categorized in detail in Appendix B, which is designed as 

a reference point for the internal coordination of discrete actions within each capability. 

Delivering Mitigation core capabilities under this FIOP is an interdependent activity, whether it 

occurs during steady state operations, after an incident, or in response to evolving risks. Table 5

demonstrates how all Mitigation core capabilities are interdependent activities—each Mitigation core 

capability supports the work of others—and outlines the interdependent model for delivering 

Mitigation core capabilities in concert under this CONOPS. For example, the core capability THID

produces the data required for input to the RDRA capability. More specifically, flood hazard 

identification information, such as the likelihood that an area of interest will experience a flood 

event, can be combined with population and property data to determine the event’s consequences and 

a community’s flood risk. 

The interoperability and interdependence described in Table 5 apply to all Federal mitigation action. 

White cells describe how the core capability identified in each row supports the core capability listed 

in the individual columns. Grey cells provide abbreviated definitions for each core capability. While 

Table 5 describes the relationship among Mitigation core capabilities, the Connection to Other 

Mission Areas section of the CONOPS describes the integration points among the Mitigation FIOP 

and other FIOPs under the National Planning Frameworks. 

15
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

This page intentionally left blank. 

16
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Table 5: Interdependence of Mitigation Core Capabilities

Threats and Hazards 

Identification

Risk and Disaster 

Resilience 

Assessment

Planning Community 

Resilience

Public Information 

and Warning

Long-Term 

Vulnerability 

Reduction

Operational 

Coordination

Threats and 

Hazards 

Identification

Identify threats and hazards, 

determine frequency and 

magnitude, and incorporate into 

analysis and planning processes 

to clearly understand needs

Provide data and intelligence 

for current and future risk 

analysis and resilience 

assessment

Serve as scientific basis for 

risk-based prioritization and 

preparation

Drive community action with 

sound hazard information 

Provide foundation for risk 

communication

Serve as scientific basis for riskbased decision making

Support operational 

decisions with data—from 

long-term to real-time 

hazard information

Risk and Disaster 

Resilience 

Assessment

Identify the need for more refined 

or focused threat or hazard 

information

Assess risk and disaster 

resilience so that decision 

makers can take informed 

action to reduce risk and 

increase resilience

Provide analytic link between 

threat and hazard information 

and projected consequences, 

providing basis for risk 

reduction strategies

Establish foundational 

understanding of current and 

future risk and resilience

Provide vulnerability information 

that leads to messaging, 

communication, and risk 

reduction guidance

Establish connection between 

risk information and targeted 

vulnerability reduction activity to 

increase resilience

Drive risk-based operations

Planning Set priorities for re-evaluating 

threat and hazard data

Identify use and requirements 

to update risk and disaster 

resilience information

Conduct a systematic process, 

engaging the whole 

community to develop 

strategic, operational, and 

community-based approaches 

to meet objectives

Provide forum to establish riskbased decision making that 

improves resilience

Assess communication gaps; 

enact plan to address 

communication of risk, needs 

for training, and implementation 

of guidance

Through community 

engagement, select appropriate 

risk reduction measures and 

establish priorities and 

sequence for action

Integrate appropriate plans 

and coordinate planning 

activities to promote riskbased decisions

Community 

Resilience

Establish leadership, 

partnerships, and collaboration 

that drive the identification of 

threats and hazards and 

recognize the need for quality 

data

Lead an integrated effort to 

understand, communicate, and 

promote the benefits of RDRA

Driving force of leadership that 

engages and mobilizes the 

community to plan for future 

resilience 

Enable the recognition, 

understanding, communication 

of, and planning for risk, and 

empower individuals and 

communities to make informed 

risk management decisions 

necessary to adapt to, 

withstand, and quickly recover 

from future incidents

Credible, influential leaders 

communicate targeted 

messages to receptive listeners

Compel communities to 

prioritize risk reduction activities 

and consider current and future 

risk when making investments

Successfully deliver multiple 

mitigation capabilities 

through established, trusted 

relationships and 

partnerships

Public 

Information and 

Warning

Risk communication and a more 

informed public affect the kinds 

of threat and hazard 

communications which can be 

delivered

Social vulnerabilities and 

communication factors affect 

overall risk analysis

The capacity and need to 

communicate current and 

future risks to the public 

following an incident affect 

planning assumptions

Provide science-based 

strategies and techniques for 

delivering information that 

promotes behavior change to 

support a resilient community

Deliver coordinated, prompt, 

reliable, and actionable 

information to the whole 

community through clear, 

consistent, accessible, and 

culturally and linguistically 

appropriate methods

Federal stakeholders must 

deliver information about longterm vulnerability reduction 

actions, funding, training, and 

guidance

How well public information 

is delivered drives 

operational requirements 

and vice versa

Long-Term 

Vulnerability 

Reduction

Long-term vulnerability reduction

actions change the threat and 

hazard profile of a community, 

and may lead to re-identification 

of threats and hazards

Long-term vulnerability 

reduction actions change the 

current and future risk profile of 

a community, and may initiate 

re-assessment of risk and 

disaster resilience

Long-term vulnerability 

reduction actions are executed 

based on planned priorities 

and evolving plans

Implementation of risk reduction 

activities demonstrates 

progress toward achieving 

community resilience

Long-term vulnerability 

reduction actions require 

notification of stakeholders, 

communication, the 

implementation of guidance, 

training and a wide array of 

communication efforts

Build and sustain resilient 

systems and communities to 

reduce vulnerability by 

lessening the likelihood, 

severity, and duration of 

adverse consequences

Coordinate delivery of risk 

reduction activities with all 

appropriate stakeholders

Operational 

Coordination

Identifying and quantifying 

threats and hazards requires 

mitigation stakeholders to 

coordinate assessment, analysis, 

and delivery of information

Conducted both during steady 

state and in incident-driven 

operations, requiring a 

combination of command and 

control and other operational 

structures

Planning brings together 

threat, analysis, operational, 

and community stakeholders 

and planning professionals;

developing plans requires 

seamless coordination around 

a single effort

Coordination of stakeholder 

actions is an essential 

characteristic of a resilient 

community

The delivery of training, 

guidance, forecast, and 

advisory information is initiated 

through defined operational 

requirements in all phases

Effective coordination may 

result in vulnerability reduction 

and occurs in both steady state 

and incident-driven

environments

Establish and maintain a 

unified and coordinated 

operation structure that 

integrates stakeholders and 

supports execution of core 

capabilities

17
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

This page intentionally left blank.

18
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Incident-Specific Mitigation

Incidents create windows of opportunity for the delivery of some, and focused development of other, 

Mitigation core capabilities, and the characteristics of an incident dictate the need for certain kinds of 

mitigation activity. As such, mitigation actions that support incident-driven operations include a 

broad spectrum of activity across mission areas. These mitigation actions fall under response and 

recovery structures in the immediate pre- and post-disaster environment and are administered under 

the appropriate mission area framework and FIOP. 

Near real-time mitigation actions are designed to inform response, remediate impacts, reduce the 

cascading effects of incidents, and advise recovery efforts. These actions include certain fire 

suppression activities, chemical spill remediation, activities that manage repeat or cascading terrorist 

threats, injury prevention, public health interventions, and safety inspections of damaged structures. 

The ability to perform these actions must be maintained regardless of the hazard faced.

Mitigation tools such as real-time data and analysis and hazard impact modeling inform decision 

making—controlling operational risk and managing short-term objectives. Supporting short-term 

mitigation actions may also require the deployment of mitigation expertise to collect and analyze 

data after an incident. Mitigation also includes longer-term risk management actions, such as 

rebuilding, outreach, analysis, planning, and implementation activities—following a disaster—to 

produce longer-term risk management gains. Disasters generate critical opportunities to enact 

community changes that may result in longer-term and more sustained reductions in risk. They also 

present the opportunity and access to resources, such as expertise, data and modeling or better 

analysis, and understanding of risk and create a window of opportunity for affecting behavior change 

as well as structural and infrastructural mitigation. 

Longer-term mitigation actions that occur concurrently with response and recovery actions 

encompass forensic data collection, such as the collection of high-water marks, and post-incident 

analysis, such as building performance investigations, and, as a result, require longer-term mitigation

assets to function as part of response and recovery efforts. These activities may be closely 

coordinated through the Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator (FDRC) and the Hazard Mitigation 

Advisor, under the NDRF. 

Federal Mitigation Mechanisms 

Federal departments and agencies support whole community mitigation efforts by applying their own 

programs and capabilities across individual and coordinated operations, both in support of incidents 

and in response to risk. Regulatory responsibilities, oversight authorities, and obligations to support 

and inform stakeholders also serve to support and encourage mitigation. Leadership to promote 

national resilience at the Federal level comes from individual departments and agencies, the MitFLG, 

and other coordinating structures especially those used to gather input from the whole community to 

inform Federal efforts. 

Delivery of Federal Support

Federal support for mitigation includes the following activities to support a culture of preparedness: 

 Technical assistance and expertise from subject matter experts;

 Training, outreach, and education (e.g., stakeholder engagement, guidance, exercises);

 Products and services (e.g., models; data and information; consultation; planning; technical

assistance; insurance; and technology transfer, commercialization, and deployment);

19
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

 Projects (“bricks and mortar”), including the project planning, design, construction, operation,

and maintenance; and

 Funding, including grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, partnerships, incentives, and tax

policy.

Capacity Building

Capacity building is a specialized form of technical assistance that serves the shared objectives of 

Federal mitigation partners and provides leverage when applying Federal capabilities within a 

community. It is a focused effort to nationally elevate and increase the level of mitigation expertise, 

creating a more resilient Nation. It includes planning; research and development; innovation; 

partnership; and collaboration. Capacity building also helps identify and execute solutions that link 

Mitigation core capabilities and practitioners across the whole community to build a culture of 

preparedness that can perform these capabilities regardless of the hazard faced. 

Federal Roles and Responsibilities

This FIOP identifies and describes Federal roles and responsibilities to guide the Federal 

Government’s implementation of the NMF. Interagency activities in the form of coordinating 

structures, strategic planning, and cooperative activities, such as those described in the Concept of 

Operations section, already exist and should likewise be capitalized upon to implement the NMF. 

Existing National Strategic Planning and Interagency Activities

National strategic objectives have been set in numerous reports and plans of both Federal and nonFederal entities. Federal strategic planning can be an effective way to set shared objectives and align 

resources. Where these plans currently exist and identify interagency activities supporting Mitigation, 

Federal departments and agencies should capitalize on those plans and look to align their authorities 

and resources in such a way to meet common strategic goals and objectives as discussed in the NMF. 

Many current Federal plans identify a broad range of mitigation opportunities designed to make a 

more secure and resilient Nation, such as the department- and agency-specific Strategic 

Sustainability Performance Plans required under Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in 

Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance (2009). Additional examples include: 

 “Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction,” NSTC, Committee on Environment and Natural

Resources, A Report of the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, 2005, with implementation

plans in 2008 and 2010;

 “Federal Actions for a Climate Resilient Nation: Progress Report of the Interagency Climate

Change Adaptation Task Force,” and “National Action Plan for Managing Freshwater Resources

in a Changing Climate,” Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 2011;

 “Infrastructure Resilience Guidelines,” identified in the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy,

2013;

 “Strategic Plan for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), Fiscal Years

2009–2013” submitted to Congress by the Interagency Coordinating Council of NEHRP, 2008;

 “Crisis Response and Disaster Resilience for 2030, Forging Strategic Action in an Age of

Uncertainty,” FEMA, 2012;

 “National Strategy for the Marine Transportation System, A Framework for Action,” Committee

on Marine Transportation Systems, 2009;

20
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

 “National Health Security Strategy,” HHS, 2015;

 “Unified National Program Management for Floodplain Management,” 1994;

 “National Infrastructure Protection Plan, Partnering for Critical Infrastructure Security and

Resilience,” DHS, 2013;

 Executive Order 12777, Implementation of Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act of October 18, 1972, as amended, and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (as amended), White

House, 1991;

 “National Critical Infrastructure Protection R & D Plan,” NSTC, Infrastructure Subcommittee,

2004;

 DOC/NOAA’s Next Generation Strategic Plan, 2010, that includes the long-term goals: “Climate

Adaptation and Mitigation, Weather Ready Nation, Healthy Oceans, and Resilient Coastal

Communities and Economies”;

 “Strategic Plan for the National Dam Safety Program (NDSP) Fiscal Years 2012–2016,” NDSP,

FEMA, 2012;

 National Security Presidential Directive – 51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive – 20

(NSPD 51/HSPD 20), National Continuity Policy, May 2007;

 National Continuity Policy Implementation Plan, August 2007;

 Federal Continuity Directive -1 (FCD 1), Federal Executive Branch National Continuity Program

and Requirements, October 2012; and

 FCD 2, Federal Executive Branch Mission Essential Functions and Candidate Primary Mission

Essential Functions Identification and Submission Process, July 2013.

Example:

The Strategic Plan for the National Dam Safety Program (NDSP) for Fiscal Years 2012 through 

2016 sets the national agenda for dam safety, as prescribed by the Dam Safety Act of 2006 (Public 

Law 109-460), and informs and supports other dam safety programs at the state and Federal levels. 

The plan’s purpose is aligned with the collaborative approach of FEMA to address dam risk in the 

context of the emergency management lifecycle and to improve the unity of effort across the entire 

dam safety community. The successful implementation of this strategic plan over the next five years 

will support the Nation in preparing for, protecting against, responding to, recovering from, and 

mitigating dam failures and the risks and vulnerabilities posed by dams.

The plan provides a straightforward, realistic, and executable strategic direction for the NDSP based 

on the most efficient and effective uses of NDSP resources to reduce losses from dam failures in the 

United States. The goals, objectives, strategies, and priorities will serve as formal guidelines for all 

NDSP efforts.

Other national and international documents inform Federal activities and help set a shared vision 

from other stakeholder groups and academic institutes. These documents reflect global, national, 

regional, and local perspectives that can align Federal roles and resources to support those objectives. 

They include, but are not limited to, reports such as: 

 “Regional Disaster Resilience, A Guide for Developing an Action Plan,” The Infrastructure

Security Partnership, 2011;

 “Sustainable Critical Infrastructure Systems, A Framework for Meeting 21st Century

Imperatives,” National Research Council of the National Academies, 2009;

21
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

 “Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private-Public Collaboration,” National

Research Council, 2011;

 “Recommendations for an Effective National Mitigation Effort,” National Emergency

Management Association White Paper, 2009;

 “National Earthquake Resilience: Research, Implementation, and Outreach,” National Research

Council, 2011;

 “Improved Seismic Monitoring—Improved Decisionmaking: Assessing the Value of Reduced

Uncertainty,” National Research Council, 2006;

 “Environmental Resilience: Exploring Scientific Concepts for Strengthening Community

Resilience to Disasters” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015.

 “Effective Emergency Management: Making Improvements for Communities and People with

Disabilities,” National Council on Disability, 2009;

 “Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative,” The National Academies, Committee on Science,

Engineering, and Public Policy, Committee on Increasing National Resilience To Hazards and

Disasters, 2012;

 “Planning and Building Livable, Safe & Sustainable Communities—The Patchwork Quilt

Approach,” Natural Hazards Mitigation Association, 2014;

 “Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure,” National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 2015;

 “National Biodefense Science Board Community Health Resilience Report,” National

Preparedness and Response Science Board, HHS-ASPR, 2014; and

 “Building Community Resilience to Disaster: A Way Forward to Enhance National Health

Security,” RAND Corporation, Chandra, A. et al., 2011.

Mitigation Framework Leadership Group

The MitFLG is an interagency and intergovernmental body that facilitates information exchange and

coordinates policy implementation and successful implementation of the NMF. The primary role of 

the MitFLG is to serve as the central coordination point for interagency mitigation activities. The 

MitFLG coordinates and promotes implementation of the NMF, increases awareness of mitigation 

throughout the Federal Government, and supports the advancement of Mitigation core capabilities 

through whole community mechanisms. The MitFLG includes representatives from relevant local, 

state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments. It is chaired by FEMA in consultation 

with leadership in the DHS. The MitFLG coordinates with the Domestic Resilience Group (DRG) 

under the National Security Council (NSC), and other Interagency Policy Committees (IPC) or subIPCs as relevant. Membership in the MitFLG will include department and agency senior officials 

who can speak authoritatively on behalf of their respective organizations (see MitFLG membership 

below, as found in the NMF). The MitFLG may establish ad hoc working groups as needed. 

Private industry and nongovernmental coordination with the MitFLG comes through existing 

mechanisms, such as structures available to Sector-Specific Agencies (SSA). The MitFLG is a 

coordinating structure for integrating Federal efforts, and related councils, task forces, and 

committees will coordinate through the MitFLG. Nothing about the operation of the MitFLG is 

intended to alter or impede the ability of Executive departments and agencies to carry out their 

22
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

authorities or their responsibilities under law and consistent with applicable legal authorities and 

other Presidential guidance. 

The MitFLG, through its coordination role, helps to set strategic direction and define the shared goals 

and objectives of the group; encourages specific and collaborative programs; and provides input to 

the annual National Preparedness Report. 

Mitigation Framework Leadership Group

Non-Federal membership includes:

 Local, state, tribal, and territorial government representatives

Federal membership includes, but is not limited to:

 Department of Agriculture

 Department of Commerce

 Department of Defense

 Department of Energy

 Environmental Protection Agency

 General Services Administration

 Department of Health and Human Services

 Department of Homeland Security

 Department of Housing and Urban Development

 Department of the Interior

 Department of Justice

 Small Business Administration

 Department of Transportation

 Department of the Treasury

Existing Federal Coordinating Structures

Coordinating structures are composed of representatives from multiple Federal departments and 

agencies, public and/or private sector organizations, or a combination of such groups. Pursuant to 

Presidential directive, the Secretary of Homeland Security is the principal Federal official for 

domestic incident management. The Secretary of Homeland Security is responsible for coordinating 

the domestic all-hazards preparedness efforts, including mitigation activities, of all Executive 

departments and agencies,7

 in consultation with local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area 

governments, NGOs, private sector partners, and the general public; and for achieving the National 

Preparedness Goal. The Secretary’s preparedness responsibilities also include overseeing the broad 

“emergency management,” “continuity planning and operations,” and “response” activities of FEMA 

and other DHS components. 

The Federal Government has several established structures for coordination of a variety of activities 

that address the range of natural, technological, and human-caused/adversarial threats and hazards. 

These include Government Coordinating Councils (GCC), Sector Coordinating Councils (SCC), 

Committees, and Task Forces. Understanding the relationships between the implementation of the 

FIOP and these existing organizations is critical. The MitFLG will define the appropriate 

7 Except for those activities that may interfere with the authority of the Attorney General or the FBI Director. 

23
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

relationships between these existing organizations and mitigation efforts. The following structures 

have mitigation-related missions:

 The NSC is the President’s principal forum for considering national security policy matters with

senior national security advisors and cabinet officials.

 The DRG is a senior level IPC under the NSC.

 CEQ coordinates Federal environmental efforts and works closely with departments and agencies

and other White House offices in the development of environmental policies and initiatives. The

Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force is co-chaired by CEQ, DOC/NOAA, and the

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

 OSTP, NSTC, Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability, Subcommittee

on Disaster Reduction serve as part of the internal deliberative process for the NSTC on disaster

reduction issues.

 OSTP, NSTC, Committee on Homeland & National Security, Infrastructure Subcommittee serve

as part of the internal deliberative process for the NSTC on issues related to resilient and

sustainable design of buildings, lifelines, and other types of physical infrastructure.

 OSTP, NSTC, Committee on Technologies, Subcommittee on Standards enable responsive and

timely coordination among Federal departments and agencies for more effective Federal

department or agency engagement in the development and use of standards and raise awareness

of best practices in standard policy issues affecting national priorities.

