August 2003

FEMA 386-4

STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING

how-to guide

implementing the

hazard mitigation plan
STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

foreword

introduction

STEP ONE adopt the mitigation plan

task A brief local leadership

task B demonstrate the support

of partner organizations

task C have the plan adopted by the proper

legislative or executive authorities

task D submit your plan for approval

task E publicize the adoption and approval of the plan

STEP TWO implement the plan recommendations

task A confirm and clarify responsibilities

task B begin to integrate mitigation actions

throughout government operations

task C monitor and document the implementation

of your projects and actions

task D establish indicators of effectiveness or success

worksheet #1

task E celebrate success

i

v

1-1

1-2

1-2

1-3

1-3

1-3

2-1

2-3

2-6

2-11

2-12

2-13

2-16

Contents

1

2
Version 1.0 August 2003

STEP THREE evaluate your planning results

task A evaluate the effectiveness of the planning process

worksheet #2

task B evaluate the effectiveness of your actions

worksheet #3

task C determine why the actions worked (or did not work)

task D keep the community updated and involved,

and celebrate your successes

STEP FOUR revise the plan

task A review those factors that affect your

community’s planning context

worksheet #4

task B analyze your findings and determine whether to

revise your planning process or mitigation strategy

task C incorporate your findings into the plan

worksheet #5

afterword

appendix a glossary

appendix b library

appendix c worksheets

3-1

3-2

3-3

3-5

3-6

3-10

3-16

4-1

4-2

4-4

4-5

4-6

4-7

a-1

b-1

c-1

3

4
STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

the

hazard

mitigation

planning

process

Hazard mitigation planning is the

process of determining how to reduce or eliminate the loss of life and

property damage resulting from

natural and manmade hazards. As

shown in this diagram, the hazard

mitigation planning process consists

of four basic phases.

For illustration purposes, this diagram portrays a process that appears to proceed sequentially. However, the mitigation planning process

is rarely a linear process. It is not

unusual that ideas developed while

assessing risks should need revision

and additional information while developing the mitigation plan, or that

implementing the plan may result in

new goals or additional risk assessment.

foreword
i Version 1.0 August 2003

foreword

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has

developed this series of mitigation planning “how-to” guides to

assist states, tribes, and communities in enhancing their hazard

mitigation planning capabilities.

These guides are designed to provide the type of information

states, tribes, and communities need to initiate and maintain a

planning process that will result in safer and more disaster-resistant

communities. These guides are applicable to states, tribes, and

communities of various sizes and varying ranges of financial and

technical resources.

This how-to series is not intended to be the last word on any of the

subject matter covered; rather, it is meant to provide easy to understand guidance for the field practitioner. In practice, these guides

may be supplemented with more extensive technical data and the

use of experts when necessary.

mit-i-gate\ 1: to cause to become less harsh or hostile;

2: to make less severe or

painful.

As defined by DMA 2000—

hazard mitigation\ : any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the

long-term risk to human life and property from hazards.

plan-ning\ : the act or process of making or carrying out plans; specif: the establishment of goals, policies and

procedures for a social or economic unit.

The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 State governments have certain responsibilities for implementing Section 322, including:

 Preparing and submitting a standard or enhanced state

mitigation plan;

 Reviewing and updating the state mitigation plan every three years;

 Providing technical assistance and training to local governments to assist them in developing local mitigation

plans and applying for HMGP grants; and

 Reviewing and approving local plans if the state has

an approved enhanced plan and is designated a managing state.

DMA 2000 is intended to facilitate cooperation between state

and local authorities. It encourages and rewards local, tribal,

and state pre-disaster planning and promotes sustainability

as a strategy for disaster resistance. This enhanced planning

network will better enable local, tribal, and state governments

to articulate their needs for mitigation, resulting in faster allocation of funding and more effective risk reduction projects.

To implement the new DMA 2000 requirements, FEMA prepared an Interim Final Rule, published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002, at 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206,

which establishes planning and funding criteria for states,

tribes, and local communities.