 The Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force improves coordination,

collaboration, and transparency among the Federal departments and agencies in floodplain

management efforts, and works closely with local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area

governments, the private sector, and nonprofit organizations.

 The National Response System is the Federal Government’s mechanism for mitigation planning

of hazards associated with, and emergency response to, discharges of oil and the release of

hazardous substances to navigable waters or environment of the United States. The National Oil

and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan is the framework for the National

Response System, which functions through a network of interagency and intergovernmental

relationships, such as the National Response Team and the Regional Response Teams.

 SSAs were designated by Presidential directive and given the responsibility to provide

institutional knowledge and specialized expertise, as well as lead, facilitate, or support the

security and resilience programs and associated activities of its designated critical infrastructure

sector in the all-hazards environment.

 NDSP has two supporting coordinating structures: the National Dam Safety Review Board and

the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety.

 NEHRP, Interagency Coordinating Committee acts in the public interest to assess trends and

developments in the science and engineering of earthquake hazards reduction; effectiveness in

carrying out the activities under Section 103(a)(2) of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of

1977, as amended; the need to revise the Program; and its management, coordination,

implementation, and activities.

 National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP), Interagency Coordinating Committee

acts to accomplish significant reductions in windstorm related losses of life and property. The

24
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Program facilitate improvements in windstorm forecast models, warning systems, evacuation 

planning, structural design technology, and community preparedness. 

 National Institute of Building Sciences provides a forum for government and private sector

interaction on research, development, codes, and standards for the built environment and by

supporting advances in building sciences and technologies for the purpose of improving the

performance of buildings and structures while reducing waste and conserving energy and

resources.

 The Public Health Information Network is an HHS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

initiative to establish and support shared policies, standards, practices, and services that facilitate

efficient public health information access, exchange, use, and collaboration among public health

agencies and with their clinical and other partners.

 The National Community Health Resilience Coalition is coordinated by the HHS Office of the

Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response to provide an ongoing venue for Federal and

national stakeholders to share information and promising practices and develop collaborative

opportunities to assist communities to build resilience, particularly as this involves health, social

connectedness, and well-being.

The coordinating structures for mitigation should focus on creating a national culture shift that 

embeds risk management and mitigation in all planning, decision making, and development, as 

practicable. They should also ensure connectivity with the efforts of the whole community through 

mechanisms described in further detail in Appendix B. The primary role of the MitFLG will be to 

serve as the central coordination point for interagency mitigation activities. 

The NDRF provides a flexible structure enabling disaster recovery managers to restore, redevelop, 

and revitalize the health, social, economic, natural, and environmental fabric of the community and 

build a more resilient Nation, citing mitigation as a key component throughout the framework. 

Guidance for Department- and Agency-Level Plans

As required by the National Planning System, “all executive departments and agencies with roles in 

the National Planning Frameworks shall develop department-level operational plans to support the 

interagency operational plans, as needed.” Department- and agency-level operations plans will 

describe how the organization’s capabilities support the application of Mitigation core capabilities, 

within the respective agency’s authorities and funding limitations. Existing plans, standard operating 

procedures, or guides may be used for the development of these plans. The department- and agencylevel plan should contain the level of detail necessary to clearly identify the department’s or agency’s 

specific critical tasks, responsibilities, and resources required to fulfill mission area tasks as 

appropriate under the FIOP. The frequency for reviewing and updating these plans will depend on 

each department’s or agency’s internal business practices. 

Suggested plan elements include: 

 Description of department’s or agency’s vision for mitigation;

 Description of authorities, responsibilities, and ability to implement Mitigation core capabilities;

 Incorporation of continuity planning and operations to ensure Mitigation capabilities are resilient;

 Summaries of overall trends visible within mitigation;

 Identification of Mitigation core capabilities that show the highest degree of progress;

25
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

 Identification of Mitigation core capabilities that show the most significant gaps/needs for

improvement;

 Interagency coordination;

 Identification of resources to support activities;

 Submission date and updated/current schedule consistent with department business practices; and

 Evaluation and consideration of methods to integrate mitigation strategies across department or

agency programs to ensure and supplement the civil rights of individuals with disabilities, from

religious, racially, and culturally diverse backgrounds and with limited English proficiency.

In addition, the departmental- and agency-level operational plans could be used to: 

 Help promote understanding of mitigation to department mission and operations to increase

efficiency of national-level operations and identify possible changes to regulations, guidance, or

policy to further the implementation of the Mitigation core capabilities;

 Serve as a means through which a self-assessment of department activities can be conducted that

have a mitigation connection and/or have mitigation effects and be used as an internal department

document and inform plan development;

 Develop an action plan with milestones to be consistent with department business practices; and

 Serve as a source of information for sharing lessons learned.

Federal roles and responsibilities to improve the Nation’s resilience should focus, where possible, not 

only on using and expanding existing strategic planning documents, interagency implementation 

activities, and coordinating structures, but also on supporting the guidance set forth in this FIOP and 

in departmental operating plans. 

Connection to Other Mission Areas

Cross Cutting Themes

National preparedness activities occur simultaneously across the five mission areas. Therefore, the 

National Planning Frameworks should be integrated to ensure the greatest degree of coordination 

possible and, where appropriate, the smoothest transition from one mission area to another. Further, 

each framework is inextricably linked to the successful implementation of the core capabilities 

described in the other National Planning Frameworks. 

The core capabilities of each mission area should operate in concert with each other to best serve the 

Nation. For the purpose of the FIOP, integration is the means by which the Federal Government 

synchronizes operations and works to enhance operations conducted at the local, state, tribal, 

territorial, and insular area levels either during steady state operations, in support of adaptive risk 

management, or when a disaster strikes. 

Continuity planning and operations are an inherent component to all of the mission areas, especially 

when faced with ever-changing threats, hazards, and risks. The continuation and resiliency of the 

core capabilities that support the mission areas are essential to national preparedness, and continuity 

is the planning paradigm and operational mechanism to ensure its success. 

Common Core Capabilities 

Three common capabilities cut across all five mission areas and serve to provide needed 

integration—Planning; Public Information and Warning; and Operational Coordination. As 

26
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

established in the CONOPS, the goal of integration among the mission areas and across 

governmental levels is achieved through the three common core capabilities. Each of these 

capabilities must be coordinated and integrated across mission areas in order to successfully deliver 

the capability.

The Planning capability acts as a foundation for all mission areas and the entire preparedness 

system. It calls for the whole community, as appropriate, to use a systematic process to develop and 

maintain plans for meeting objectives within all mission areas. Within the Mitigation mission area, 

Planning builds upon existing processes, focusing on the incorporation of risk information to inform 

decision makers. Planning for critical infrastructure will be coordinated between the Protection and 

Mitigation mission areas to support shared objectives. Pre- and post-disaster recovery planning will 

also build on the community-based planning developed through mitigation. 

The Public Information and Warning capability helps ensure an engaged, resilient public that can 

support any of the five mission areas. In mitigation, Public Information and Warning focuses on 

sharing information and communicating risk awareness and mitigation messages among elements of 

the whole community. This information is generated by engineers who support the development of 

building codes, departments and agencies such as DOC/NOAA and USGS, and information from 

DHS and the Intelligence Community (IC). 

The Operational Coordination capability works to integrate stakeholder efforts through a unified 

and coordinated operational structure and process that integrates all critical stakeholders, mitigation 

activities establish protocols for mitigation data elements. These activities facilitate risk-based

decisions to support the whole community. This can include being a part of command and control 

structures during response; of collaborative coordination structures during recovery; and of 

decentralized structures during steady state operations. 

Mitigation Integration with Other Mission Areas

Mitigation activities reduce the impact of disasters by supporting protection and prevention activities, 

easing response, and speeding recovery to create better prepared and more resilient communities. 

Within the entire network of core capabilities, each is dependent on the others to yield results that 

reduce damage and save lives. Mitigation core capabilities enhance the execution of core capabilities 

found in each of the other mission areas through information, assessments, and long-term 

vulnerability reduction strategies to achieve community resilience. When fully and successfully 

executed, Mitigation core capabilities may support the prioritization of Protection efforts by 

identifying threats and hazards, optimizing Response by helping to reduce the impact of disaster, and 

quickening and enhancing efforts in Recovery by analyzing disaster impacts. Through science and 

research, Mitigation capabilities may also help to synchronize efforts to update and rebuild improved, 

more resilient communities.

Prevention Mission Area

Prevention mission threat identification and risk assessment information provide decision makers 

with awareness of and context for an incident. Once specific threats and risks are ascertained, 

communities can then devise appropriate measures for mitigating those threats, thereby reducing 

vulnerability. Prevention reduces threats or the consequences of an attack through effective Federal 

law enforcement, investigative, intelligence, and operational responses to threatened or actual acts of 

terrorism within the United States and its territories. It unifies the collective capabilities of the 

Federal Government to respond to an imminent threat, terrorist attack, and/or follow-on attack. 

Prevention efforts interact with mitigation efforts to ensure a coordinated Federal effort and, as 

necessary, to establish joint priorities across mission space. Prevention and mitigation must be in 

27
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

communication during times of imminent threat so that mitigation assets, to the extent practical and 

appropriate, may be pre-positioned. 

Prevention mission area outreach and community involvement help to establish and maintain strong 

partnerships to increase awareness of potential threats. Intelligence-focused relationships among 

local, state, tribal, territorial, and Federal law enforcement; intelligence and homeland security 

entities; and with the public and private sectors, academia, and other community organizations and 

NGOs facilitate information sharing. In turn, this creates more opportunities to thwart acts of 

terrorism and to lessen the effects of large-scale, manmade catastrophes should they occur. Through 

these dialogues, communities may better deter and detect specific threats and mitigate vulnerabilities. 

They may also develop new ways of reducing risks and reporting successful practices. 

Protection Mission Area

Activities in the Mitigation and Protection mission areas are typically performed in a steady state or 

well before an incident. Protection places particular attention on security and deterrence of threats, 

while mitigation emphasizes reducing vulnerabilities. Both seek to minimize consequences and have 

a shared focus on critical infrastructure. Addressing the security of critical infrastructure falls within 

the Protection mission area, while addressing the resilience of the infrastructure falls within the 

Mitigation mission area. Threats and hazards risk information and analysis are necessary to 

effectively design successful strategies for mitigation and protection. Integration of risk information, 

planning activities, and coordinating structures reduces duplication of effort and streamlines risk 

management actions in both mission areas.

Response Mission Area

Effective community mitigation efforts directly reduce loss of life, property damage, and the required 

scale of response operations. Therefore, they can reduce the overall financial cost. Threats and 

hazards information and risk assessment data can trigger crucial life-saving and life-sustaining 

operations. Tools such as inundation mapping for flood events can be used to plan and determine 

appropriate life-saving actions. Most importantly, these data can be used to develop a better 

understanding of the situation in order to deliver information for decision making, while easing 

transition to recovery. When incidents impede the ability to communicate effectively or develop 

impact assessments, risk analysis and hazard modeling can provide operational assumptions for first 

responders to help them understand more about the situation and better prepare to respond. 

Recovery Mission Area

Mitigation and recovery share a focus on sustainable recovery and overall resilience. Cross-missionarea integration activities, such as planning, are essential to ensuring that risk avoidance and risk 

reduction actions are taken during the recovery process. Integrating mitigation actions into pre- and 

post-disaster recovery plans provides systematic risk management after the incident. During the 

recovery process actions can be taken to address the resilience of population’s health and wellness, 

social systems, the economy, housing, natural and cultural resources, and critical infrastructure.

Lessons learned during the recovery process also inform future mitigation actions. Linking recovery 

and mitigation can help us to break the cycle of damage-repair-damage resulting from rebuilding 

without mitigation following disasters.

An Integrated Approach

Meeting the challenges of current and future disasters requires the concerted effort of all Federal 

agencies in partnership with local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments; NGOs; and 

the private sector to integrate their efforts. The principle of integration ensures unity of effort among 

28
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

all levels of government and all elements of a community. Achieving integrated effort is often 

complicated by crisis-driven planning and divergent organizational processes and cultures. The FIOP 

expands upon how integration can be improved through operational coordination and establishment 

of joint interagency objectives. 

Another critical element for consideration when achieving integration is the organizational structure 

or mechanism in which organizations and individuals operate and interact. Integration can be 

approached from three different organizational perspectives: internal, horizontal, and vertical.8

Internal integration occurs within Federal departments and agencies and within their respective 

programs. Communities of practice, or groups that are bound together by mutual interests, are 

examples of horizontal structures that can achieve integration. Integrated decisions are based on 

consensus and group acceptance of the governing structure. Vertical integration seeks to ensure 

compatibility among entities and levels by encouraging standardization within broad parameters. 

Vertical integration is much more hierarchical and relies on more directive methodologies.

Integration among mission areas will continue to evolve as the CONOPS are exercised and 

implemented and the FIOPs are updated to capture lessons learned. 

8 FEMA, Emergency Management Institute, Principles, Practice, Philosophy and Doctrine of Emergency 

Management, Session 6, Integrated Emergency Management, April 2011.

29
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Oversight, Plan Development, and Maintenance

Mitigation FIOP Review Cycle

This FIOP must reflect current conditions, realities, and stakeholder perspectives. Through a standard 

review, monitoring, and update cycle, the FIOP will remain relevant, credible, and sound for the 

whole community.

Monitoring Process

The MitFLG will monitor actions taken in accordance with this FIOP. It will identify and document: 

 Previously unused, new, or innovative coordination forums/groups/committees that enable the

successful and coordinated delivery of Mitigation core capabilities;

 Mitigation lessons learned from exercises, disaster incidents, and other events;

 Any systemic and capability-level challenges and obstructions;

 Gaps in coordination and missed opportunities; and

 Stakeholder engagement and information provided regarding mitigation.

Review and Update Process

This FIOP will be regularly reviewed to evaluate consistency with existing and new policies; 

evolving threats and hazards; and experience gained from use. Interagency partners will be engaged 

in the review and maintenance process for this FIOP. Reviews of this FIOP will be conducted on a 

quadrennial basis. The review and maintenance process may include developing incident-specific 

and classified annexes, which include the delivery schedule for Federally coordinated assets and 

resources, as appropriate. The FIOP will be updated periodically, as required, to incorporate new 

Executive guidance and statutory and procedural changes, as well as lessons learned from exercises 

and actual incidents.

Significant updates to the Mitigation FIOP will be vetted through a Federal senior-level interagency 

review process. The review process provides an opportunity to reassess the FIOP’s direction and to 

address current conditions and realities by engaging stakeholders, revising the document, and 

publishing an amended version for the whole community. Information reported through the 

monitoring process will be integrated into the FIOP, as appropriate. Where conditions, realities, and 

stakeholder perspectives have changed little or not at all, the FIOP may remain unchanged. The FIOP 

review will accomplish the following:

 Provide an assessment of, and updated information on, the delivery of core capabilities;

 Ensure that the FIOP is consistent with other mission areas;

 Incorporate lessons learned and effective practices; and

 Reflect progress in the Federal Government’s mission activities.

FIOP Application to the Non-Federal Audience

Local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments, NGOs, and private sector entities can 

adapt and reference the comprehensive operational approach to reducing loss of life and property 

offered in the FIOP when conducting their own planning and implementation activities. The 

Mitigation FIOP:

30
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

 Can serve as a resource for interrelated Federal and non-Federal efforts to build and sustain

preparedness;

 Provides a transparent description of the existing organization, strategy, and methodology that

the Federal Government uses to deliver Mitigation core capabilities;

 Merges operational information from across Federal departments and agencies into one

document, streamlining endeavors to explain how the Federal Government supports

accomplishment of the Mitigation mission; and

 Describes the scope of the MitFLG, a group that works to ensure appropriate integration of

Federal mitigation efforts across the whole community.

31
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Authorities and References 

Federal departments and agencies deliver the Mitigation core capabilities as authorized by Federal 

law including Presidential Executive Orders, other Presidential directives, and Federal statutes. 

Authority and direction for the delivery of the core capabilities is further provided in Federal 

regulations and in department and agency policies, guidelines, and directives. Pursuant to the 

National Preparedness Goal, and as stated above, the NMF defines mitigation broadly, 

encompassing, but not limited to, more specific definitions of mitigation, such as that found under 

the Stafford Act. This section highlights some of the key existing authorities that Federal mitigation

partners rely on to execute their mitigation programs and activities. These are intended to be 

illustrative and not comprehensive. A more complete set of relevant Presidential directives, laws, and 

authorities can be developed as needed or coordinated by the MitFLG. An initial review identified 

more than 100 legal authorities that may be relevant to Federal mitigation operations. This document 

is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at 

law or equity, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or 

employees, or any other person. 

National Preparedness Goal and Executive Orders

The National Preparedness Goal describes the Nation’s approach to national preparedness. The intent 

of the National Preparedness Goal is to catalyze integrated preparedness planning across departments 

and agencies, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the general public to strengthen the security and 

resilience of the Nation. The National Preparedness Goal builds on existing authorities and guides 

Federal action, including that which led to the creation of the NMF and this Mitigation FIOP. This 

directive is not intended to interfere with or impede the current authorities in place that have already 

established or reformed mitigation or other preparedness operations across the Federal Government. 

The NMF sets the strategy and doctrine for mitigation, while this FIOP provides guidance to Federal 

departments and agencies for implementation of the NMF and its core capabilities.

Examples of Executive Orders relevant to the National Preparedness Goal include: 

Executive Order 12333, United States Intelligence Activities, 1981 enables the Intelligence 

Community to mitigate the effects of human-caused/adversarial threats. It provides direction to 

departments and agencies on the collection, analysis, production, and dissemination of intelligence, 

reducing the threat to national security through the use of current and accurate information about the 

activities, capabilities, plans, and intentions of foreign entities. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 1977 requires Federal departments and agencies 

to take action to reduce the adverse effects of flooding, to preserve the natural benefits provided by 

floodplains, and to consider alternatives to floodplain development where practicable. This Order, in 

furtherance of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Flood Insurance Act of 

1968, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, directs Federal departments and agencies to 

mitigate flood risk through risk identification, assessment, and reduction. This order was amended by 

Executive Order 13690, 2015 (below). 

Executive Order 13690, Floodplain Management, 2015 requires all future Federally funded 

projects to meet the level of resilience established by the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard. 

This Order directs Federal departments and agencies to consider current and future flood risk so that 

Federal projects are more resilient. This Order, in furtherance of the intent of Executive Order 11988, 

also encourages agencies to consider natural and nature-based approaches where possible. 

32
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 1977;

 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income Populations, 1994;

 Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, 1996;

 Executive Order 13166, Access for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, 2000; and

 Executive Order 13514 Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic

Performance, 2009.

Department and Agency Directives and Congressional Acts

Federal departments and agencies are responsible for executing the laws enacted by Congress. As 

part of that responsibility, they promulgate regulations and issue department or agency directives that 

provide internal policy guidance, delegate authority, establish programs, define procedures, or assign 

responsibilities. These authorities can be specific to certain conditions, such as steady state or 

incident-driven operations, and be directed toward more than one department or agency. Examples of 

statutory authorities relevant to steady state operations include: 

 The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, as amended,

constitutes the statutory authority for most Federal disaster response activities, but it also

includes certain provisions for hazard mitigation. Specifically, it authorizes steady state activities

conducted by FEMA, such as support for communities to develop effective public-private natural

disaster hazard mitigation partnerships, hazard vulnerability assessments, and documentation of

hazard mitigation priorities and plans.

 The Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act was enacted to prepare the

Nation for public health and medical emergencies. This Act includes provisions for the

development of a National Health Security Strategy, which promotes community resilience and

strong and sustainable health and emergency response systems, and expanded preexisting grant

programs to enhance community and hospital preparedness for health emergencies.

Departments and agencies implement steady state mitigation actions that come before incidents but 

also mitigate disasters, by enforcing regulations or providing incentives to support more resilient new 

construction, including roads, bridges, and homes. Examples of departments that take mitigating 

action based on incident-driven triggers are: 

33

 The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act amended the Homeland Security Act

and modified the Stafford Act with respect to the organizational structure, authorities, and

responsibilities of FEMA and the FEMA Administrator. It enhanced FEMA’s responsibilities and

its authority within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and returned many preparedness

functions to FEMA. According to the Act, FEMA leads the coordination of and supports the

Nation in a risk-based, comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness,

protection, response, recovery, and mitigation. Under the Act, the FEMA Administrator reports

directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and FEMA is adistinct entity within DHS.
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Additionally, Federal departments and agencies can use MOUs and memorandums of agreement 

(MOA) to cooperatively carry out mitigation activities as allowed by law.

34

 The Federal Highway Administration in the Department of Transportation (DOT) has an

Emergency Relief program for the repair or reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and roads on

Federal lands that have suffered serious damage as a result of natural disasters and catastrophic

failures from an external cause.9 Emergency Relief funds are available at the pro-rata cost share

that would normally apply to the Federal-aid facility damaged. These actions attempt to mitigate

further loss due to damaged Federal highways.

 The Federal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1977, which enabled the Department of Labor to

work with HHS to mitigate the risk of death and disease in American miners. This interagency

group was directed to establish health and safety standards in mining, and to work with the states

to implement them. The purpose was to not only reduce the risk to miners’ health and safety, but

also to prevent the economic impacts that follow such conditions.

9 23 U.S.C. § 125, as amended, Emergency Relief–Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 

(Public Law 112-55).
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Appendix A: Key Terms and List of Abbreviations

Key Terms

Access and Functional Needs: Persons who may have additional needs before, during and after an 

incident in functional areas, including but not limited to: maintaining health, independence, 

communication, transportation, support, services, self-determination, and medical care. Individuals in 

need of additional response assistance may include those who have disabilities; live in

institutionalized settings; are older adults; are children; are from diverse cultures; have limited 

English proficiency or are non-English speaking; or are transportation disadvantaged. 

Access/Accessible: Suitability or adaptability of programs, services, activities, goods, facilities, 

privileges, advantages or accommodations provided by a public or private (for-profit or not-forprofit) entity, or by any entity to which it contracts for all members of the population, including 

individuals with disabilities.

Adaptive Risk Management: Applies to both steady state and incident-driven activities, and offers 

opportunities for course correction within each. Operational paradigms for steady state and incidentdriven operations include identifying opportunities for continuous improvement. Activities that are 

driven by cycles, indicators, and changes that occur outside of incidents. This includes demographic 

and technological changes and advancements and evolving hazards and changing risk landscapes. 

For instance, advances in technology create new and more accurate ways to assess and mitigate 

hazards, and Federal mitigation action may change based on such advancements. 

Capability Targets: Performance threshold(s) for each core capability. 

Community: Unified groups that share goals, values, or purposes rather than geographic boundaries 

or jurisdictions. Communities bring people together in different ways for different reasons, but each 

provides opportunities for sharing information and promoting collective action. They have the ability 

to promote and implement mitigation activities without necessarily holding a formal position of 

authority within a jurisdiction.

Concept of Operations: A statement that clearly and concisely expresses what is intended to be 

accomplished and how it will be done using available resources. 

Continuity Planning and Operations: The practice of ensuring the execution of essential functions 

in support of the core capabilities and mission areas through all circumstances. It is a fundamental 

responsibility of public and private entities to their stakeholders.

Coordinating Structures: Composed of representatives from multiple departments or agencies, 

public and/or private sector organizations, or a combination of these. Coordinating structures are able 

to facilitate the preparedness and delivery of capabilities, and they provide guidance, support, and 

integration to aid in the preparedness of the whole community and building resilience at the local, 

regional, and national levels. They ensure ongoing communication and coordination between all 

parties involved in preparing and delivering capabilities. 

Core Capabilities: Distinct critical elements necessary to achieve the National Preparedness Goal.

Critical Infrastructure: Systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital that the incapacity 

or destruction of such may have a debilitating impact on the security, economy, public health or 

safety, environment, or any combination of these matters, across any local, state, tribal, territorial, 

and Federal jurisdiction.

A-1 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Cultural Resources: Aspects of a cultural system that are valued by or significantly representative 

of a culture or that contain significant information about a culture. Cultural resources may be tangible 

entities or cultural practices. Tangible cultural resources are categorized as districts, sites, buildings, 

structures, and objects for the National Register of Historic Places and as archaeological resources, 

cultural landscapes, structures, museum objects and archives, and ethnographic resources for Federal 

management purposes. Also includes cultural items as that term is defined in section 2(3) of the 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act [25 U.S.C. § 3001(3)]; and archaeological 

resources, as that term is defined in section 3(1) of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 

1979 [16 U.S.C. § 470bb(1)]. 

Culture of Preparedness: A culture of preparedness is built on a shared acknowledgement of the 

certainty of future catastrophes; the importance of initiative and accountability at all levels; the role 

of citizens and stakeholders in preparedness; and finally, the roles of the whole community in 

creating a prepared Nation.

Environmental Resilience: Minimizing environmental risks associated with disasters, quickly 

returning critical environmental and ecological services to functionality after a disaster while 

applying this learning process to reduce vulnerabilities and risks to future incidents. 

Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator: The FDRC works as a deputy to the Federal Coordinating 

Officer (FCO) for all matters concerning disaster recovery. The FDRC is responsible for facilitating 

disaster recovery coordination and collaboration between the local, state, tribal, and Federal 

governments, the private sector, and voluntary, faith-based, and community organizations. The 

FDRC partners with and supports the Local Disaster Recovery Manager (LDRM) and the State 

and/or Tribal Disaster Recovery Coordinator (SDRC/TDRC) to facilitate disaster recovery in the 

impacted state or tribal area.

Functional Needs: Needs of an individual who under usual circumstances is able to function on their 

own or with support systems. However, during an emergency, their level of independence is 

challenged.

Hazard: Natural, technological, or human-caused source or cause of harm or difficulty. 

 Natural: Source of harm or difficulty created by a meteorological, biological, environmental, or

geological phenomenon or combination of phenomena.

 Technological/Accidental: Source of harm or difficulty created by accidents or failures.

 Adversarial/Human-Caused: Source of harm or difficulty created by an individual, group,

organization, or government.

Incident-Driven Operations: When Mitigation core capabilities are employed to support incidentdriven operations, departments and agencies follow NIMS. Near real-time mitigation actions are 

designed to inform response, remediate impacts, reduce the cascading effects of incidents, and advise 

recovery efforts. Incident-driven operations also include longer-term risk management actions, such 

as rebuilding, outreach, analysis, planning, and implementation activities—following a disaster—to 

produce longer-term risk management gains. 

Individual with Disability: Person (child or adult) who has a physical or mental impairment that 

substantially limits one or more major life activities; a person who has a history or record of such 

impairment; or a person who is perceived by others as having such impairment. The term “disability” 

has the same meaning as that used in the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, 

Public Law 110–325, as incorporated into the Americans with Disabilities Act. See 

http://www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm for the definition and specific changes to the text of the Americans 

A-2 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

with Disabilities Act. State laws and local ordinances may also include individuals outside the 

Federal definition. Children and adults may have physical, sensory, mental health, cognitive, and/or 

intellectual disabilities resulting in access and functional needs and may require assistance to 

maintain independence. 

Insular Areas of the United States: Per the Stafford Act, insular areas include Guam, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Other statutes or departments and agencies may define the term “insular area” differently 

Limited English Proficiency: Term describing an individual who does not speak English as his/her 

primary language and who has a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English. 

Mission Areas: Groups of core capabilities, including Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response, 

and Recovery. 

Mitigation: Capabilities necessary to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of 

disasters. Mitigation capabilities include, but are not limited to, community-wide risk reduction 

projects; efforts to improve the resilience of critical infrastructure and key resource lifelines; risk 

reduction for specific vulnerabilities from natural hazards or acts of terrorism; and initiatives to 

reduce future risks after a disaster has occurred. 

Mitigation Advisor: The Mitigation Advisor brings broad mitigation expertise as an advisor to the 

FDRC and for all Recovery Support Functions (RSFs). Mitigation Advisors can make a large 

difference both in how mitigation is used and in how it is perceived by all the state and Federal 

partners in the NDRF and brings a wide range of opportunities to impact national resilience. The 

FDRC, RSF Field Coordinators, and Unified Federal Review (UFR) Advisor have access to, and are 

informed by, the Mitigation Advisor. 

Mitigation Coordinator: The FEMA Mitigation Coordinators are subject matter experts who 

support the development of the Mitigation core capabilities during the steady state and help ensure 

delivery of those capabilities in all phases of a disaster. The purpose of the FEMA Mitigation 

Coordinator role is to bring broad mitigation expertise across all of the mitigation core capabilities 

and provide the collaboration and coordination with internal and external networks necessary to 

support mitigation and disaster resilience efforts before and after a disaster. The Mitigation 

Coordinator is the critical linkage to content, process, and internal and external partners, serving as a 

coordinator on regional issues pertaining to mitigation and disaster resilience. The Mitigation 

Coordinator is also a resource for the Mitigation Advisor during the recovery phase of a disaster. 

Mitigation Framework Leadership Group: Interagency and intergovernmental body that facilitates 

information exchange and coordinates policy implementation and successful implementation of the 

NMF. The MitFLG serves as the central coordination point for interagency mitigation activities; it 

coordinates and promotes NMF implementation, increases awareness of mitigation throughout the 

Federal Government, and supports the advancement of Mitigation core capabilities through whole 

community mechanisms.

National Incident Management System: Provides a systematic, proactive approach to guide 

departments and agencies at all levels of government, NGOs, and the private sector to work 

seamlessly to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of incidents, 

regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity, to reduce the loss of life and property and harm to 

the environment. NIMS works hand in hand with the NRF. NIMS provides the template for the 

management of incidents, while the NRF provides the structure and mechanisms for national-level 

policy for incident management.

A-3 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

National Planning Frameworks: Address the roles and responsibilities across the whole community 

to deliver the core capabilities. The National Planning Frameworks are built upon scalable, flexible, 

and adaptable coordinating structures to align key roles and responsibilities to deliver the necessary 

capabilities to prevent, protect, mitigate, respond, and recover. The National Planning Frameworks 

provide succinct descriptions, at a high level, of the steps to be taken to prepare to deliver the 

necessary capabilities; the National Planning Frameworks are not intended to be traditional 

operational plans, concept of operations plans, or detailed plans for affirmative action. 

National Preparedness: Actions taken to plan, organize, equip, train, and exercise to build and 

sustain the capabilities necessary to prevent, protect against, mitigate the effects of, respond to, and 

recover from those threats that pose the greatest risk to the security of the Nation. 

National Preparedness Goal: The National Preparedness Goal is aimed at strengthening the security 

and resilience of the United States through systematic preparation for the threats that pose the 

greatest risk to the security of the Nation, including acts of terrorism, cyber attacks, pandemics, and 

catastrophic natural disasters.

Presidential Policy Directive 21 (Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience): Presidential 

Directive which establishes national policy on critical infrastructure security and resilience. Refines 

and clarifies the critical infrastructure-related functions, roles, and responsibilities across the Federal 

Government, as well as enhances overall coordination and collaboration. 

Prevention: Capabilities necessary to avoid, prevent, or stop a threatened or actual act of terrorism. 

Prevention capabilities include, but are not limited to, information sharing and warning; domestic 

counterterrorism; and preventing the acquisition or use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). For 

the purposes of the prevention framework, the term “prevention” refers to preventing imminent 

threats. 

Protection: Capabilities necessary to secure the homeland against acts of terrorism and manmade or 

natural disasters. Protection capabilities include, but are not limited to, defense against WMD threats; 

defense of agriculture and food; critical infrastructure protection; protection of key leadership and 

events; border security; maritime security; transportation security; immigration security; and 

cybersecurity. 

Recovery: Capabilities necessary to assist communities affected by an incident to recover 

effectively, including, but not limited to, rebuilding infrastructure systems; providing adequate 

interim and long-term housing for survivors; restoring health, social, and community services; 

promoting economic development; and restoring natural and cultural resources. 

Resilience: Ability to adapt to changing conditions and withstand and rapidly recover from 

disruption due to emergencies. 

Response: Capabilities necessary to save lives, protect property and the environment, and meet basic 

human needs after an incident has occurred. 

Risk: The potential for an unwanted outcome resulting from an incident, event, or occurrence, as 

determined by its likelihood and the associated consequences. Risk is assessed based on applicable 

threats and hazards, vulnerabilities, and consequences. 

Risk Assessment: Product or process that collects information and assigns a value to risks for the 

purpose of informing priorities, developing or comparing courses of action, and informing decision 

making. 

A-4 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Steady State/Continuous Operations: Mitigation efforts conducted during ongoing operations 

which incorporate program management structures around shared goals, principles, and department 

and agency initiatives and coordinating structures to maximize Federal performance. 

Strategic National Risk Assessment: Assessment identifying the threats and hazards that pose the 

greatest risk to the Nation and providing the basis for establishing the National Preparedness Goal 

and the core capability requirements for all mission areas. The SNRA captures the threats and 

hazards that pose a significant risk to the Nation, grouped into three categories. 

Unified Federal Review Advisor: The interagency coordinator for environmental and historic 

preservation coordination for disaster recovery projects. This role is responsible for identifying 

opportunities for Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) efficiencies and will work closely 

with the RSFs, Mitigation Advisor, local, regional, state, tribal, and Federal agencies in coordination 

with the National UFR Coordinator. The UFR Advisor provides expertise for the implementation of 

the UFR Process and determines the specific tools and mechanisms required to further EHP 

compliance for the specific disaster event.

Unified Federal Review Process: The UFR Process, mandated in the Sandy Recovery Improvement 

Act of 2013, enhances the ability of Federal agencies to expedite the reviews that ensure compliance 

with EHP requirements for disaster recovery projects through a series of new tools and mechanism 

designed to be adaptive and flexible to the needs of a specific disaster. The UFR Process improves 

the efficiency of EHP reviews resulting in the potential for faster decisions on Federally funded, 

approved, or permitted activities that will expedite recovery for communities and other applicants for 

disaster assistance

Whole Community: Includes individuals, families, and households; communities; the private and 

nonprofit sectors; faith-based organizations; and local, state, tribal, territorial, and Federal 

governments. Whole community is defined in the National Preparedness Goal as “a focus on 

enabling the participation in national preparedness activities of a wider range of players from the 

private and nonprofit sectors, including nongovernmental organizations and the general public, in 

conjunction with the participation of all levels of government in order to foster better coordination 

and working relationships..” 

List of Abbreviations

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration 

CONOPS Concept of Operations 

CPG Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOC Department of Commerce 

DOD Department of Defense

DOI Department of the Interior 

DOT Department of Transportation 

A-5 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

DRG Domestic Resilience Group 

EOC Emergency Operations Center

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

FCD Federal Continuity Directive

FCO Federal Coordinating Officer 

FDRC Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIOP Federal Interagency Operational Plan

FNSS Functional Needs Support Services

GCC Government Coordinating Council 

GIS Geographic Information System 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 

HSPD Homeland Security Presidential Directive

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 

IC Intelligence Community 

ICS Incident Command System 

IPC Interagency Policy Committee

JOC Joint Operations Center 

LDRM Local Disaster Recovery Manager

MAT Mitigation Assessment Team

MitFLG Mitigation Framework Leadership Group 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area

NDRF National Disaster Recovery Framework

NDSP National Dam Safety Program

NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program 

NGO Nongovernmental Organization 

NIMS National Incident Management System

NMF National Mitigation Framework 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

A-6 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

NOC National Operations Center 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRF National Response Framework 

NSC National Security Council 

NSPD National Security Presidential Directive

NSTC National Science and Technology Council 

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy 

PPD Presidential Policy Directive 

RDRA Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment

Risk MAP Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning 

SCC Sector Coordinating Council 

SDRC State Disaster Recovery Coordinator 

SNRA Strategic National Risk Assessment

SSA Sector-Specific Agency

TDRC Tribal Disaster Recovery Coordinator 

THID Threats and Hazards Identification

THIRA Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment 

U.S.C. U.S. Code 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UFR Unified Federal Review

WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction 

A-7 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

This page intentionally left blank.

A-8 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Appendix B: Delivery of Mitigation Core Capabilities10

Threats and Hazards Identification

Definition: Identify the threats and hazards that occur in the geographic area; determine the frequency 

and magnitude and incorporate this into analysis and planning processes so as to clearly understand 

the needs of a community or entity.

Expanded Capability Description

The identification of threats and hazards occurs on all political, geographical, and organizational 

levels. Appropriate data that are collected in a standardized and well-defined format can be made 

publicly accessible for analysis and assessment by relevant and appropriate entities. Threat and 

hazard identification is an essential part of all planning processes as part of the National Preparedness 

System.

Federal Role

THID involves determining characteristics of the source of harm or characteristics associated with 

impacts, such as the geographic area, frequency, and magnitude. Each threat has unique 

considerations; for example, certain threats and hazards may not be restricted to particular 

geographic locations. Threat and hazard characteristics can be determined through modeling, 

historical data, and other tools and methodologies relevant to the factors that influence the 

manifestation of the threat or hazard. 

The Federal Government supports and guides the efforts of the whole community to enable accurate 

and timely availability of threat and hazard data to meet the needs of analysts and decision makers. 

Federal THID activities span across Federal agencies and out to whole community partners and rely 

on two-way data collaboration—nationally generated and locally derived data.

Target: Identify the threats and hazards within and across local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area 

governments and the top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA), in collaboration with the whole 

community, against a national standard based on sound science.

Critical Tasks

 Identify data requirements across stakeholders.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Collaboration with partners, data users, and data providers.

• How/Example(s): Develop data requirements based on the data user needs and consistent

data formats to develop standards for data and required documentation that promote data use,

sharing, and further analysis and enhancement; identify appropriate level of security

classifications for threat and hazard data to promote the broadest sharing without

compromising data security.

10 Capabilities and targets as defined in the National Preparedness Goal, June 2015, and critical tasks as defined in 

the National Mitigation Framework. 

B-1 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

 Develop and/or gather required data in a timely and accurate manner in order to

effectively identify threats and hazards.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Make grants available for data collection and analysis, standardize data, make

data available and accessible, and improve real-time accessibility and usability of data.

• How/Example(s):

• Surveillance, including health and animal disease surveillance;

• Development of data and documentation standards;

• Agreement on units of measurements;

• Lessons learned from exercises and incidents;

• Consideration of human factors (e.g., whether data collectors are trained, whether

analysts have the proper skills and qualifications);

• Validation, vetting, and screening of methods and results;

• Inspection and enforcement of data standards and documentation;

• Event-driven data collection like levee monitoring and inspections as flood waters rise or

forensic data that can inform short-term recovery or Mitigation Assessment Teams

(MAT) that assess the damage and vulnerability of buildings after an incident; and

• Data catalogues and repositories to enable ready access to available and current data.

 Deploy and maintain continuous, long-term hazards data collection systems.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Make grants available for data collection and analysis, standardize data, make

data available and accessible, and improve real-time accessibility and usability of data.

• How/Example(s): Deployment and maintenance of equipment and data availability from such

means as remote sensing and surveillance, stream gauges, and sensors on critical

infrastructure to support long term trend analysis. This type of data also supports the analysis

of climate changes.

 Ensure that the right data is received by the right people at the right time.

• Stakeholder(s): Academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular

area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Pre-incident planning and exercises, public awareness messaging and

assessment of effectiveness, coordinating structures.