In the past, federal legislation has provided funding for disaster relief, recovery, and some hazard

mitigation planning. The Disaster Mitigation Act of

2000 (DMA 2000) is the latest legislation to improve the hazard mitigation planning process. DMA 2000 (Public Law 106-

390) was signed by the President on October 30, 2000. The

new legislation reinforces the importance of mitigation planning and emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. As such, DMA 2000 establishes a pre-disaster hazard

mitigation program and new requirements for the national

post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).

Section 322 of DMA 2000 specifically addresses mitigation

planning at the state and local levels. This section identifies

new requirements that allow HMGP funds to be used for planning actions, and increases the amount of HMGP funds available to states that have developed a comprehensive,

enhanced mitigation plan prior to a disaster. States, tribes,

and communities must have an approved mitigation plan in

place before receiving HMGP funds. Local and tribal mitigation plans must demonstrate that their proposed mitigation

actions are based on a sound planning process that accounts

for the risk to and the capabilities of the individual communities.
ii STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

The how-to guides cover the following topics:

 Getting started with the mitigation planning process, including important considerations for how you can organize your

efforts to develop an effective mitigation plan (FEMA 386-1);

 Identifying hazards and assessing losses to your community,

tribe, or state (FEMA 386-2);

 Setting mitigation priorities and goals for your community,

tribe, or state and writing the plan (FEMA 386-3);

 Implementing the mitigation plan, including project funding

and maintaining a dynamic plan that changes to meet new

developments (FEMA 386-4);

 Evaluating and prioritizing potential mitigation actions

through the use of benefit-cost analysis and other techniques

(FEMA 386-5);

 Incorporating special considerations into hazard mitigation

planning for historic structures and cultural resources (FEMA

386-6);

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

 Using multi-jurisdictional approaches to mitigation planning

(FEMA 386-8); and

 Finding and securing technical and financial resources for

mitigation planning (FEMA 386-9).

Why should you spend the time to read

these guides?

 It simply costs too much to address the effects of disasters only

after they happen;

 State and federal aid is usually insufficient to cover the extent

of physical and economic damages resulting from disasters;

 You can prevent a surprising amount of damage from hazards

if you take the time to anticipate where and how they occur,

and then take the appropriate action to minimize damages;

 You can lessen the impact of disasters and speed the response

and recovery process for both natural and manmade hazards;

and
foreword

iii Version 1.0 August 2003

 The most meaningful steps in avoiding the impacts of hazards

are taken at the state, tribal, and local levels by officials and

community members who have a personal stake in the outcome and the ability to follow through on a sustained process

of planning and implementation.

The guides show how mitigation planning:

 Can help your community become more sustainable and disaster resistant through selecting the most appropriate mitigation

actions, based on the knowledge you gained in the hazard

identification and loss estimation process;

 Can be incorporated as an integral component of daily government business;

 Allows you to focus your efforts on the hazard areas most important

to you by determining and setting priorities for mitigation

planning efforts; and

 Can save you money by providing a forum for engaging in partnerships that provide the technical, financial, and staff resources in your effort to reduce the effects, and hence the

costs, of natural and manmade hazards.

These guides present a range of approaches to preparing a hazard

mitigation plan. There is no one right planning process; however,

there are certain central themes to planning, such as engaging citizens, developing goals and objectives, and monitoring progress.

Select the approach that works best for your state, tribe, or community.

The process used

to develop a successful hazard mitigation plan is just as

important as the plan itself.

This how-to guide focuses on the fourth

phase of the hazard mitigation planning

process and will help you develop a mitigation plan that meets DMA 2000 requirements.
introduction
Version 1.0 August 2003 v

introduction

Your community now has a plan that is a result of the planning

team’s effort and work with stakeholders concerned about reducing losses from hazards in your community. This plan resulted

from a process that included a risk assessment, capability assessment, and the development of a mitigation strategy that features

prioritized mitigation actions based upon your goals and objectives. The implementation process puts your planning team’s hard

work into motion and focuses on the actions necessary to establish

and maintain the effectiveness of the plan as a fundamental tool

for risk reduction.

An added benefit of having a plan is that its printed form is familiar, even reassuring, to citizens who have been part of a comprehensive planning process or, even more importantly, have suffered

losses due to a hazard. In addition, those new to the community, as

well as non-residents, will have easy access to this information as

well. The text and accompanying graphics concisely and coherently document the hazards faced by the community, their location

and extent, previous losses, actions to mitigate future hazards, and

goals for a sustainable future. The development of the plan by

community members increases the likelihood of hazard mitigation

becoming, like transportation and education, one of the standard

considerations in the evolution and growth of the community.