• How/Example(s):

• Identify threats and hazards through national, regional, state, and local level exercises by

not only conducting the exercise, but also incorporating lessons learned;

• Ensure, via healthcare personnel, that public health agencies receive prompt notification

upon identifying reportable diseases;

B-2 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• Develop after-action reports and improvement plans;

• Improve and validate threat and hazard data based upon actual incidents;

• Hurricane warnings;

• Develop partnerships and disseminate information sharing and safeguarding protocols to

private sector and critical infrastructure partners;

• Social media;

• Alert system;

• Physical communications;

• Environmental regulations;

• Operation centers;

• Employ a consistent data format;

• Standardize data and measurements;

• Customize the medium of communication for audiences; and

• Ensure Regional USDA personnel work with rural communities to assist them in

floodplain identification and mitigating the impact of a flood on their farms (Natural

Resources Conservation Service [NRCS], formerly the U.S. Soil Conservation Service).

 Share appropriate data on natural and manmade hazards in a transparent and usable

manner.

• Stakeholder(s): Academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular

area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Conferences, meetings, mitigation plans, national databases, Web sites, data

catalogs, modeling tools, local ordinances, and public messaging.

• How/Example(s): Develop Web sites, data repositories, data catalogs, and other means of

collection and dissemination for open source data. Examples are FEMA’s publicly accessible

Web site to view and download flood hazard maps and geographic information system (GIS)

data and documentation and the USGS National Earthquake Information Center’s Web site to

view and download tectonic fault mapping and current and historical data and maps on

earthquakes.

 Strike a proper balance between dissemination and classification of national security and

intelligence information.

• Stakeholder(s): Academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular

area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Vertical structures among organizational units; local, state, tribal, territorial,

insular area governments, and Federal laws requiring notification of imminent breach of

security.

• How/Example(s): Terrorist threats or warnings, regular inspections of facilities, security

protocols for data access.

B-3 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

 Build cooperation between private and public sectors by protecting internal interests but

sharing THID resources and benefits.

• Stakeholder(s): Academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular

area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Shared research, patents, accessible and/or shared data banks and repositories

or Web sites.

• How/Example(s):

• Cybersecurity;

• Academic research;

• Condition assessments;

• Stakeholder outreach;

• Subject matter expert advisement;

• Participation on committees;

• Participation in exercises;

• Scenario building and simulation;

• Training and participation in common command structure (e.g., Incident Command

System [ICS]);

• Federal Register Request for Information, open comment period;

• Safety commissions; and

• Working partnerships.

 Leverage available third-party data, tools, and information; social media; and open-source

technology.

• Stakeholder(s): Academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular

area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Conferences, open access Web sites and data banks, academia.

• How/Example(s): Use existing data that has been or can be validated through documentation

review or independent review. Examples of potential third-party data include World Bank

and United Nations data which are available and can be leveraged for threat and hazard

identification purposes by other entities; geospatial data; and social media.

 Translate data into meaningful and actionable information through appropriate analysis

and collection tools to aid in preparing the public.

• Stakeholder(s): Academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular

area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Translate data to develop customized messaging that target audiences can

understand and relate to so that their awareness of the threat or hazard is increased.

• How/Example(s): Simplify complex scientific analyses into a format which individuals can

readily understand, such as maps showing the extents of flooding or hurricane tracks

predicting the path of a hurricane over multiple days.

B-4 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment

Definition: Assess risk and disaster resilience so that decision makers, responders, and community 

members can take informed action to reduce their entity’s risk and increase their resilience.

Expanded Capability Description

RDRA is the evaluation of threats, hazards, vulnerabilities, needs, and resources through algorithms 

or other methods to define and prioritize risks so community members, decision makers, and 

responders can make informed decisions and take appropriate action. Such an assessment directly 

connects threat and hazard data and information in order to analyze and understand the potential 

effects on a community. A robust RDRA capability allows a comparison and prioritization of risks 

from disparate threats and hazards across a variety of communities and jurisdictions. RDRA 

outcomes such as analysis and data can be leveraged in planning efforts and resource allocations 

across the other mission areas.

Federal Role

The Federal Government has a responsibility to support and guide the efforts of the whole 

community through regulatory authorities, funding, incentives, expertise, and leadership. RDRAs are 

part of a comprehensive planning process that involves all organizational levels: local, state, tribal, 

territorial, insular area, Federal, nongovernmental, and private entities.

Target: Ensure that local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments and the top 100 MSAs 

complete a risk assessment that defines localized vulnerabilities and consequences associated with 

potential natural, technological, and human-caused threats and hazards to their natural, human, 

physical, cyber, and socioeconomic interests. 

Critical Tasks

Data 

 Share risk assessment data, both new and existing, to establish common operations across

mission areas and standardized data requirements and guidance. Secure sensitive data as

appropriate.

• Stakeholder(s): Academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area,

and Federal governments; private sector; and nonprofit organizations.

• Mechanism(s): Legislation, policies, grants, publications, professional standards, professional

associations. 

• How/Example(s):

• Flood plain mapping;

• Dam and levee safety inspections;

• Protecting proprietary and sensitive information (confidential business information)

provided to the Federal Government by whole community partners and providing risk

assessment information to them in return;

• Maintaining, via the Federal Highway Administration, a National Bridge Inventory which

can be used as a risk and resilience assessment dataset;

B-5 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• Continuing to expand and develop procedures for information sharing and safeguarding

(imperative, as neither industry, nor government alone can monitor all cyber threats); and

• Monetary value, standards for poverty levels, educational assessments.

 Establish standard data formats to enable sharing of vulnerability data and risk assessment

outputs.

• Stakeholder(s): Federal Government, nonprofit organizations, private sector.

• Mechanism(s): Legislation, policy, professional standards.

• How/Example(s): Monetary value, standards for poverty levels, educational assessments.

 Provide the right data to the right people at the right time.

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments; private

sector; and nonprofit organizations.

• Mechanism(s): Legislation, guidance, conferences, open-source data.

• How/Example(s):

• Maps;

• Census data;

• Common operating pictures (e.g., software, guidebook), especially for time sensitive

data;

• Timely and relevant information as plans and regulations are being developed at all levels

of government;

• Partnerships, including NGOs, the private sector, and industry, to ensure delivery to the

right people; and

• Ports and Waterway Safety Assessments offered to industry stakeholders by the U.S.

Coast Guard (USCG).

 Incorporate vulnerability datasets such as population, demographic, infrastructure

inventory, and condition assessment information; climatological, geological, and

environmental factors; critical infrastructure, lifelines, and key resources; building stock;

and economic data to calculate the risk from the threats and hazards identified.

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments; private

sector; and nonprofit organizations.

• Mechanism(s): Legislation, guidance, regulations, policies, grants, open source data.

• How/Example(s): Maps, census, drinking and wastewater infrastructure data, financial

analysis, models.

 Incorporate data from lessons learned and statistical information to target consideration of

populations (such as for people with disabilities and others with access and functional

needs, limited English proficiency populations, and racially, culturally, and ethnically

diverse communities).

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments; private

sector; and nonprofit organizations.

B-6 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• Mechanism(s): Policy and regulations, open-source databases, universities, census data, GIS

mapping, Language Access Planning Tools, and limited English proficiency government

technical assistance materials.

• How/Example(s): Analysis of data, studies to identify actions.

 Update risk assessments to include changes to the risks and the physical environment. This

includes aging infrastructure, new development, new technologies, new mitigation projects

and initiatives, post-event verification/validation, new technologies or improved

methodologies, and better or more current data.

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments; private

sector; and nonprofit organizations.

• Mechanism(s): Legislation, policies, grants, private sector markets.

• How/Example(s): Records of dams, structural monitoring, sensors, weather forecasting.

 Create and maintain redundant systems for storing information and essential records.

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments; private

sector; and nonprofit organizations.

• Mechanism(s): Policy and regulations, open-source databases, universities.

• How/Example(s): Multiple data storage centers, daily back-up of information technology

systems. 

Analysis

 Perform credible risk assessments using scientifically valid and widely used risk assessment

techniques.

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments; private

sector; and nonprofit organizations.

• Mechanism(s): Legislation, policy, professional associations, research grants, market forces.

• How/Example(s): GIS tools, structural condition assessments, remote sensing, and analytical

and economic modeling software programs.

 Understand social and structural vulnerabilities.

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments; private

sector; and nonprofit organizations.

• Mechanism(s): Legislation, policy, professional associations, research.

• How/Example(s): Standards for poverty levels, educational assessments, public health and

environmental assessment, cultural competence and language accessibility, and individuals

with disabilities.

 Incorporate knowledge gained by those who have experienced incidents to help understand

all the interdependencies, cascading impacts, and vulnerabilities associated with threats

and hazards.

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments; private

sector; and nonprofit organizations.

B-7 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• Mechanism(s): Legislation, policy, professional associations, conferences, research.

• How/Example(s): Forensic studies, debriefing reports.

 Validate, calibrate, and enhance risk assessments by relying on experience and knowledge

beyond raw data or models.

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments; private

sector; and nonprofit organizations.

• Mechanism(s): Legislation, policy, professional associations, research grants, forensic data

collection. 

• How/Example(s): After-action reports, expert opinion, educational and skill assessments.

 Develop analysis tools to provide information more quickly to those who need it and make

use of tools and technologies, such as GIS.

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments; private

sector; and nonprofit organizations.

• Mechanism(s): Legislation, policy, professional associations, research grants, market forces.

• How/Example(s): GIS, analytical software programs, data standardization.

 Consolidate analysis efforts to remove useless duplication and provide a more uniform

picture of the risks.

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments; private

sector; and nonprofit organizations.

• Mechanism(s): Legislation, policy, professional associations, research.

• How/Example(s): Open access data, public research funds, and conferences.

Education and Training

 Build the capability within communities to assess, analyze, and apply the knowledge of risk

and resilience.

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments; private

sector; and nonprofit organizations.

• Mechanism(s): Legislation, policy, professional associations, research.

• How/Example(s): Training programs, higher education curriculums.

 Ensure that data users and assessment stakeholders get the best available data and

understand the assumptions/estimations made in the methodology.

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments; private

sector; and nonprofit organizations.

• Mechanism(s): Legislation, policy, professional associations, research.

• How/Example(s):

• Training programs;

• Higher education;

B-8 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• Public awareness;

• Conferences; and

• Informed continuity of government and operations planning, to minimize disruption from

incidents.

 Train stakeholders to develop risk assessments and have the same accurate and

comprehensive standards of assessment outputs.

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments; private

sector; and nonprofit organizations.

• Mechanism(s): Legislation, policy, professional associations, research.

• How/Example(s): Training programs, higher education, public awareness, and conferences.

 Use risk assessments to design exercises for response activities and to determine the

feasibility of mitigation projects and initiatives.

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments; private

sector; and nonprofit organizations.

• Mechanism(s): Legislation, policy, professional associations, research.

• How/Example(s): Training programs, higher education, gaming exercises, economic

modeling programs, conferences.

Planning

Definition: Conduct a systematic process engaging the whole community as appropriate in the 

development of executable strategic, operational, and/or tactical level approaches to meet defined 

objectives.

Expanded Capability Description

At some level, planning is an activity performed by every Federal department and agency. Federal 

departments and agencies conduct strategic planning to establish or reaffirm goals and objectives of 

the organization, they conduct site-specific planning for Federal facilities, or they require planning as 

a condition of program assistance. For the purposes of the Mitigation FIOP, planning is related to 

activities and actions that influence how Federal interagency mission objectives are delivered, 

regardless of what threats or hazards arise. 

Planning is an ongoing process informed by values, data, demographics, market trends, etc. 

Communities and regions develop plans to guide local decision making regarding community 

development and infrastructure investments. Plans lay out priorities regarding where, when, and how 

development activity should occur within a community, region, and cumulatively, a state. 

Community planning, including the development of hazard mitigation and land use plans, typically 

happens before a disaster event or incident. Key steps include articulating a community vision and 

incorporating principles focusing on long-term resilience for where development activity can and 

should occur. Thus, local land use or community plans can support a development pattern that 

reduces community risk and vulnerability to multiple hazards. This contributes to a long-term plan to 

support the sustainability of resilient investments in infrastructure and whole community efforts. 

B-9 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Federal Role

The act of community planning is primarily a local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area activity.

However, Federal departments and agencies can play a supportive role that builds capacity for local 

planning activities, encouraging the integration of best development practices into local planning 

efforts, assisting with regional coordination to plan for resilience, and aligning to Federal guidelines 

and standards that help ensure smart investments in resilience and mitigation for infrastructure and 

other community efforts. The Federal Government also requires plans (e.g., hazard mitigation plans 

or Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] consolidated plans) as a prerequisite to 

qualify for certain Federal funds. The Federal Government helps to coordinate and implement 

Federal programs, they provide grant funding to develop program specific plans, and they facilitate 

the development of plans to encourage certain behaviors. One example is the HUD–DOT–EPA 

Partnership for Sustainable Communities, which provides grants and assistance to support the efforts 

of states, communities, and tribal nations to encourage development that provides housing and 

transportation choices, protects the environment, and improves the economy. In addition, data and 

information are developed and provided by a variety of Federal departments and agencies to support 

mitigation planning. Through interagency working groups and coordination with agencies, the White 

House CEQ balances competing positions and encourages government-wide coordination, bringing 

Federal agencies; local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments; and others together on 

matters relating to the environment, natural resources, and energy. The CEQ co-chairs (with the 

OSTP) the Interagency Climate Adaptation Task Force, which develops action plans to address 

issues related to climate change.

Federal agencies use planning to help deliver their own projects and programs. Strategic planning 

across departments and agencies is critical in identifying and acting upon shared objectives. For 

example: 

 The Strategic Plan for the NDSP sets the national agenda for dam safety and informs and

supports other dam safety programs at the state and Federal levels.

 The National Infrastructure Protection Plan provides a unifying framework that integrates a range

of efforts designed to enhance the safety of the Nation’s critical infrastructure. The overarching

goal of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan is to build a safer, more secure, and more

resilient Nation by preventing, deterring, neutralizing, or mitigating the effects of a terrorist

attack or natural disaster.

 The Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction is a Federal interagency body of the NSTC under the

Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability. The Subcommittee on

Disaster Reduction developed the Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction, a 10-year national

strategy document for prioritizing Federal investments in science and technology to reduce

disaster risks and promote resilient communities.

 The National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program is designed to reduce the impact of tsunamis

through planning hazard assessment, warning guidance, and mitigation. The National Tsunami

Hazard Mitigation Program is a partnership among the DOC/NOAA, USGS, FEMA, National

Science Foundation, and the 28 U.S. coastal states, territories, and commonwealths.

 The National Health Security Strategy was developed to secure the Nation and its people to be

prepared for, protected from, and resilient in the face of incidents with health consequences.

 The Infrastructure Resilience Guidelines developed by the Federal interagency as part of the

Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy provide a common sense approach to plan the use of

limited Federal resources wisely. Founded upon logical principles that break down barriers to

B-10
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

strong decision making, the guidelines help ensure Federal agencies have a consistent approach 

to building resilience and improved decision making for better protecting communities by setting 

criteria for investment and establishing standards that align infrastructure investment projects 

with national policy goals. The Guidelines help inform infrastructure investment by establishing 

a foundation for who should be part of the decision making process, how to invest in projects that 

focus on resilience, and how to incentivize resilience across the Nation. 

Federal departments and agencies that manage Federal lands are also involved in planning activities.

From military installations to national parks, planning is essential to the missions of these agencies.

Federal projects that involve construction of buildings, infrastructure (e.g., dams, highways), or 

management of facilities all depend upon planning to ensure that program commitments are met. 

Integrating planning efforts across sectors, disciplines, and mission areas and sharing risk analysis 

and vulnerability assessments eliminates redundancy and identifies common solutions. There are 

many Federal programs that require or encourage local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area 

planning. The Federal role is to develop a coordinated approach to planning to reduce redundant 

efforts, leverage resources, and encourage more comprehensive plans. 

Target: Develop approved hazard mitigation plans that address relevant threats/hazards in 

accordance with the results of their risk assessment within all local, state, tribal, territorial, and Federal 

partners.

Critical Tasks

The critical tasks listed below are ongoing tasks that communities are currently engaged in to support 

more integrated planning efforts that involve the whole community and that build resilience within a 

community to hazards. Tasks are interrelated. 

 Embed risk-based decision making into the planning process.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Regulations outline planning requirements (which require risk-informed

mitigation strategies), agency policies promote integration of mitigation plans, and other

land-use based planning and resources (e.g., training, data, and funding) support planning.

• How/Example(s): The Federal role is to provide technical assistance and support to local,

state, tribal, territorial, and insular area entities engaged in planning and to also foster

integration of mitigation into land-use/comprehensive planning whenever possible. Federal

departments and agencies responsible for Federal lands and facilities can integrate findings

from risk assessments into their planning activities. FEMA and the American Planning

Association have developed a document identifying strategies for integrating mitigation into

ongoing community land use planning (Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into

Planning, American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report Number 560).

The document has been widely disseminated to comprehensive land use planners across the

Nation, and FEMA is continuing to look for opportunities to incentivize the integration of

risk-based decision making into local planning processes.

 Collaborate, cooperate, and build consensus across other disciplines that impact plans.

Coordination efforts help to maximize Federal investments toward common goals, promote

interagency collaboration, and deliver Federal resources more efficiently and effectively.

Coordination can also help to reduce the burden on communities to deliver multiple plans for

similar or interdependent functional areas (e.g., transportation, housing, hazard mitigation).

B-11
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Regulations outline planning requirements (which support cross-discipline

engagement), Federal department and agency policies promote integration, and resources

(e.g., training, data, and funding) are provided to support planning.

• How/Example(s): The Federal Government has a primary responsibility to provide leadership

in this area, although the help of local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area government

entities is needed to support this effort. Federal actions affect local and regional development

patterns and plans. Within the Federal Government, planning requirements should be aligned

when appropriate to support and enhance local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area

government plans. Federal departments and agencies are working collaboratively to reduce

redundancy and support consistency. For instance, as part of the HUD–DOT–EPA

Partnership for Sustainable Communities, all three agencies are collaborating to ensure that

their programs, policies, and investments are aligned and in support of six livability

principles that support sustainable communities and community resilience. In addition,

DOC/NOAA, USGS, and USACE make up the Integrated Water Resources Science and

Services consortium—an innovative partnership of Federal agencies with complementary

operational missions in water science, observation, prediction, and management. The

Integrated Water Resources Science and Services consortium has developed a roadmap that

identifies the human dimensions, technical components, and science needed to achieve

operational goals that include integrating service and service delivery, improving river

forecasts, and providing new “summit-to-sea” high resolution water resources information

and forecasts. Another example is the Zoo and Aquarium All-Hazards Preparedness,

Response, and Recovery Fusion Center, which is a collaborative partnership between USDA

and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums to plan and prepare to prevent or mitigate

cascading effects caused by captive wildlife during disasters and animal disease incidents.

 Understand the demographics and systems that make up the community and their

vulnerabilities and interdependencies with each other. Knowledge of a community,

characteristics of its population, regional considerations, and its critical systems are essential to

determining the community’s vulnerabilities and to identifying appropriate solutions that have

the support of the whole community.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Technical assistance and training can help build capability and understanding

of the need for this task.

• How/Example(s): This is essentially a regional or local responsibility, although the Federal

Government can support this task by providing technical assistance and training. FEMA’s

Hazard Mitigation Planning tools and guidance assist communities in developing a planning

process that includes establishing a planning team and coordination with other planning

processes. DOT requires Existing Betterment Plans to facilitate rebuilding of roads and

bridges to a higher standard than pre-incident standards.

 Include disability and other access and functional needs subject matter experts in

mitigation planning to address considerations, such as architectural accessibility through

compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act architectural standards; disability and

other access and functional needs advocacy organizations, such as independent living

B-12
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

centers; and providers of disability services, support, and advocacy, and other access and 

functional needs-related assistance/functional needs support services (FNSS). Also, 

understand the civil rights of service animal users, such as being able to use all parts of 

facilities the public uses without being separated from their service animals.11 

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Technical assistance, guidance, and tools are provided to our partners to

ensure that these issues are addressed in the development of plans.

• How/Example(s): The Federal Government ensures that every Federal dollar spent complies

with the appropriate civil rights law and requirements for non-discrimination, equal

opportunity, and accessibility needs. HUD has several initiatives to promote disability rights

in public and private housing. In addition, every FEMA Regional Office has a disability

integration specialist; numerous Federal departments and agencies have civil rights offices

that promote and work to ensure compliance with Federal civil rights laws.

 Assess the full range of animal populations and potential issues they pose in the community,

to ensure that the jurisdiction is equipped to comprehensively address human and animal

issues and take steps to mitigate vulnerabilities in this area before, during, or after a

disaster. Understanding and integrating animal issues in mitigation planning helps ensure that

necessary actions are coordinated and implemented to reduce risks.

• Stakeholder(s): The Federal Government supports local and regional governments in this

task.

• Mechanism(s): The majority of animal response resources in the United States are in the

private and non-profit sectors, making coordination critical to prevent or mitigate animalrelated issues during disasters. Awareness, technical assistance, and training help build

capability and understanding of the full range of animal issues. Animal disease surveillance

methods or capability provide tools to accomplish surveillance and analyze results, or in

some cases, such as diseases foreign to the United States, provide confirmation services.

• How/Example(s): When appropriate and capable resources exist, the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will work with local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular

area government planners and responders to assist them in identifying all hazard animal

issues (including agriculture animals, pets, service and assistance animals, research animals,

captive wildlife, and wildlife) and training needs to address response gaps, and reach back

capabilities that could provide technical assistance. APHIS has tools that can be used by

local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area animal health specialists to develop surveillance

plans or provide laboratory services support and confirmation. APHIS also has tools or

expertise to develop and run disease spread models that can be used to evaluate response

strategies or mitigations as well as develop scenarios to be used in exercises.

 Incorporate the findings from the assessment of risk and disaster resilience into planning

processes. These tasks are the foundation of mitigation planning. Building risk information into

11 As members of the community who may be affected by incidents, animals may include household pets, service

and assistance animals, working dogs, livestock, wildlife, exotic animals, zoo animals, research animals, and

animals housed in shelters, rescue organizations, breeding facilities, and sanctuaries.

B-13
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

the planning process will raise awareness of risks and vulnerabilities, leading to decisions and 

actions to reduce risk or accept certain levels of risk.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Regulations outline planning requirements (which require risk-based

mitigation strategies), agency policies promote integration of mitigation plans, and other

land-use based planning and resources (e.g., training, data, and funding) support planning.

Provide guidance and share best practices on using risk assessments to inform economic

analyses and investment decisions.

• How/Example(s): The Federal role is to provide technical assistance and support to local,

state, tribal, territorial, and insular area entities engaged in planning and to also foster

integration of mitigation into land-use/comprehensive planning whenever possible. Federal

departments and agencies responsible for Federal lands and facilities can integrate findings

from risk assessments into their planning activities. FEMA and the American Planning

Association have developed a document identifying strategies for integrating mitigation into

ongoing community land use planning (Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into

Planning, American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report Number 560).

The document has been widely disseminated to comprehensive land use planners across the

Nation, and FEMA is continuing to look for opportunities to incentivize the integration of

risk-based decision making into local planning processes.

 Seek out and incorporate the whole community in planning efforts. Community and

comprehensive plans are expressions of a community’s vision for the future. The extent that a

community’s plan reflects the goals and values of the public depends considerably on whether

the whole community participated in its development. Involving the whole community in planning

efforts also helps to build and broaden the plan implementation efforts. Inclusion of the whole

community and its values necessitates that local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area

governments provide accessible and culturally and linguistically appropriate information,

disseminated through media outlets serving racially and ethnically diverse audiences.

• Stakeholder(s): The Federal Government supports this task, although it is primarily a local,

state, tribal, territorial, and insular area government responsibility.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government can support this task through technical assistance

and by regulation and guidance. Federal guidance can also support the development of

coalitions or community workgroups to plan and prepare for public health emergency events.

• How/Example(s):

• Utah has developed an innovative Web site to encourage broad participation in statewide

planning processes (http://envisionutah.org).

• HHS’s public health and healthcare capabilities guidance documents are designed to

facilitate and guide public health and healthcare preparedness planning and ultimately

assure safer, more resilient, and better-prepared communities.

(http://www.phe.gov/preparedness/planning/hpp/reports/documents/capabilities.pdf and

http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/capabilities/dslr_capabilities_july.pdf). These documents

provide a guide that local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area jurisdictions can use to

better organize their work, plan their priorities, and decide which capabilities they have

B-14
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

the resources to build or sustain. The capabilities also help ensure that Federal 

preparedness funds are directed to priority areas within individual jurisdictions.

 Build on the expertise, knowledge, and systems in place within the community. This is

essential to promoting successful ongoing planning processes. Comprehensive planning is an

ongoing task in many communities, and states often require localities to update plans at regular

intervals. However, consideration of risk and vulnerability are most often addressed through the

local hazard mitigation planning process. Integrating hazard mitigation planning into the typical

comprehensive planning process can help build on the existing capabilities and increase

consistency across community decisions regarding the built environment and development

activity.

• Stakeholder(s): The Federal Government supports this task, but it is primarily a local, state,

tribal, territorial, and insular area government responsibility.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government can support local efforts to increase community

capabilities in ongoing planning processes that integrate risk-based decision making through

a range of mechanisms. Federal department and agency policies promote actions and

activities, and resources (e.g., training, data, and funding) are provided to support planning.

• How/Example(s):

• FEMA has issued regulations that require local hazard mitigation plans as a condition of

receiving mitigation grants.

• USACE has developed the Silver Jackets program to support state planning efforts, and

FEMA and the EPA are helping two communities in North Carolina identify land use and

development strategies that can increase community resilience and further the

coordination of local hazard mitigation and land use plans.

• HUD provides financial support to regions and localities though its Regional Planning

Grant program and Local Challenge Grant Program.

 Coordinate the planning and development of interconnected initiatives that may have

geographic, functional, or funding connections.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government can help identify planning efforts or funding

mechanisms that may be used to supplement one another.

• How/Example(s): The Federal Government can identify programs that support similar

mitigation efforts without duplicating programs to provide potential linkages or best practices

to better connect planning and initiatives.

 Share success stories where resilience-based planning has demonstrated measureable

effectiveness in creating economic vitality within communities. Recognition programs can be

an effective way to share success stories and lessons learned and to encourage increased

innovation in planning practices.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

B-15
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government can provide leadership in defining best practices in

resilience-based planning, developing recognition programs, and sharing success stories

through publications and Web sites.

• How/Example(s): The Federal Government can recognize communities nationwide for

innovative solutions and best practices. Programs can be implemented to recognize a range of

best practices that include but are not limited to resilient and sustainable communities.

StormReady/TsunamiReady Communities (DOC/NOAA) as part of Weather Ready Nation,

and National Award for Smart Growth Achievement (EPA).

 Engage in a peer-to-peer and regional partnership (coalition) mentoring structure that

promotes best practices, particularly when the planning capability is not present in a

community. Interactions among communities can provide a common understanding of local

issues and mechanisms for problem solving and in building interest and capability.

• Stakeholder(s): This is not primarily a Federal responsibility, but can be supported by the

Federal Government in terms of providing support for various mentoring structures.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government could provide technical assistance in developing

mentoring structures and financial support to organizations in implementing the task.

• How/Example(s): Hazus is a nationally applicable standardized methodology that contains

models for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes. Hazus User

Groups provide a forum for users to meet and collaborate on innovative uses of Hazus, to

share lessons learned, and to provide support to communities in the use of Hazus.

 Foster public-private partnerships to promote resilience and maximize the use of available

resources. Engaging private entities in building local capacity for planning related activities can

help reduce vulnerability of all community assets. Public-private partnerships can also help

supplement local planning efforts.

• Stakeholder(s): The Federal Government supports the development of public-private

partnerships. 

• Mechanism(s): Federal technical assistance can be used to identify the benefits to private

entities to demonstrate that mitigation makes good business sense.

• How/Example(s): Project Impact was a Federal initiative that worked to create disasterresistant communities through teamwork at all government levels and close partnerships with

the private and nonprofit sectors. HHS promotes healthcare coalitions and partnerships

among healthcare facilities (both public and private) and other healthcare assets in the

community to organize and implement the mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery

actions of medical and healthcare providers in a jurisdiction’s healthcare system.

 Promote planning initiatives through multiple media sources. Using media sources, including

media outlets that serve racially and ethnically diverse audiences, to both raise awareness of

ongoing planning efforts and also the impact that such efforts are having within a community,

can help to increase community buy-in to the planning process and help community members get

behind a community plan.

• Stakeholder(s): The Federal Government supports this task, although it is primarily a local

and regional function.

B-16
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• Mechanism(s): Federal technical assistance could include support for town hall meetings,

public service announcements, and other media outreach efforts, such as ethnic radio and

television stations and newspapers.

• How/Example(s):

• The HUD–DOT–EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities has developed a robust

outreach plan to identify the goals of this initiative.

• Utah has developed a Web site to promote statewide planning initiatives:

https://sites.google.com/a/utah.gov/utah/.

Community Resilience

Definition: Enable the recognition, understanding, communication of, and planning for risk, and 

empower individuals and communities to make informed risk management decisions necessary to 

adapt to, withstand, and quickly recover from future incidents.

Expanded Capability Description

Community Resilience provides the initiative and energy to increase resilience in all the areas that 

make up a community—economic, health and social sciences, housing, infrastructure, and natural 

and cultural resources—through risk management and employing the other core capabilities. 

Community Resilience requires leadership, collaboration, partnership building, education, and skill 

building to prepare our communities, property, critical infrastructure resources, and economy to 

absorb the impact of a threatening event and bounce back in a manner that sustains our way of life. A 

community uses these skill sets to increase awareness of, understand, and assess its risks and to plan, 

coordinate, and execute actions that reduce vulnerability over the long term. The Community 

Resilience capability supports and orchestrates all mitigation activities. A whole community 

approach to building sustainable and resilient communities requires finding ways to support and 

strengthen the culture, institutions, assets, and networks that already work well in communities and 

are working on a daily basis to address issues important to community members. 

Federal Role

Federal agencies have a unique opportunity to promote community resilience. Mitigation can protect 

both people and property from disasters by taking action to prevent consequences before a disaster 

strikes. Through coordination, cooperation, and collaboration, Federal agencies can work together to 

more effectively address complex large-scale issues that cut across multiple department and agency 

missions, developing continuity of operations plans, supporting resilience initiatives, and enabling 

informed, risk-based decision making at the local level where the effects of disasters are felt. The 

Federal role in developing and maintaining community resilience is in building and sustaining 

capacity and capability in communities and organizations across the Nation through grants, technical 

assistance, products, services, training, and other support mechanisms. In order to address the full 

range of risk and vulnerability issues across the Nation, Federal agencies must provide coordinated 

messages and delivery of a variety of programs. Federal activities, regulations, and funding should 

allow communities to better understand the complexities of risk and vulnerability and to begin to 

consider not only the high probability issues, but the low probability/high risk scenarios. Support in 

executing critical tasks to improve community resilience comes from a wide range of Federal 

partners. See examples below. 

B-17
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Targets: 

 Maximize the coverage of the U.S. population that has a localized risk-informed mitigation plan

developed through partnerships across the entire community.

 Empower individuals and communities to make informed decisions to facilitate actions necessary to

adapt to, withstand, and quickly recover from future incidents.

To meet the targets, the plans must be up-to-date and include social science aspects (e.g., risk 

communication) and education aspects (e.g., regular training and exercises). The entire community 

must include representation across broad sectors, including private, public, academic, and 

community-based sectors and levels of government, employers, schools, religious groups, 

professional organizations, advocates for and organizations serving individuals with access and 

functional needs, etc. The plans must also consider the impacts of cascading or multiple concurrent 

events.

To date, all states, territories, and the District of Columbia have engaged in the mitigation planning 

process as defined in 44 C.F.R. Part 201 in developing and maintaining state-level mitigation plans.

Thousands of communities, including local and tribal governments, have also engaged in the 

planning process and developed local or tribal mitigation plans in compliance with 44 C.F.R. Part 

201. 

To assist with coordination of mitigation across the whole community, FEMA will have a Mitigation 

Coordinator in each of the FEMA Regional Offices. The FEMA Mitigation Coordinators are subject 

matter experts who support the development of the mitigation core capabilities during the steady 

state and help ensure delivery of those capabilities in all phases of a disaster. The purpose of the 

FEMA Mitigation Coordinator role is to bring broad mitigation expertise across all of the mitigation 

core capabilities and provide the collaboration and coordination with internal and external networks 

necessary to support mitigation and disaster resilience efforts before and after a disaster. The 

Mitigation Coordinator is the critical linkage to content, process, and internal and external partners, 

serving as a coordinator on regional issues pertaining to mitigation and disaster resilience. The 

Mitigation Coordinator is also a resource for the Mitigation Advisor during the recovery phase of a 

disaster.

Critical Tasks

 Know the systems that make up the community and how to build constructive partnerships

among those systems.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government can support communities to be more resilient by

providing best practices, fostering peer-to-peer mentoring relationships, and providing

information through existing coordinating structures.

• How/Example(s): Federal programs that work directly with stakeholders or can reach them

through existing coordinating structures can provide case studies of communities that have

increased their resilience by understanding the systems that make up the community and

reducing vulnerabilities to those systems, and in turn, cascading impacts from the impairment

or loss of those systems following an incident.

B-18
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

 Assess and understand the risks facing a community, including physical, social, cultural,

economic, and environmental vulnerabilities to all threats and hazards, and foster riskadaptive behaviors.

• Stakeholder(s): Task is local; coordinate and collaborate with other Federal agencies and

state, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments to provide support.

• Mechanism(s): Regulations outline planning requirements (which require risk-informed

mitigation strategies), and Federal agencies provide risk and vulnerability data.

• How/Example(s):

• FEMA Mitigation planning: http://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-planning-overview;

• FEMA Hazus: http://www.fema.gov/hazus;

• FEMA Building Science: http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/buildingscience;

• DOC/NOAA Digital Coast: http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast;

• DOC/NOAA Storm Prediction Center Convective Outlook Web site:

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/outlook;

• USGS Natural Hazards: http://www.usgs.gov/natural_hazards;

• EPA Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool (CREAT),

http://www2.epa.gov/crwu/assess-water-utility-climate-risks-climate-resilienceevaluation-and-awareness-tool;

• EPA and USCG facilitate regional and area contingency planning for potential releases of

hazardous substances and oil with other Federal agencies; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and industry, as outlined by the National Contingency

Plan; and

• HHS: National Disease Surveillance and laboratory testing through the Laboratory

Response Network.

 Recognize and communicate the reinforcing relationships between environmental

stewardship and natural hazard risk reduction (e.g., enhancement of flood storage through

wetland protection/restoration and holistic floodplain management).

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government can highlight the value of environmental

stewardship and how that stewardship can translate to a risk reduction measure, as well as

other benefits that stewardship may also offer a community beyond the mitigation benefits

through programs which support mitigation and resilience.

• How/Example(s): The Community Rating System of the NFIP provides incentives through

insurance rate reductions to policy holders in a participating jurisdiction that take risk

reduction activities that also preserve the natural environment for the storage of floodwaters

in wetland areas.

B-19

• U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit: http://toolkit.climate.gov;
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

 Communicate and utilize the best available, localized climate projections so the public and

private sectors can make informed decisions about adaptation.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Make available and publicize best available climate projections.

• How/Example(s): NOAA makes available sea level rise data through a public Web site:

http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr.

 Know the community’s permanent and transient population demographics and use that

information to plan ahead to address resilience for the whole community, including people

with disabilities and others with access and functional needs. This includes those from

religious, racial, and ethnically diverse backgrounds and people with limited English

proficiency.

• Stakeholder(s): The Federal Government supports these tasks, although they are primarily

local and regional functions.

• Mechanism(s): Examples may include MOAs, interagency agreements, grants, technical

assistance, or products and services.

• How/Example(s):

• Human Dimensions.gov (http://www.hud.gov) is a community of practice and an

interactive Web portal with featured links related to the human dimensions of natural

resource management;

• HHS: Provides targeted technical assistance to jurisdictions on both disease prevention

and community-specific emergency preparedness planning;

• DOC/NOAA: Coastal Resilience provides a framework that supports decisions to reduce

the ecological and socioeconomic risks of coastal hazards:

http://www.coastalresilience.org; the Coastal Storms Program is a nationwide effort led

by DOC/NOAA to make communities safer by reducing the loss of life and negative

impacts caused by coastal storms;

• USACE Silver Jackets initiative: http://www.nfrmp.us/state;

• HUD–DOT–EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities:

http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov; and

• Environmental Justice: http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.

B-20

 Convince community members of the value of mitigation for reducing the impact of

disasters and the scale of response and recovery efforts.

• Stakeholder(s): The Federal Government coordinates and collaborates with other Federal

agencies and local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments, as well as the

private sector, to provide support to communities.

• Mechanism(s): Examples may include MOAs, interagency agreements, grants, technical

assistance, or products and services.

• How/Example(s): Many Federal departments and agencies have education and outreach

components. See examples in the critical tasks above. Developers are one target audience,

since initial development decisions are key to building safety.
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

 Identify and promote sound choices, and discourage choices that increase vulnerabilities

and risks.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government can promote sound practices through data, case

studies, and best practices.

• How/Example(s): Promote sound risk management practices through Federal programs.

 Promote transparency in risk management decision making so that individuals, communities, 

private organizations, and all levels of government demonstrate how resilience is considered. 

Recognize the interdependent nature of the economy, health and social services, housing 

infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources within a community.

• Stakeholder(s): The Federal Government coordinates and collaborates with other Federal

agencies and programs to develop clear messages on the shared goals and values of these

programs. Coordination with appropriate local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area

government agencies is also essential to provide support to communities, and promote riskbased decision making where direct Federal investments are being made.

• Mechanism(s): Federal grant programs, regulatory enforcement of storm water management,

permitting authorities, and technical assistance.

• How/Example(s):

• FEMA Floodplain Management: https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program;

• EPA Office of Sustainable Communities: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth;

• Incident Waste Decision Support Tool (I-WASTE):

http://www2.ergweb.com/bdrtool/login.asp;

• HUD Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities; HUD Community Development

Block Grants: http://portal.hud.gov;

• DOC/NOAA Coastal Zone Management: https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/

• USDA Rural Development: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/home.html ; and

B-21

 Foster sustained communication, civic engagement, and the development and

implementation of proactive planning, response, and long-term risk reduction actions in the

whole community.

 Conduct community preparedness activities that empower individuals and communities

with information and resources that facilitate actions to enhance their resilience and

consider accessibility and cultural sensitivities based upon the community makeup.

 Promote mitigation and resilience to the public through preparedness campaigns to

increase public awareness and motivate individuals to build societal resilience prior to an

event. Promote neighborhood activities and encourage volunteerism that advances

preparedness.

• Ibid.

• Ibid.

• Ibid.
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• UFR Process: https://www.fema.gov/unified-federal-environmental-and-historicpreservation-review-presidentially-declared-disasters.

 Acknowledge and seek out naturally occurring relationships within communities, and build

partnerships and coalitions before disasters or incidents occur.

 Educate the next generation of community leaders and resilience professionals; learn from

the past and from what is working in the present.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Provide opportunities for leaders to learn about risk management, mitigation,

and resilience.