Once the plan has been adopted and the recommendations implemented, your accomplishments, issues, programs, policies, and

project results should be accurately documented. This documentation will be very useful when it is time to evaluate, update, or revise

the plan. Plans are living documents that require adjustments to

maintain their relevance. You and the planning team prepared the

mitigation plan to articulate your community’s values and strategies at a particular point in time, but like every other plan, it must

be reviewed periodically to remain a useful tool to guide growth

and change in your community.

Updates and revisions may be necessary to incorporate changes in

your community or tribe, new hazard information, new tribal, community, or state priorities, or lessons learned as mitigation projects

are completed. It is recommended, but not required, that you comThis series of guides shows

how to identify, plan, and implement

cost-effective actions

through a comprehensive approach

known as Hazard

Mitigation Planning.

The process

consists of four

basic phases:

 Organize resources involves

organizing resources, mobilizing the

community, and getting started with

the planning process;

 Assess risks identifies hazards and

estimates the losses associated with

these hazards;

 Develop a mitigation plan describes how to identify, plan, and initiate cost-effective actions; and

 Implement the plan and monitor

progress, the topic of this guide—

Bringing the Plan to Life: Implementing the Hazard Mitigation Plan

(FEMA 386-4)—leads communities

and states through the formal adoption of the plan and discusses how

to implement, monitor, and evaluate

the results of mitigation actions to

keep the mitigation plan relevant over

time.
vi STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

plete an internal review of the plan annually and revisit your plan

after all hazard events. DMA 2000 regulations require updates every three years for state plans, and every five years for local plans,

in order for states, tribes, and communities to remain eligible for

disaster-related grants and assistance. This guide will help you determine when and how to review and revise your mitigation plan.

How do you use this how-to guide?

This guide will help you address the following questions:

1. How can we make sure the plan is officially recognized?

Proof of formal adoption is required under DMA 2000 regulations.

Getting the plan adopted ensures the support and approval of the

governing authority in your jurisdiction. Step 1, Adopt the Mitigation

Plan, discusses ways of securing the adoption of the plan by your

governing body.

2. What is the most effective mechanism to implement each recommendation? What resources are available? How can we keep the public informed and actively involved now that initiatives are underway?

Your mitigation strategy probably contains various short- and longterm recommendations. While you identified potential sources of

funding in the plan, the actual sources of funding, staff time, and

staffing needs may change before project implementation gets underway. The planning team always must be on the lookout for alternative sources of funding, new opportunities, and new

partnerships through which to carry out the recommendations.

Determining who will bear responsibility for implementing

planned actions is key to getting the implementation phase off to a

successful start. Ensuring that there are appropriate authorities to

implement actions is covered in Step 2, Implement the Plan Recommendations.

3. How will we know if our mitigation strategy is working?

Monitoring and evaluating the outcomes of the mitigation actions

are essential to knowing whether to stay the course or change it.

Step 3, Evaluate Your Planning Results, discusses how to determine

whether or not the planned course of action has had the desired

effect. The successes and limitations of your efforts should be

documented as part of the evaluation process.

Celebrating successes, and keeping citizens actively involved and

informed of the progress of the hazard mitigation initiatives, are

The implementation andevaluation

processes ensure that

you accomplish the mitigation actions in a timely way

and provide the foundation for an ongoing mitigation program. This allows

you to:

 Ensure that the mitigation strategy

is implemented in an effective manner;

 Provide for the long-term institutionalization and monitoring of hazard

mitigation practices so that the plan

remains relevant in the face of

change;

 Establish new protocols. The planning process educates community

officials on their roles (and those of

their departments) in reducing risks.

Local officials will need to develop

protocols for integrating mitigation

principles into their daily job responsibilities; and

 Maintain momentum. The implementation phase is a good time to

renew the spirit of cooperation

among all partners in the planning

process, particularly now that actions to reduce risk are imminent.