• How/Example(s): Federal Agencies can support activities like the National Preparedness

Campaign to help reach the whole community by supporting local, state, tribal, or territory

governments with executing their own Preparedness Campaign using the resources provided.

Public Information and Warning

Definition: Deliver coordinated, prompt, reliable, and actionable information to the whole community 

through the use of clear, consistent, accessible, and culturally and linguistically appropriate methods to 

effectively relay information regarding any threat or hazard and, as appropriate, the actions being 

taken and the assistance being made available.

Expanded Capability Description

Public Information and Warning incorporates pre- and post-event threat and natural disaster 

educational information, warnings, and reports. Information sharing is multidirectional, and Federal 

agencies share information through a variety of means before, during, and in response to a threat or 

incident in order to guide and inform the public. 

Federal Role

Public Information and Warning includes all information targeted toward creating resilient 

communities. For Federal stakeholders this capability encompasses all the ways that the Federal 

Government presents risk management information. The government collects hazard data, analyzes 

and communicates risks, provides action steps, delivers forecast information, and manages 

information and outreach efforts following disasters. Federal agencies also develop and disseminate 

risk management guidance.

This FIOP provides an opportunity to identify and apply shared platforms and techniques to 

maximize the impact of information and warning efforts, eliminate potential overlaps, and enhance 

the credibility and impact of Federal information and warning activity in support of mitigation. 

Federal departments and agencies operate under existing authorities and target their communications 

to specific audiences. Threats and hazards often require different communication methods and 

restrictions on the use of information that is communicated, but in general Federal departments and 

agencies conduct Public Information and Warning activities for mitigation under shared assumptions. 

Target: Communicate appropriate information, in an accessible manner, on the risks faced within a 

community after the conduct of a risk assessment.

B-22
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Critical Tasks

Federal partners perform critical tasks as identified in the NMF to deliver Public Information and 

Warning capabilities through a wide range of appropriate mechanisms. This ensures that required 

stakeholders are reached with the appropriate information at the appropriate time, without 

interruption, regardless of the threat or hazard faced. 

Steady State Operations 

 Persuade the public that it is worthwhile to build a resilient community. Encourage private

and public sector partners to work together to communicate the benefits of mitigation

action and arrive at solutions. The Federal role is to consistently communicate Federal

capabilities and encourage adoption of mitigation actions through effective communication. By

reframing the national dialogue about community resilience so that the messaging focuses not

just on a line of business, but on how Federal mitigation capabilities help communities get where

they want to go, the Federal Government can better align with non-Federal efforts. This includes

recognizing the importance of messaging in reaching the whole community about how mitigation

fits into the large contexts of community resilience.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government promotes the benefits of mitigation and working

towards achieving a resilient community through Federal administrative structures (defined

in the Concept of Operations section), by providing resources to both Federal and nonFederal partners and by enabling capacity building.

• How/Example(s): Federal departments and agencies manage and support calendared events

such as National Hurricane Preparedness Week (DOC/NOAA) to raise awareness and foster

partnerships. Ongoing, year-round efforts include:

• Public health education (HHS);

• Storm Ready/Tsunami Ready (DOC/NOAA);

• Firewise Communities (U.S. Forest Service);

• Floodsmart (FEMA)

• Quakesmart (FEMA, National Institute of Standards and Technology, USGS); and

• Leadership activities of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

 Increase awareness of the risks and the actions they can take to mitigate those risks

through mechanisms such as preparedness campaigns. The Federal Government promotes

mitigation and resilience to the public through national preparedness campaigns to increase

public awareness and motivate individuals to build societal resilience prior to an event.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government aims to increase public awareness and motivate

individuals to build societal resilience through Federal administrative structures, by providing

resources to both Federal and non-Federal partners, and by enabling capacity building.

B-23
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• How/Example(s): Examples of national preparedness and resilience campaigns include

National Preparedness Month (multiple departments and agencies), National Preparedness

Campaign (FEMA and partner agencies), “Turn Around, Don’t Drown” (DOC/NOAA) and

“Be a Force of Nature” (HHS, FEMA, DOC/NOAA). HHS promotes individual health

readiness and resilience through its Healthy People 2020 campaign.

 Communicate priorities and actions identified through risk analysis and plans to

stakeholders and those expected to take action to reduce risk. Both in regulatory programs

and in actions to support the public interest, Federal departments and agencies create incentives

for risk reduction activity, and pursue risk communication strategies suited to driving behavior

change and reducing risk nationwide.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government communicates incentives for risk reduction actions

through Federal administrative structures, by providing resources to both Federal and nonFederal partners and by enabling capacity building.

• How/Example(s): MAT Reports (FEMA), storm assessments (DOC/NOAA), and after-action

reports (HHS) are examples of activities the Federal Government uses to support the risk

management activities of stakeholders and those expected to take action to reduce risk.

 Refine and consider options to publicly release potentially sensitive risk information.

Federal departments and agencies determine the suitability of information for the appropriate

audience and make any required security determinations.

• Stakeholder(s): Private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area

governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government uses Federal Administrative Structures to determine

which risk information is appropriate to publicly release.

• How/Example(s): The Federal Government communicates potentially sensitive risk

information through means such as the National Terrorism Advisory System (DHS) and by

releasing incident-specific information (e.g., Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], HHS,

DOC/NOAA, FEMA) or epidemiological-specific information (HHS) through existing

methods such as the Joint Information Center.

 Use social media, Web sites, and smartphone applications, as well as more traditional

mechanisms such as community meetings or ethnic media outlets, to inform the public of

actions to take to connect preparedness to resilience. Information and messaging should

ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities or others with access and

functional needs, including those who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind, or have low vision,

through the use of appropriate auxiliary aids and services, such as sign language and other

interpreters and captioning of audio and video materials. Information and messaging should

also be provided in multiple languages and formats in order to ensure effective communication

with individuals with limited English proficiency. The Federal Government aims to leverage all

available and appropriate technology to effectively deliver risk information to the whole

community.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

B-24
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government uses Federal Administrative Structures, including

mechanisms such as information technology systems, publications, brochures, social media,

Web sites, and webinars to inform the public of risk management activities that promote

community resilience.

• How/Example(s): Examples of Federal Government communication mechanisms include

www.Ready.gov (DHS), DOC/NOAA Weather Forecast Office social media pages, and

department and agency Web sites (all).

 Target messages to reach organizations representing children, people with disabilities or

access and functional needs, diverse communities, and people with limited English

proficiency to ensure that the information is accessible and effective so that the full

population is able to understand and act on the information. The success of mitigation

activity is measured by the extent to which all populations in a given community have access to

mitigation-related programs and activities. Public Information and Warning efforts in support of

mitigation must respect the civil rights and civil liberties of all populations and do not result in

discrimination on account of race, color, national origin (including limited English proficiency),

religion, sex, or any form of disability.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government prepares appropriate messaging to reach all

populations through public outreach and the media.

• How/Example(s): FEMA’s Office of Disability Integration and Coordination provides

guidance on planning for integrating all populations in planning activities and

communications.

 Support and increase the number of communities that develop and share risk reduction

products (e.g., building codes, design standards, floodplain management principles and

practices, architectural accessibility standards). Federal departments and agencies conduct

training and education activities targeted to professionals as well as the general public.

Departments and agencies fund and conduct training to maximize the ability of stakeholders to

exhibit and practice mitigation and risk management activities.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government aims to support and increase the development and

sharing of risk reduction products through Federal Administrative Structures, such as creating

platforms for information sharing and safeguarding; supporting public and private partners

who develop and deliver information; and pursuing MOUs and opportunities for joint

deployment of information resources.

• How/Example(s): An example of Federal support for developing and sharing risk reduction

products is the MOU between FEMA and the International Code Council.

Incident-Driven Operations

 Provide the tools necessary to make decisions quickly, such as a synchronization matrix

that allows multiple leaders to make independent decisions. Federal departments and

agencies possess subject matter expertise and technical resources that they can share with other

agencies and stakeholders and deploy to support partners in delivering Public Information and

B-25
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Warning actions. Federal departments and agencies develop decision support tools for Federal 

situational awareness and action that clearly communicate risks to Federal partners in support 

of incident operations. 

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government uses Federal Administrative Structures to provide

the necessary tools for quick decision making.

• How/Example(s): Examples of how the Federal Government supports rapid decision making

are: 

• The Risk Analyst Position at National Response Coordination Center (FEMA),

• National Digital Forecast database (DOC/NOAA),

• The DHS Common Operating Picture,

• The Homeland Security Information Network,

• Mine Emergency Operations Mapping tool (Mine Safety and Health Administration), and

• Occupational health warnings (Occupational Safety and Health Administration).

 Share information obtained through coordinating activities to inform prevention,

protection, response, and recovery decision making by effectively communicating threat

and hazard risk analysis. Conduct outreach with atypical partners. Coordinate common

messaging and verified source communications through local community leaders. The

Federal Government shares information obtained through coordinating activities to inform

response and recovery decision making by effectively communicating threat and hazard risk

analysis. The Federal Government maintains shared situational awareness and responds to

incident-level information from public- and private-sector partners that identify new or

previously unidentified stakeholders.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government uses Federal Administrative Structures to share

information to inform prevention, protection, response, and recovery activities and to conduct

outreach with atypical partners.

• How/Example(s): Examples of how the Federal Government supports prevention, protection,

response, and recovery activities are:

• Risk Analyst Position at National Response Coordination Center (FEMA)

• National Digital Forecast database (DOC/NOAA)

• DHS Common Operating Picture (DHS)

• Homeland Security Information Network (DHS)

• Mine Emergency Operations Mapping tool (Mine Safety and Health Administration)

• Occupational health warnings (Occupational Safety and Health Administration)

• Aviation Winter Weather Dashboard (DOC/NOAA)

B-26
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• (With atypical partners) Sharing Safe Room guidance with national security partners

(FEMA).

 Capitalize on the critical post-disaster window of opportunity and the media information

cycle to influence public opinion to take steps toward future mitigation. The Federal

Government plans for and delivers messaging, outreach, training, and technical support targeted

to incident-specific realities.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government uses Federal Administrative Structures and enables

capacity building to capitalize on post-disaster opportunities.

• How/Example(s): Examples of Federal Government post-disaster outreach activities include

issuing Recovery Advisories (FEMA/Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration),

issuing health advisories (HHS), and agricultural insurance marketing (USDA).

Change Management 

 Address evolving risk perception and risk communication within a community. The Federal

Government adapts Federal risk communication tools, methods, and procedures to meet adaptive

risk management requirements. These changes can include demographic and technological

changes.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government addresses evolving risk perception and risk

communication through Federal administrative structures by providing resources to both

Federal and non-Federal partners, and by enabling capacity building.

• How/Example(s): Examples of Federal Government activities to address changing risk within

a community include:

• Seasonal/calendar events,

• Federal law and policy changes, social science research,

• MAT Reports (FEMA),

• Storm assessments (DOC/NOAA), and

• Elevated threat levels.

 Practice science-based methods, such as community-based social marketing, to create

behavior change. The Federal Government adapts Federal risk communication tools, methods,

and procedures to align with the findings of the behavior change research base.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; national laboratories; private sector; NGOs; local,

state, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government addresses incorporating science-based behavior

change methods through Federal administrative structures, by providing resources to both

Federal and non-Federal partners and by enabling capacity building.

• How/Example(s): Examples of the Federal Government employing science-based methods

include: 

B-27
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• Federal law and policy changes,

• Supporting social science research,

• MAT Reports (FEMA),

• Storm assessments (DOC/NOAA),

• After-action reports (all agencies),

• Threat level communication, and

• Technological changes.

Long-Term Vulnerability Reduction

Definition: Build and sustain resilient systems, communities, and critical infrastructure and key 

resources lifelines so as to reduce their vulnerability to natural, technological, and human-caused 

threats and hazards by lessening the likelihood, severity, and duration of the adverse consequences.

Expanded Capability Description

Long-Term Vulnerability Reduction is an outcome-based capability that encompasses a variety of 

actions that reduce risk. A resilient community has taken stock of the threats and hazards it faces; 

assessed its current risk and ability to recover from disaster; developed a plan that addresses 

vulnerabilities; analyzed its available resources, processes, programs, and funding opportunities; and 

adopted successful practices as it promotes individual and community safety and resilience. The 

result is informed action that leads to lasting reductions in vulnerability. 

Strengthening this capability enhances resilience and vitality across economic, housing, health and 

social, natural and cultural, and infrastructure domains. Further, it lessens the effects of natural, 

accidental, or adversarial incidents. Long-Term Vulnerability Reduction includes initiatives and 

investments that reduce response and recovery resource requirements in the wake of a disaster or 

incident. Individuals and organizations active across all mission areas can help identify opportunities 

to reduce risk and build resilience through this capability.

Federal Role

Federal departments and agencies, within the scope of their authorities and funding, provide funding 

opportunities, technical assistance, and resources to stakeholders to help reduce risk and facilitate 

more lasting reductions in vulnerability across the whole community. Agencies and departments 

provide funding for actions that result in a higher level of protection due to upgrades of existing 

infrastructure that meet or exceed current codes and standards. The Federal Government provides 

technical assistance to stakeholders through a variety of mechanisms including technical guidance 

and after-incident performance reports. Resources are also provided by Federal agencies to assist 

local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area government to promote lasting risk reduction before 

and after disasters.

Target: Achieve a measurable decrease in the long-term vulnerability of the Nation against current 

baselines amid a growing population base, changing climate conditions, increasing reliance upon 

information technology, and expanding infrastructure base.

B-28
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Critical Tasks

Mitigation actions are successfully implemented with commitment from the community. Engaging 

the whole community stake in vulnerability reduction ensures that public and private entities, as well 

as individuals, are invested, fully active partners. 

Individual and Local Community

 Broaden the use of natural hazards and catastrophic insurance. Individuals, households, and

businesses that insure against risks recover more quickly than those who do not and require less

from the Federal Government for disaster aid. By broadening the use of natural hazards and

catastrophic insurance, communities become more resilient. Increasing access to health care for

individuals and increasing access to health insurance through the Affordable Care Act can

reduce the impact on health care institutions during disasters.

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments; private

sector; and nonprofit organizations.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government provides insurance; technical assistance through

training, outreach, and education; regulations; capacity building for local communities.

• How/Example(s): Federal agencies and departments provide limited insurance opportunities

to manage risk when opportunities to purchase insurance are not reasonably available from

other sources. The Federal Government provides training, education, and outreach to local

communities and individuals to inform those in affected areas about their risk. The Federal

Government also helps develop local laws/ordinances to ensure compliance with Federal

laws. The Federal Government provides flood insurance through the NFIP. Property owners

with Federally backed mortgages are required to maintain flood insurance if they are sited in

a Special Flood Hazard Area. State Flood Insurance Coordinators can provide advice and

assistance to local community floodplain managers regarding coverage and compliance. The

USDA, through the Risk Management Agency and private company partners, provides crop

insurance to mitigate losses due to damaged crops. The USCG manages an Oil Spill Liability

Trust Fund.

 Develop plans and recognize that a prepared individual or family is the foundation of a

resilient community.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government can support community planning, which includes

long-term development, mitigation, continuity, and other plans.

• How/Example(s): FEMA’s Risk MAP identifies mitigation actions for long-term

vulnerability reduction as part of the Risk MAP community engagement process. The local

mitigation plan development process incorporates a public process to ensure opportunities for

partners and stakeholder involvement.

 Promote neighborhood activities and encourage volunteerism that advances preparedness

awareness campaigns. Resilience starts at the individual level, with each person in the

community, and is locally grown through the contributions of those individuals. Resilience builds

through connections that are fostered within neighborhoods; job markets; social, faith-based,

and professional organizations; neighboring communities; and localities, regions, states, tribes,

territories, insular areas, and the Federal Government until this body of influence has the ability

B-29
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

to impact the social and economic vitality of the community by taking into account, planning for, 

and mitigating against disaster events. 

• Stakeholder(s): The Federal Government supports this task, although this is primarily a local,

regional, and private sector function.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government provides resources through training, outreach, and

education to individuals, local communities, states, tribes, territories, and insular areas; the

Federal Government has published and produced products and services to assist with public

outreach.

• How/Example(s):

• www.Ready.gov is a national public service advertising campaign designed to educate

and empower Americans to prepare for and respond to emergencies. The goal of the

campaign is to get the public involved and ultimately to increase the level of basic

preparedness across the Nation.

• The Firewise program administered by the National Fire Protection Association and

sponsored by U.S. Forest Service, the DOI, and state forestry organizations. The Firewise

program provides information for communities and individuals seeking to reduce their

risk of fire damage. Their program information is available at http://www.firewise.org.

• DHS sponsors the “If You See Something, Say SomethingTM” campaign, which serves to

heighten individual and community situational awareness to threat, hazard, and risk.

 Incorporate mitigation measures into construction and development projects that take into

account future conditions based on physical changes as well as climate change.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government can support the development of new building codes

and standards through research and by providing available climate projection data.

• How/Example(s): The FEMA Building Sciences Program provides research to help increase

the resiliency of buildings in the face of hazards.

 Capitalize on opportunities during the recovery building process to further reduce

vulnerability. Mitigation actions taken after a disaster will break the cycle of disaster damage,

reconstruction, and repeated damage. In order to make most efficient use of the time immediately

after a disaster, a community will need to take action shortly after the disaster.

• Stakeholder(s): The Federal Government is heavily involved in the recovery building process

after many disasters by supporting local communities; state, tribal, territorial, and insular area

governments; the private sector; and individuals through the recovery process. Federal

agencies and departments coordinate to reduce vulnerability during the rebuilding process.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government publishes regulations and guidelines; provides

resources including subject matter expertise, education, outreach, training, and products and

services; provides funding through grants and loans; and builds capacity through partnership,

collaboration, leadership, and research and development.

• How/Example(s):

B-30
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• Lead the Federal effort to establish incident-specific recovery advisories and resilience

guidelines to ensure that Federal investments are resilient and increasing overall

resilience. Where the FDRC is activated, leverage the HM Advisor and UFR Advisor to

concentrate interagency partnerships for mitigation and historic and environmental

preservation early in the recovery process.

• Funding—State, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments and local

resources may provide post-recovery assistance. HUD, DOT, and FEMA disaster

assistance grants may be available. Property, crop, and flood insurance claim payments

assist with recovery and rebuilding. Small Business Administration property damage

disaster loans can pay for repairs and some mitigation actions. Contributions from other

sources may provide non-Federal cost matches for FEMA’s HMGP. These grants focus

on long-term risk reduction. Identifying potential funds to cover the required non-Federal

cost share is essential to project viability. Examples of potential match funding sources

are HUD Community Development Block Grants, flood insurance claim payments

through the increased cost of compliance coverage, DOI Bureau of Indian Affairs

funding, Appalachian Regional Commission, HHS Indian Health Services, and funds

derived from Title III of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination

Act of 2000.

• Technical Assistance―USDA’s NRCS, the USGS, and FEMA provide technical

assistance regarding building codes and standards to communities and property owners.

Technical bulletins and training and outreach materials are available to support local

efforts. FEMA’s Building Sciences group assesses damage and evaluates construction

performance, which contributes to good practices and case studies.

• The UFR Process is leveraged to ensure coordination of environmental and historic

preservation compliance activities among collaborating Federal stakeholders' technical

specialists.

Private Sector 

 Determine the level of appropriate risk reduction to incorporate in operational and capital

improvement projects.

• Stakeholder(s): Private and nongovernmental organizations.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government can provide tools and data to support risk

assessments. 

• How/Example(s): FEMA provides the Hazus tool which allows users to do risk assessments

based on a number of different hazards and using their own vulnerability data.

 Advance projects and activities that do not increase the residual risk in nearby

neighborhoods and communities. Private-sector partners, much like local governments, should

continue to incorporate mitigation in operational and capital improvement projects to ensure

disaster impacts are minimized when they occur. This can include adhering to performance

standards and building codes. Businesses that remain viable after a disaster enable individuals

to recover more quickly and provide stability to the community. Communities rely on their

private-sector partners to be active participants and members of the communities in which they

conduct business.

B-31
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• Stakeholder(s): The Federal Government supports this task, although this is primarily a

private-sector function in coordination with local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area

governments.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government publishes regulations and guidelines and, where

applicable, provides resources including subject matter expertise, education, outreach,

training, and products and services; provides funding through grants and loans; and builds

capacity through partnership, collaboration, leadership, and research and development.

• How/Example(s):

• Hazard Mitigation Assistance (FEMA);

• Community Development Block Grants (HUD);

• Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA);

• Technical Assistance Bulletins (FEMA); and

• Disaster Loans (Small Business Administration).

 Coordinate with government and community organizations to reduce duplication of effort

and encourage complementary efforts. Private-sector partners, government, and community

organizations may all perform actions to reduce long-term vulnerability. These entities should

work together during the local hazard mitigation planning process to identify risks and

determine what steps can be taken to reduce those risks. All stakeholders can benefit by

identifying available resources and mitigation actions that have been taken, and working

together to further reduce risk. They can incorporate innovative holistic solutions that consider

systems-wide issues and concerns when investing in mitigation measures to reduce long-term

vulnerability and advance projects and activities that are financially viable and sustainable over

the long-term.

• Stakeholder(s): The Federal Government supports this task, although this is primarily a local

and regional function.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government published regulations and guidelines and, where

applicable, provides resources including subject matter expertise, training, outreach,

education, and products and services; provides funding through grants and loans; and builds

capacity through partnership, collaboration, leadership, and research and development.

• How/Example(s):

• Hazard Mitigation Planning process.

• FBI InfraGard is an information sharing and analysis effort serving the interests and

combining the knowledge base of a wide range of members. InfraGard, a partnership

between the FBI and the private sector, is an association of businesses, academic

institutions; local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area law enforcement agencies; and

other participants dedicated to sharing information and intelligence to prevent hostile acts

against the United States.

Government

 Put community plans that include mitigation and resilience to work.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

B-32
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government can support local mitigation and resilience by

relying on local, state, tribal, and territorial mitigation plans to identify threats and hazards

and strategies to manage the risks they pose.

• How/Example(s): FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Program supports the development of local,

state, tribal, and territorial mitigation plans and requires that a plan is in place to be eligible

for HMGP Assistance.

 Execute identified risk management actions and projects resulting from analysis and

planning processes in the community. Mitigation Plans form the foundation for a community’s

long-term strategy to reduce disaster losses and break the cycle of disaster damage,

reconstruction, and repeated damage.

• Stakeholder(s): The Federal Government supports these tasks, although they are primarily

local and regional functions.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government publishes regulations and guidelines and, where

applicable, provides resources including subject matter expertise, training, outreach,

education, and products and services; provides funding through grants and loans; and builds

capacity through partnership, collaboration, leadership, and research and development.

• How/Example(s): FEMA’s Risk MAP program identifies mitigation actions for long-term

vulnerability reduction as part of the Risk MAP community engagement process.

 Make risk avoidance and reduction a priority in capital improvements projects.

Communities that incorporate mitigation in comprehensive or capital improvement plans can

make current and future development less susceptible to damage from disaster. As infrastructure

is updated or replaced by new materials using new technology, mitigation may result.

Communities should leverage opportunities to improve public infrastructure as those

opportunities are presented.

• Stakeholder(s): The Federal Government supports this task, although this is primarily a local

and regional function.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government provides resources including subject matter

expertise, education, outreach, training, and products and services; provides funding through

grants; and builds capacity through partnership, collaboration, and leadership.

• How/Example(s): Funding (Grants)—Hazard Mitigation Assistance (FEMA), Technical

Assistance Bulletins (FEMA).

 Adopt and enforce a suitable building code to ensure resilient construction. Building code

adoption and enforcement is a primary method of pre-disaster mitigation. Adopting and

enforcing strong building codes consistently in a community will significantly reduce damage

caused by disaster and reduce losses to critical infrastructure, transportations systems,

businesses, and households.

• Stakeholder(s): The Federal Government supports this task, although this is primarily a local

and regional function.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government publishes regulations; provides resources to local

communities and states, tribes, territories, and insular area governments; and builds capacity

through partnership, collaboration, and leadership.

B-33
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• How/Example(s): Local, state, and national building codes, including local floodplain

ordinances, strengthen community resilience by improving the built environment as

individuals and communities repair, construct, and develop by providing minimum standards

for these activities. FEMA’s Building Science section develops and maintains a library of

technical bulletins for construction that incorporates risk reduction and sound construction

principles.

 Adopt appropriate land use measures to limit development in hazardous areas

commensurate with identified risk.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Incentivize land use measures that limit development in hazardous areas

through Federal Programs.

• How/Example(s): The Community Rating System through the NFIP provides incentives for

jurisdictions to restrict development in flood hazard areas by leaving those areas as open

spaces or wetland areas, providing flood insurance policy rate reductions for these, and other

mitigation actions.

 Employ a variety of incentives, statutory and regulatory requirements, and voluntary

initiatives to implement successful practices throughout communities. The Federal

Government has published and made available a number of tools to assist communities with

resilience efforts. Incentives are often tied to higher standards enforced by local communities to

ensure that risk reduction measures are being implemented properly. The Federal Government

can also encourage targeted financial incentives that encourage investments in mitigation and

resilience activities.

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments; private

sector; and nonprofit organizations.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government publishes regulations and guidelines; provides

resources including subject matter expertise, training, outreach, education, and products and

services; provides funding through grants; and builds capacity through partnership,

collaboration, and leadership.

• How/Example(s):

• DOC/NOAA’s Community Resilience Index is a tool communities can use to examine

their preparedness for storms and recovery;

• FEMA’s Community Rating System provides discounts to NFIP policyholders in

communities that exceed minimum NFIP requirements; and

• FEMA’s HMGP allows additional funding for states that have an approved Enhanced

State Hazard Mitigation Plan.

 Be transparent and explicit about mitigation efforts in order to increase and sustain whole

community investment, reduce duplication of effort, and encourage complementary efforts

by partners. Government entities can support transparency by developing and maintaining

partnerships, participating task forces and in regional planning meetings. Technical support can

be obtained through MOAs/MOUs. These actions allow for open collaboration across Federal

partners. The Federal Government supports mitigation efforts through a variety of mechanisms

including grant funding, technical assistance, and outreach.

B-34
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• Stakeholder(s): Mitigation efforts are primarily local with support from the Federal

Government. 

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government publishes regulations and guidelines; collaborates

and partners with other Federal agencies through MOAs and MOUs; provides resources

including training, outreach, education, and products and services; provides funding through

grants; and builds capacity through partnership, collaboration, and leadership. Where the

FDRC is activated, leverage the HM Advisor and UFR Advisor to concentrate interagency

partnerships for mitigation and historic and environmental preservation early in the recovery

process.

• How/Example(s): Interagency MOAs/MOUs, Federal task forces, regional meetings.

 Establish standards and practices to reduce long-term vulnerability. Communities establish

standards and practices for reducing risk as part of the local hazard mitigation planning

process. When communities implement plans and involve their citizens in the plan’s goals longterm, they can reduce vulnerability.

• Stakeholder(s): The Federal Government supports this task, although this is primarily a local

and regional function.

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government publishes regulations and guidelines; provides

resources including training, outreach, education, and products and services; and builds

capacity through partnership, collaboration, and leadership.

• How/Example(s): Although states and local communities establish standards and practices to

reduce long-term vulnerability, the Federal Government publishes regulations, provides

technical resources, and performs assessments to determine how buildings perform during

events, which may encourage the adoption of higher building codes at the local, state, tribal,

territorial, and insular area levels.

• FEMA publishes Technical Bulletins regarding the NFIP, which provide guidance

concerning the NFIP’s building performance standards. The bulletins are intended for use

primarily by local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area officials responsible for

interpreting and enforcing NFIP regulations and by members of the development

community, such as design professionals and builders.

• FEMA’s MAT conducts field inspections and technical evaluations of the performance of

buildings subjected to forces generated by the event, with the objective of identifying

design practices, construction methods, and building materials that either failed under the

forces generated by the event or were successful in resisting such forces. The MAT’s

findings and recommendations are aimed primarily at construction contractors, architects,

engineers, planners and local building officials who are involved in permitting,

inspection, and development of building codes, as well floodplain and land use

management provisions.

• Local governments can incorporate higher building codes and standards for all repair and

new construction. State and local building code officials, community planning offices,

and floodplain managers can provide resources, training, and technical assistance.

 Capitalize on opportunities during the recovery building process to further reduce

vulnerability, including pausing to evaluate and update current codes, policies, and

approaches to redevelopment. Mitigation actions taken after a disaster will break the cycle of

B-35
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

disaster damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. In order to make most efficient use of the 

time immediately after a disaster a community will need to take action shortly after the disaster. 

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal Governments; private

sector; nonprofit organizations

• Mechanism(s): The Federal Government publishes regulations and guidelines; provides

resources including subject matter expertise, education, outreach, training, and products and

services; provides funding through grants and loans; and builds capacity through partnership,

collaboration, leadership, and research and development. Where the FDRC is activated,

leverage the HM Advisor and the UFR Advisor to concentrate interagency partnerships for

mitigation and historic and environmental preservation early in the recovery process.

• How/Example(s): Funding (Grants)—Local communities can use information from plans to

make decisions for developing grant applications. After a Presidentially Declared Disaster,

the Federal Government is heavily involved in the recovery building process. Federal

agencies and departments coordinate to reduce vulnerability during the rebuilding process.

Post-disaster, local jurisdictions can identify or may have identified in the jurisdiction’s

mitigation plan opportunities to use FEMA’s Public Assistance Mitigation program (Section

406 of the Stafford Act) funds to mitigate damaged public facilities. State governments

tasked with administering post-disaster programs can provide advice as communities make

decisions about rebuilding, and FEMA’s Building Science and Mitigation branches offer

technical assistance, training, and technical bulletins. Public information and outreach

services are also available from FEMA after a disaster. FEMA also provides grants through

the National Flood Insurance Fund to mitigate insured structures and property that represent a

high risk and vulnerability to flood damage. Grants and program funds from HUD

Community Development Block Grants and USDA NRCS are potential funding sources to

assist rebuilding efforts.

Operational Coordination

Definition: Establish and maintain a unified and coordinated operational structure and process that 

appropriately integrates all critical stakeholders and supports the execution of core capabilities.

Expanded Capability Description

Mitigation serves the interests of National Preparedness before, during, and after an incident, but has 

greatest effect if done well in advance of disaster. Through a unity of effort among the whole 

community, common objectives should be built with group consensus. Objectives should be 

transparent, based on an all-inclusive planning process, and have clear metrics to measure progress. 

Agencies and departments that operate within the NMF understand the CONOPS detailed in this 

FIOP, integrate their activities, and conduct interagency operational coordination across a range of 

operations during steady state, adaptive risk management, and incident-driven timelines, with each 

type of operation involving different communities of interests and structures. Operational 

coordination aids in this by enabling participants to do one or more of the following: 

 Facilitate Unity of Effort. Achieving national objectives to prevent, protect against, respond to,

recover from, and mitigate all threats and hazards through effective and efficient use of

mitigation programs requires unity of effort with the whole community and among departments

and agencies. This requires a holistic approach based on agreed-upon values and supported by

operational coordination.

B-36
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

 Maintain Continuity of Operations. The ability to sustain essential services and functions

regardless of the threat or hazard is another cornerstone of preparedness throughout all levels of

government and both the public and private sectors. Continuity planning and operations are an

inherent component to all of the mission areas, especially when faced with ever-changing risks.

The continuation and resiliency of the operations that provide the core capabilities which support

the mission areas are essential to national preparedness, and continuity is the planning paradigm

and operational mechanism to ensure its success.

 Achieve Common Objectives. Successful operational coordination enables the Federal

Government to build domestic and, if necessary, international support, conserve resources, and

conduct coherent operations that more effectively and efficiently achieve common objectives.

Solutions to a problem seldom reside within the capability of one agency. Operational

coordination allows mitigation practitioners to recognize and leverage the core competencies and

capabilities of other agencies while providing support, as appropriate, to the whole community.

 Provide Common Understanding. Operational coordination is critical to understanding the

roles and relationships of participating Federal agencies and relevant stakeholders as well as their

interests, equities, and insights into the challenges faced by threats/hazards. Such common

understandings will be essential to enable stakeholders to operate effectively in the same space,

identifying opportunities for cooperation and avoiding unnecessary conflict. For example, during

incident-driven operations, NIMS provides a systematic, proactive approach to guide

departments and agencies at all levels of government to work together to prevent, protect against,

respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of incidents. Recommended activities for the

private sector and NGOs have also been established that support NIMS implementation and

closely parallel the implementation activities that have been required of local, state, tribal,

territorial, and insular area governments. NIMS is applicable regardless of the cause, size,

location, or complexity of a given event.

Operational Coordination Actions

At the Federal level, mitigation efforts are intended to support local, state, tribal, territorial, and 

insular area communities that are informed, supported, and funded through a variety of Federal 

outreach and grant programs. To be successful, interagency coordination should bring together the 

interests of all stakeholders, creating a holistic approach to mitigation efforts either as a whole or to 

address threat/hazard--specific requirements.

The NMF forms the basis for the implementation of a mitigation strategy at the local, state, tribal, 

territorial, insular area, and Federal level. This framework highlights the interoperability and 

compatibility that is necessary to be effective outside of a disaster or during incident response. It 

speaks to how mitigation capabilities support Protection and Prevention mission areas during steady 

state operations and in efforts to reduce exposure. The NMF fosters a number of actions that assist in 

operational coordination during steady state operations and in applying adaptive risk management. 

These actions include:

 Coordination. Each organization brings its own culture, philosophy, goals, practices, and skills

to the interagency table. This diversity is the strength of the interagency process, providing a

cross-section of expertise, skills, and abilities. Interagency coordination should strive to break

down barriers and enhance information sharing and safeguarding. Even in the routine of day-today business, cooperation is best achieved through active interagency involvement, building upon

both the differences in agency cultures and the core competencies and successful experiences that

each brings. Coordination conducted and solidified at the Federal level flows downward to local,

B-37
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

state, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments and outward to the nongovernmental offices 

and the private sector. 

 Collaboration. The most common technique for promoting this collaboration is the identification

or formation of centers, groups, cells, offices, elements, and planning teams and other enduring

or temporary cross-functional staff organizations that manage specific processes and accomplish

tasks in support of mission accomplishment. They facilitate planning by the staff, decision

making by agency leads, and execution by the staff and assets available to them. Examples of

these include Tsunami Warning Center, DOC/NOAA Weather Forecast Offices, National

Centers, River Forecast Centers, USGS Streamgage, USACE Risk Management Centers, and

USGS Earthquake Notification Service. Basic steps in building collaboration and gaining

consensus are to:

• Identify all agencies and organizations that are or should be involved in the mitigation effort;

• Establish an interagency structure and define the objectives of the effort;

• Define courses of action for agency activities;

• Solicit from each agency, department, or organization a clear understanding of the role that

each plays;

• Identify potential obstacles to the collective effort arising from conflicting departmental or

agency priorities;

• Identify the resources of each participant in order to reduce duplication and increase

coherence in the collective effort;

• Define the desired end state;

• Maximize assets to support the longer-term goals and unity of effort; and

• Establish interagency assessment teams to conduct risk and resilience assessment based on

quantifiable measures of effectiveness and performance.

 Interpersonal communication. Skills that emphasize consultation, persuasion, compromise, and

consensus contribute to obtaining agreement in response to natural threats that face the Nation

before they occur. Successful directors and their staffs build personal relationships to inspire trust

and confidence within the Federal Government and amongst the whole community. Various

formal and informal coordinating structures assist in gaining consensus and creating synergy

among the engaged Federal and whole community partners. By developing personal

relationships, using liaison elements, and making conscious decisions on the degree of reliance

on those stakeholders for critical tasks, the required trust and confidence is gained.

 Liaison. In response to an incident, direct, early liaison is a valuable source of accurate, timely

information on many aspects of a crisis area. An additional benefit is the opportunity to build

working relationships based upon trust and open communications among all organizations. For

that reason, ongoing liaison and exchange of liaison personnel with engaged organizations is

equally important. During an incident, mitigation advisors deployed to support response and

recovery activities begin research, modeling, and outlining a plan that will contribute to recovery

efforts and change management, reducing the likelihood of repeat incidents. Key agencies within

the Mitigation mission area continue to provide weather and geological information in order to

maintain situational awareness and warn the public of secondary dangers and enhance situational

awareness. To enhance recovery efforts, mitigation staff members deploy to support Best

B-38
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Practices Field Teams jointly with the Public Affairs Office and state counterparts. They 

establish working relationships with the FCO, FDRC, State Coordinating Officer, and Chief of 

Staff and become knowledgeable with the Federal and state operating priorities to begin planning 

and outlining objectives in support of those priorities.

 Integrated communication. Incident communications are facilitated through the development

and use of a common communications plan and interoperable communications processes and

architectures. This integrated approach links the operational and support units of the various

agencies involved with the necessity to maintain communication connectivity and discipline,

enabling common situational awareness and interaction. Active communication during an

incident builds upon the interpersonal relationships, trust, and confidence developed during

steady state.

Scalability, Flexibility, and Adaptability

A vital tenet of the Nation’s system of emergency management is the development and execution of 

capabilities in a scalable, flexible, and adaptable manner. Processes and structures must be developed 

in order to rapidly and effectively meet unforeseen, unmet, evolving, and continuous needs of 

varying geographic scope, size, complexity, and intensity, regardless of the threat or incident. As 

incidents change in size, scope, and complexity, operations must adapt to meet evolving 

requirements. The number, type, and sources of resources must be able to expand rapidly to meet the 

needs associated with a given threat or incident and an incident’s cascading effects. Participants 

throughout the whole community must remain flexible to adapt to these changing circumstances. 

Therefore, each framework describes structures at the national, local, and, where applicable, the 

sector-specific and cross-sector levels to coordinate planning, operations, and resource augmentation.

They also describe the decision escalation and resource activation processes if events are or become 

wider in scope, resource intensity, or geography. 

Federal Role

An operation that supports and performs mitigation at the Federal level spans the full breadth of risk 

management activity. Whether Federal agencies are responding to incidents, delivering steady state 

risk analysis and reduction efforts, or responding to changing conditions or requirements—

operational coordination describes the way that they will conduct their responsibilities and coordinate 

with their stakeholders. In particular, for this FIOP, operational coordination is the mechanism by 

which Federal agencies work with each other in support of the mitigation goals and the shared vision 

through strategic planning. In assuring that Federal operational coordination meets the needs of 

individual agency and department responsibilities, this FIOP outlines how Federal operational 

coordination occurs across critical tasks identified in the framework. 

Target: Establish protocols to integrate mitigation data elements in support of operations with local, 

state, tribal, territorial, and insular area partners and in coordination with Federal agencies.

Critical Tasks

Mitigation actions are successfully implemented with commitment from the community. Engaging 

the whole community with a stake in vulnerability reduction ensures that public and private entities 

and individuals are invested and fully active partners. 

Steady State 

 Establish procedures and build partnerships and coalitions across the whole community

that emphasize a coordinated delivery of mitigation capabilities. Establish joint objectives

B-39
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

and foster delivery of mitigation capabilities across all Federal partners through coordinating 

structures and the coordination role of the MitFLG.

• Stakeholder(s): Local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments; and Federal

Government. 