States should continually work with

local jurisdictions to

ensure that local plans are

in conformance with state

guidelines and complement the goals

and strategies outlined in the state hazard mitigation plan, particularly as state

priorities change.
introduction

vii Version 1.0 August 2003

just as important in the adoption, implementation, and revision

phases as in any other phase. Keeping everyone up to date on

progress also will help sustain support for mitigation as a local,

tribal, or state priority. During the implementation phase, the media will become an especially important tool in communicating the

progress of the mitigation plan.

4. When should we reexamine the plan?

As has been noted throughout the how-to series, the community

and its assets are constantly changing, requiring the mitigation

plan to be updated periodically. While DMA 2000 regulations require a formal review and revision of the community plan once

every five years for local jurisdictions and every three years for

states, the planning team should reevaluate its implementation

strategy as new opportunities, unforeseen challenges, and disasters

arise. Additionally, as mitigation issues are resolved, the plan

should be reexamined to determine whether there is a need to reprioritize, add, or reconfigure actions in light of what has been

accomplished. Step 4, Revise the Plan, addresses how to incorporate

new knowledge about the community, tribe, or state and ongoing

mitigation efforts into your strategy.

Type of information found in the how-to

series

The how-to series contains a wide variety of information, some of

which is highlighted with icons. Additional information can be

found in Appendix B, Library. To illustrate how the guide can be

used, newspaper articles from the fictional Town of Hazardville are

provided.

Icons

Guidance focused solely on the role of states and tribes

that serve as grantees under HMGP is identified as a

sidebar with the “States” icon. Tribes that choose to

serve as grantees under HMGP should follow the state

icons. Although much of the information will be the same for local, tribal, and state governments, there are different requirements

for state and local mitigation plans. Furthermore, states have additional responsibilities to assist local entities in their planning efforts. For tribes that choose to serve as subgrantees under HMGP,

guidance focusing on local governments applies to these entities as

well.

Under DMA 2000

regulations, local governments may be defined in

many different ways. A local

government may be defined

by a political boundary, such as an incorporated city, county, parish, or township, or it may not have a distinct political

boundary, for example, a watershed or

metropolitan region. “Local government” is formally defined in 44 CFR

§201.2 of DMA regulations.

Be sure to allow

sufficient time to complete Phase 4. If you decide

to revise the plan, or if you

are required to revise it as

described under DMA 2000, consider

the time it will take to do the following:

 Include the public and identify any

new stakeholders in the evaluation process;

 Gather and evaluate data;

 Brief the public and political leadership;

 Incorporate changes into planning documents; and

 Adopt the new plan.
viii STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

The “Advanced” icon indicates an additional step you

can take or when specialists may be needed.

The “Caution” icon alerts you to important information

and ways to avoid sticky situations later in the planning

process.

The “DMA” icon provides information relating to the

mitigation planning requirements outlined in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000).

The “Glossary” icon identifies terms and concepts for

which a detailed explanation is provided in the Glossary

included in Appendix A.

The “Tips” icon identifies helpful hints and useful information that can be used in the planning process.

Library

A mitigation planning “Library” has been included in Appendix B.

This library has a wealth of information, including Web addresses,

reference books, and other contact information to help get you

started. All of the Web sites and references listed in the how-to

guide are included in the library.

Town of Hazardville articles

Applications of the various steps in the mitigation planning process

are illustrated through a fictional community, the Town of

Hazardville, located in the State of Emergency. Hazardville, a small

community with limited resources and multiple hazards, is in the

process of developing a multi-hazard mitigation plan. Newspaper

accounts illustrate the various steps in the mitigation planning process.

Worksheets

Finally, to help track your progress, worksheets have been developed that correspond with the structure of this guide. Worksheets

have been completed with Hazardville examples to illustrate the
introduction

Version 1.0 August 2003 ix

The Hazardville Post

Vol. CXIII No. 28 Tuesday, January 28, 2003

Public Responds to Hazardville Mitigation Plan

Howard, an advocate for the town's

less privileged citizens in the Raging River Views Park was perhaps

the most outspoken opponent of the

plan. At first, Howard worried that

the benefits of this plan might not

help the people he felt needed it the

most.

"I have tried for years to get the

community to help the poor residents in the low-income neighborhood who get flooded out every

spring when the snow begins to

melt. The town never knew how

they could help the residents other

than to assist in clean-up and debris removal. The residents could

not afford to relocate on their own.