• Mechanism(s): Despite increasing vulnerability to natural disasters, many communities resist

adopting mitigation programs due to cost and political influences. Progress toward adoption

of mitigation practices will require support from Federal Government in the form of grants

and programs and community commitment. Through guidance and support, communities

overcome barriers and develop innovative solutions.

• How/Example(s): Web sites such as http://www.data.gov increase public access to high

value, machine-readable datasets generated by the Federal Government. This site promotes

use of architectural standards and technology, increases access to geospatial data, and

promotes government-to-citizen communication, accountability, and transparency.

 Identify mitigation roles and responsibilities and engage stakeholders across the whole

community to support the information sharing process. Operating under the NMF, Federal

departments and agencies coordinate the delivery of resources and capacity-building efforts to

provide a unified pursuit of risk management principles for the Nation, supporting whole

community stakeholders in a consistent and dynamic way.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The NMF outlines the roles and responsibilities of all levels of government

and the whole community. Coupled with the Mitigation FIOP and follow-on local, state,

territorial, tribal, and insular area plans, this will provide concepts to enhance vertical

coordination in the implementation of mitigation activities.

• How/Example(s): Through the use of general or threat/hazard-specific coordinating

structures, stakeholders create a forum to share ideas and receive guidance. Coordinating

structures are able to facilitate the preparedness and delivery of capabilities, programs, and

grants and provide guidance and support to the whole community. These structures and

forums enhance ongoing communication and coordination among all parties involved.

 Recognize the complexity of various interest groups and integrate organizations across

communities, including public-private partnerships. Federal partners support local

mitigation efforts and deliver discrete mitigation capabilities with the recognition that

stakeholders from multiple disciplines will operate under varying organizational structures and

produce mitigation products (data, actions, products) to standards they define. The Federal

Government seeks to maximize the use of mitigation outputs by identifying shared objectives,

ensuring interoperability, reducing redundancy, and protecting Federal investments.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Through coordination and collaboration, the government works to develop a

shared understanding of community needs and capabilities, empower and integrate resources

from across the community, create stronger social infrastructure, establish relationships that

facilitate more effective mitigation activities, increase individual and collective preparedness,

and create greater resilience at both the community and national levels.

B-40
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• How/Example(s): One example is the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. As part

of the DOT Research and Innovative Technology Administration, the Volpe Center is a

critical resource for innovation in transportation. Their mission is to improve the Nation’s

transportation system by anticipating emerging transportation issues and to serve as a center

of excellence for informed decision making. This organization engages with the whole

community and provides information that works to mitigate disasters as related to

transportation.

Incident-Driven

 Emphasize mitigation technique integration into ICS12 planning cycles by command and

general staff representatives, and educate whole community partners. The Federal

Government will leverage all available data and focus the post-incident responsibility of

mitigation components on informing operations through risk analysis and implementing longterm mitigation into the delivery of Federal support.

• Stakeholder(s): Private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area

governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The provision of Mitigation experts from Federal departments and agencies

that serve as technical experts and advisors inform response activities while preparing to

enhance and strengthen recovery efforts.

• How/Example(s): Section 406 of the Stafford Act’s mitigation program (FEMA) presents an

opportunity for applicants to fortify their infrastructure against future catastrophic events.

FEMA and most states provide hazard mitigation officers—at the request of the applicant—

to aid in formulating Section 406 of the Stafford Act mitigation proposals. However, it is the

applicant’s responsibility to identify and document the mitigation opportunities during public

assistance project formulation.

 Use and leverage mitigation products and capabilities, such as the identification of threats

and the assessment of risk, to support incident operations. The delivery of mitigation

capabilities at the Federal level generates a large amount of risk analysis information and a

broad suite of risk analysis expertise and tools. Federal partners will bring the value of these

tools to bear to provide risk analysis in support of incident operations.

• Stakeholder(s): Private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area

governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 201: THIRA Guide and the

CPG 201 Toolkit provide resources and information, data sources, and templates to support

the execution of a THIRA.

• How/Example(s): One site that serves as the tool to practitioners is Hazards-United States

(Hazus). Hazus is a nationally applicable standardized methodology that contains models for

estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes. Hazus uses GIS

technology to estimate physical, economic, and social impacts of disasters. It graphically

12 ICS is a standardized, on-scene, all-hazards incident management approach that allows for the integration of 

facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and communications operating within a common organizational 

structure; enables a coordinated response among various jurisdictions and functional agencies, both public and 

private; and establishes common processes for planning and managing resources.

B-41
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

illustrates the limits of identified high-risk locations due to earthquake, hurricane, and floods. 

DOC/NOAA’s Incident Meteorologists provide live briefings at wildfires and other incidents. 

 Contribute to the situational awareness and a common operating picture for the entire

Federal Government and for local, state, tribal, and territorial governments, as

appropriate, in the event of a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other manmade disaster.

Through contributions to the DHS NOC, mitigation practitioners help provide real-time

situational awareness and monitoring of the homeland, coordinate mitigation support to

incidents and response activities, and, in conjunction with the DHS Office of Intelligence and

Analysis, issue advisories and bulletins concerning threats to homeland security and the means

to help mitigate them through the Public Information and Warning core capability.

13

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Mitigation professionals through coordination, collaboration, and open

communication leverage all sources to gain, maintain, and relay important information that

contributes to the situational awareness of leadership at all levels, and decision makers using

appropriate methods and products.

• How/Example(s): The National Incident Support Manual outlines the composition of a

Situational Awareness Section that can be used to enhance the collection and analysis of

information associated with the operations at the DHS NOC, DHS Office of Intelligence and

Analysis, and National and Regional Response Coordination Centers.

 Capitalize on opportunities for mitigation actions following disasters and incidents.

Incidents often present unique opportunities to take mitigation actions. When Federal partners

support rebuilding efforts and deliver response and recovery support, they will ensure that

mitigation resources are deployed and delivered to define a resilient response and recovery and

long-term vulnerability reductions.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Activation of a FDRC following a disaster triggers the appointment of a

Mitigation Advisor. This special advisor, who reports to the FDRC, supports recovery

operations by providing a critical linkage to content, process, and internal and external

networks.

13 Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, the NOC is the principal operations center for DHS 

and shall (1) provide situational awareness and a common operating picture for the entire Federal Government, and 

for local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments as appropriate, in the event of a natural disaster, act of 

terrorism, or other man-made disaster; and (2) ensure that critical terrorism and disaster-related information reaches 

government decision makers. Pursuant to these authorities, the NOC provides situational awareness, collecting and 

synthesizing all source information, including information from the state and major urban area fusion centers, for all 

threats and all hazards covering the homeland security enterprise. The Strategic Information and Operations Center 

(SIOC) acts as the FBI’s worldwide emergency operations center (EOC) by maintaining situational awareness of 

criminal or terrorist threats, critical incidents, and crises; providing command, control, communications 

connectivity, and the FBI’s common operating picture for managing operational responses; establishing the 

headquarters command post and developing connectivity to Joint Operations Centers (JOC); and sharing information 

and intelligence with other EOCs at all levels of government, to include the DHS NOC. The SIOC ensures effective 

coordination and liaison with partner agencies, strategic communications, and coordination and information sharing 

with other leaders, as appropriate and in accordance with classification and legal requirements, to manage the threat.

B-42
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

• How/Example(s): The HMGP provides grants to states and local governments to implement

long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the

HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable

mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. The

HMGP is authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and

Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, as amended. A key consideration during post-disaster

rebuilding is planning for future risk to ensure that mitigation efforts anticipate the threats

posed by future conditions such as sea level rise due to climate changes.

Change Management 

 Adapt to evolving risks and changing conditions, including those resulting from climate

change. Changes in demographics, evolving risks, and advancements in risk analysis technology

and practice drive the level and kind of mitigation activity in the same way the incidents do.

Federal partners are encouraged to operate under shared interagency goals to deliver mitigation

capabilities in a mutually supportive way.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): The study of the vulnerability to evolving change and variability, and their

ability to adapt to changes in threats and hazards, is a relatively new field of research that

brings together experts from a wide range of disciplines. Federal departments and agencies

coordinate, through the study and implementation of Adaptive Risk Management, the best

ways to counter evolving threats and hazards to the Nation.

• How/Example(s): The Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force identified a set of

guiding principles that public and private decision makers should consider in designing and

implementing adaptation strategies. They include (but are not limited to) the following:

• Adopt integrated approaches;

• Prioritize the most vulnerable;

• Use best-available science;

• Apply risk-management methods and tools; and

• Apply ecosystem-based approaches.

 Integrate Continuity Planning and Operations in Operational Coordination.

• Stakeholder(s): Academia, private sector, NGOs, local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular

area governments; and the Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Incorporate continuity planning and operations to ensure the continued

functionality of the core capabilities essential to accomplishing this task.

• How/Example(s): Ensuring plans and operations are resilient by incorporating the essential

elements of continuity: identifying essential functions; establishing orders of succession and

delegations of authority; having continuity facilities, communications, essential records, and

human resources programs; testing, training, and exercising capabilities; and planning for

devolution and reconstitution.

 Look for ways to include new stakeholders in mitigation capabilities. As risk management

concepts evolve and change, Federal delivery of mitigation needs to identify and include atypical

B-43
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

partners to maximize the impact of mitigation. This includes identifying partners in emerging 

scientific fields such as social vulnerability and providing decision support tools to operational 

partners who have not historically made use of mitigation tools.

• Stakeholder(s): Individuals; academia; private sector; NGOs; local, state, tribal, territorial,

and insular area governments; and Federal Government.

• Mechanism(s): Through coordination and collaboration, the government works to develop a

shared understanding of community needs and capabilities, empower and integrate resources

from across the community, create stronger social infrastructure, establish relationships that

facilitate more effective mitigation activities, increase individual and collective preparedness,

and create greater resilience among stakeholders.

• How/Example(s): By making actual and potential damages more tangible and

understandable, mitigation tools and data, such as Hazus and USGS Streamgage data, help

motivate decision makers, private-sector parties, and other stakeholders to come together

during response, in developing public information campaigns, and in planning and preparing

for disasters.

B-44
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

Appendix C: Conceptual Model for Risk Analysis 

Introduction

The National Preparedness Goal describes the Nation’s approach to preparing for the threats and 

hazards that pose the greatest risk to the security of the United States. While risk analysis supports all 

mission areas, and identifying and assessing risk is a component of the National Preparedness 

System, a thorough awareness and understanding of risk is essential for the Mitigation mission area, 

with its basis being a risk-conscious culture. Understanding risks from threats or hazards requires the 

tools and skills to identify threats and hazards and assess risks and resilience. The core capabilities to 

conduct this risk analysis, THID and RDRA, are found in the Mitigation mission area. Risk analysis, 

for the purposes of this report, encompasses the data, tools, skills, and abilities needed to deliver 

these capabilities. THID is the capability to analyze and understand the threat’s or hazard’s 

probability (likelihood of occurring) and potential magnitude. RDRA is the capability to conduct risk 

and resilience assessments to quantify the consequences of threats and hazards based on the results 

from a threat or hazard identification analysis. Both of these capabilities are necessary to be able to 

perform risk and resilience assessments. Threats and hazard identifications analysis results are the 

foundation for a risk and/or disaster resilience assessment. 

Working together across mission areas to share data and assessments can create a common 

understanding of vulnerable community populations, assets, and systems from threats and hazards. 

This understanding of vulnerabilities should also be used as a tool to assess the level of preparedness 

capabilities.

The broad components of the THID and RDRA capabilities are data, analysis, and education and 

training. Building and maintaining these two capabilities requires the ability to produce and 

safeguard data, conduct analyses, and educate and train. 

 Data—The data that is needed to identify and quantify the magnitude and probabilities of threats

and hazards, as well as to assess risk and resilience, can vary greatly in terms of characteristics

like accuracy, precision, completeness, uncertainty, and currency.

 Analysis—The analyses that are performed are not only dependent upon the accuracy, precision,

and completeness of the data and inputs but also on the analytical complexity, number of

variables, and interrelationship between variables and expert input. The analysis should leverage

the best available, forward-looking, and science-based data.

 Education and Training—The expertise and skills of the individuals performing THID and

RDRAs drive the results and reliability of the analysis. Their expertise varies greatly based upon

on their training, experience, and aptitude for interrelating the components.

Risk Analysis from the User Perspective

Federal agencies and departments that play a role in THID can work with partners from the whole 

community to develop methodologies to help understand the level of threat and hazard identification 

analysis that needs to be performed based on the purpose or use of the assessment and the level of 

risk. The level of analysis needed is based on the purpose or use for the results and the level of risk 

associated with the threat and hazard. Thus, the scalability of these capabilities ranges from very low 

complexity to very high. Figure C-1 provides a range of potential uses for THID and RDRA products 

and analysis. The users may range from those that are assessing their risks to identify their eligibility 

C-1 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

and best application for grants to those that need complex and specific types of data and models to 

design critical infrastructure. 

Figure C-1: Potential Uses of Risk Analysis

The reliability of the results depends on many factors. Factors like accuracy, precision, uncertainty, 

validity, currency, complexity, and level of expertise can all play in to how reliable the results are for 

a given purpose or use. Depending on the type of analysis and/or assessment that is performed, these 

factors describe the characteristics of the results based on either or both quantitative or qualitative 

tools, methodologies, data, inputs, etc. 

Introducing a Conceptual Maturity Model

Risk analysis can be conducted at varying levels of complexity depending on the needs and 

perspective of the user. The ability to understand the need for a full range of purposes and risk levels 

is necessary to help standardize the THID and RDRA inputs, analyses, and results for the whole 

community. This standardization would support both the THID and the RDRA capabilities and how 

they support or interrelate with capabilities across all five mission areas. 

Starting with a basic analysis to help communities understand risk, guidance can be found in 

FEMA’s CPG 201: THIRA Guide. This guidance is adaptable to the needs and resources of local, 

state, tribal, territorial, and insular area homeland security and emergency management partners. It

describes the process in four steps:

 Identify the threats and hazards of concern—Based on a combination of experience,

forecasting, subject matter expertise, and other available resources, identify a list of the threats

and hazards of primary concern to the community.

C-2 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

 Give the threats and hazards context—Describe the threats and hazards of concern, showing

how they may affect the community.

 Establish capability targets—Assess each threat and hazard in context to develop a specific

capability target for each core capability defined in the National Preparedness Goal.

 Apply the results— For each core capability, estimate the resources required to achieve the

capability targets through the use of community assets and mutual aid, while also considering

preparedness activities, including mitigation opportunities.

Based on the premise above, risk analysis should be viewed through a maturity model under the 

National Preparedness Goal. The use of maturity models began in the software development field, 

and they were introduced by Carnegie Mellon University in the late 1990s.14 The concept of maturity 

establishes increasing detail or formality of processes over a set of prescribed levels. The premise has 

been adopted in many fields, including project management and government processes. In the 

adaptation of the concept to other uses, typically four to five maturity levels are established that 

range from a basic awareness at the first level to a more detailed and optimized process or analysis to 

comport with certain outcomes at the highest level.

Maturity levels could be adopted to help users understand their risks and provide supportive guidance 

on the level of data and analysis needed to conduct their THID and RDRA. Figure C-2 depicts the 

increasing complexities on the continuum of analysis in the THIRA maturity process. In situations 

where risk and the purpose do not require a high level of maturity in the results, a lower level of 

RDRA would be warranted. An example of this situation is a low population area where the 

population is not located near the flooding sources in the area. In instances where you have a high 

risk from a threat or hazard along with a purpose that drives a high level of maturity, a more refined 

analysis would be warranted. Examples of where a high level of maturity of results would be needed 

could be an earthquake RDRA for the Los Angeles Metro Area, or a hurricane wind and flood 

RDRA for New York City. For both of these areas, the consequences of the threats and hazards with 

certain magnitudes could be high and the purpose of the assessment likely to require detailed 

information to inform preparedness decisions. 

Figure C-2: THIRA Maturity Process

The Federal departments and agencies should undertake an effort to work with partners from the 

whole community to define levels of maturity and create guidelines as to what level of RDRA is 

desired based on factors such as risk and purpose. This would further enhance the RDRA capability 

14 Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Product Team, U.S. Department of Defense. Carnegie Mellon 

University. CMMI® for Services, Version 1.3. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon, 2010

(http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/10tr034.pdf). 

C-3 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

by defining the level of RDRA that should be performed and justifying higher levels of assessment 

when necessary. 

Building and Maintaining Risk Analysis Capabilities

Building and maintaining the THID and RDRA capabilities through resource allocation and 

investment across the whole community should be targeted to address the highest risks and to reduce 

uncertainty.

The risk associated with each threat or hazard and the uncertainty around the threat or hazard 

identification and assessments should guide the allocation and investment of resources in each of the 

categories, with the goal of reducing the risk or reducing the uncertainty. Figure C-3 shows a simple 

four quadrant matrix with Risk and Uncertainty making up the Y and X axes, respectively. This 

decision support tool helps illustrate when investments should be considered to reduce risk based on 

high risk, high uncertainty, or both. 

Figure C-3: Resource Investment Prioritization for Maturing Risk Analysis Abilities

Based on Risk and Uncertainty15

Investments could be made in the three capability components (data, analysis, and education and 

training) to reduce risk and/or uncertainty. For instance when looking at a specific threat or hazard: 

 If the risk (or probability and consequence) is high compared to the other threats and hazards,

investment would be warranted in all three components. This would enable the risk to be reduced

by more reliably identifying the threat or hazard and assessing the risk and resilience from that

threat and hazard.

15 Graphics and concepts adapted from Dr. Richard W. Spinrad, “Risk-Informed Investments in Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Research,” The Royal Academy of Engineering, Lloyd’s Register Educational Trust, April 2008. 

C-4 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

 If the uncertainty around the threat or hazard is high compared to the other threats and

hazards that exist, investments would be warranted again in all three of the capability

components to enable the uncertainty of the threat or hazard to be reduced.

This type of resource and investment allocation guidance allows the core capabilities of THID and 

RDRA to be enhanced and maintained, with priority assigned based on the risk and uncertainty of the 

threats and hazards that are being identified and assessed against vulnerabilities.

Some capability components, those not specific to a single threat or hazard, can be applied across 

multiple threats and/or hazards and risk assessments. Investment and allocation in these general 

capabilities, like common risk assessment techniques or datasets to enhance the core capabilities, can 

be justified since the investments would raise the capability levels across multiple threats and/or 

hazards. Developing more accurate population and demographic data is an example of an investment 

that would allow the Data component of RDRA to be enhanced for all threats and hazards where a 

risk and/or resilience assessment would be performed. 

Prioritizing resource investments and allocations is a reality in a limited resource environment. The 

prioritization of resources for these two capabilities is essential to enabling the whole community to 

know what threats and hazards they face and the risk associated with those threats and/or hazards. 

Working together across mission areas to share data and assessments can create a common 

understanding of vulnerable community populations, assets, and systems from threats and hazards, as 

well as the level of preparedness capabilities.

Summary 

The THID and RDRA capabilities are similar to one another in terms of being dependent on the same 

components of data, analysis, and education and training. This requires that these components be 

further defined in a way that the whole community can understand when a capability is adequate and 

only needs to be maintained or needs to be built further to provide more reliable results. National 

consistency of these maturity levels will enable the whole community, regardless of the mission 

area(s) to which the capability is being applied, to use the results and products of these capabilities in 

an informed and responsible manner through delivery of the other core capabilities dependent on 

THID and RDRA. Defining what levels of maturity should be met for the data and results of analysis 

for both capabilities will also assist the whole community with understanding what should be 

expected and where deficiencies are present to justify further resource allocations and investments in 

the three components for each of the capabilities to support the five mission areas. 

C-5 
Mitigation Federal Interagency Operational Plan

This page intentionally left blank.

C-6