All of the houses that are affected

year after year were identified in the

hazard identification and risk assessment as being in a 10-year flood

zone, and are very vulnerable to any

sort of flash floods or even a heavy

rain." (A 10-year flood has a 10 percent chance of occurring in any one

year.)

"While I was deeply saddened by

this information," Howard said, "I

was relieved to see that it turned

out to be a good thing after all. Once

the town and the Council learned

what a dangerous area that was, the

entire neighborhood was prioritized

for buyouts, which will allow these

residents to get fair market value

for their home and help them move

out of harm's way."

In an interview, THORR's outreach

coordinator, Charity Jones, who

works for the Hazardville Department of Health and Human Services,

said, "The citizens of Hazardville

should feel good about what they did

to develop this plan. I know I am

proud of all the work that THORR

and Hazardville community members have put into its creation. This

is truly a plan driven by the

community's concerns and needs."

[Hazardville, EM] The Town of

Hazardville Organization for Risk

Reduction (THORR) has received

over 50 comments regarding the

Hazardville Mitigation Plan. The

plan was created to help reduce the

community's risk to hazards such

as flooding, earthquakes, and other

natural hazards.

Joe Norris, lead planner for

THORR, said the team has been

working closely with citizens, businesses, and other community representatives to develop a plan that

would create a safer, more resilient

Hazardville. THORR was committed to having community input

throughout the planning process.

"At first, we had a hard time getting the community interested. The

citizens didn't know what to expect,"

Norris said.

Many in the community were

skeptical of exactly what the plan

was supposed to accomplish. Riley

type of information to include. Blank worksheets are included in

Appendix C. You can photocopy the worksheets to record your

progress as you undertake the processes of implementing and

evaluating the mitigation plan.
step
Version 1.0 August 2003 1-1

1

adopt the

mitigation

plan Overview

Congratulations! You have reached Phase 4 of the planning

process. After organizing resources, assessing risks, and developing a mitigation plan, you are now ready to take the first step in

Phase 4—guiding the plan through a formal adoption process.

Completion of this step will establish the plan’s authority and legitimacy. In order to meet DMA 2000 regulations, your jurisdiction’s

governing body must formally adopt the plan in accordance with

state and local laws. Their involvement and support of the process

all along should help gain approval, as you will see below. Local

plans are adopted by the lead governing body (City Council, Board

of Supervisors, etc.) and state plans are usually submitted to the

state director of emergency management for approval and signature. Adopting the mitigation plan is the final challenge for the

planning team before plan implementation can begin. The relationships you have already established with stakeholders, elected

officials, and government agencies, as well as the thorough nature

of your work thus far, will be important assets during the adoption

process.

In addition to being required by DMA 2000, adoption of the plan

is necessary because:

 It lends authority to the plan to serve as a guiding document

for all local and state government officials;

 It gives legal status to the plan in the event it is challenged in

court;

 It certifies to program and grant administrators that the plan’s

recommendations have been properly considered and approved by the governing authority and the jurisdiction’s citizens; and

 It helps ensure the continuity of mitigation programs and

policies over time because elected officials, staff, and other

community decision-makers can refer to the official document

when making decisions about the community’s future.

Linking the plan’s

policies to those in other

land development tools ensures that development decisions are made in

consideration of the loss reduction goals

of the community. Formal adoption of

the plan lets public or private funding

sources know that the plan has the support of citizens, elected officials, and

business owners. For example, land

developers should use the adopted plan

to make informed decisions about their

ventures with respect to mitigation policies and potential hazards.

Before you seek

adoption of the plan,

check with your State Hazard Mitigation Officer

(SHMO) on administrative

procedures for reviewing plans under

DMA 2000 requirements. The SHMO

may have established a procedure with

the FEMA Regional Office to review the

draft plan to make sure you included all

elements for meeting the DMA 2000 or

other program requirements. This may

include reviewing the planning process

and your documentation before you ask

the governing body to adopt the plan, a

step to ensure that you have to submit

the plan only once to the governing body

for formal adoption. A tribal jurisdiction

that submits a plan as a state-level entity works directly with the appropriate

FEMA Regional Office.
1-2 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

Procedures & Techniques

Task A. Brief local leadership.

An excellent way to facilitate adoption of the plan is to periodically

brief community decision makers and elected officials on the

progress of your planning efforts. This is a great opportunity to

demonstrate to the governing body that the plan is sound and has

broad support. Plan adoption should not be difficult if the planning team has conducted activities throughout the planning process that have lent credibility to the team, the plan, and the

planning process. The briefings will also allow you to address any

concerns of elected officials, and to obtain their input. Having the

planning team recognized, garnering public input, and communicating the progress and successes of the team will help get the plan

adopted.

Task B. Demonstrate the support of partner

organizations.

One way to ensure the credibility and eventual passage of the mitigation plan is to present the adopting body with letters of support

from organizations and agencies on the planning team, as well as

those not on the team. The community’s governing body may view

the plan more favorably if it has the support of neighborhood and

civic organizations. Some organizations may show their commitment to implementing the plan by passing a resolution supporting

it and outlining specific responsibilities that they will assume. Furthermore, supporting organizations should be encouraged to provide testimony if the plan will be adopted at a public hearing. This

testimony should provide specific information on the benefits that

the mitigation plan will bring to the organization’s constituencies.

Such testimony becomes part of the public record of the hearing.

For example, if a member of a community

watershed advocacy group was part of the

planning team, that group might review

the plan and give its full support to the

plan by outlining the group’s commitment to sponsor an annual watershed

clean-up day or to plant native vegetation

in the open space that resulted from the

acquisition of flood-prone structures. See

Getting Started (FEMA 386-1) for more details on garnering community support.

Partners in Mitigation

Citizens, businesses, and technical experts in southwest

Tulsa are partnering with the City of Tulsa and the National

Park Service in the development of a greenway plan for a

local creek (Mooser Creek). Flood mitigation, preservation of natural

resources, recreation, and sustainable development are part of a community vision shared by both citizens and government. Community leaders got involved by forming committees and identifying issues important

to them. The Mooser Creek Greenway Citizens and Technical Committees agreed upon a vision statement in an effort to preserve the natural

functions and beauty of Mooser Creek and to create recreational and

educational opportunities.

Ensuring Plan

Adoption

The planning team has already performed activities

that will help ease passage of the plan:

Recognizing the Committee. As described in Getting Started (FEMA

386-1), the team is formally recognized

by the community’s governing body as

the local authority on mitigation, and has

been entrusted to make recommendations about mitigation on behalf of the

community. This formal recognition by

elected officials extends to the planning

team’s scope of work as well.

Garnering Public Input. As covered in

Getting Started (FEMA 386-1) and Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA

386-3), the planning team identified

stakeholders to join the planning team,

briefed elected officials, informed the

public of the team’s progress and findings, and involved the public in its work.

By including the citizens of the community throughout the planning process,

you can expect that the adoption and

implementation of the plan will be

broadly supported by the public and

elected officials.

Communicating Information. By keeping citizens involved in the planning process and informed of progress, the

planning team can maintain the

community’s interest in mitigation. The

community now knows and understands

that there is a significant risk of losing

assets because of hazards, that several

alternatives are being considered, and

that projects and initiatives will soon be

underway.
adopt the mitigation plan 1

Version 1.0 August 2003 1-3

Task C. Have the plan adopted by the proper legislative

or executive authorities.

The mitigation plan will be adopted through your government’s

normal legal process. Depending on the laws in your state and jurisdiction, adoption of the plan will give the jurisdiction legal authority to enact ordinances, policies, or programs to reduce hazard

losses and to implement other mitigation actions. Generally, most

local governing bodies will adopt a hazard mitigation plan by resolution.

Build time into your planning schedule to meet federal and state

deadlines for submitting the plan. Make sure you allow sufficient

time for formal adoption procedures. Your local governing body

may meet only once a month and may require agenda items to be

submitted well ahead of time.

Task D. Submit your plan for approval.

Once your local governing body has approved the plan, it must be

submitted to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO). The

SHMO should already be familiar with your plan because he or she

should have reviewed a draft to determine if the plan meets DMA

2000 and other state program requirements. Someone should be

designated as the point of contact with the state to answer any

questions about the plan. For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that it has

been formally adopted by its respective governing body. The

SHMO is responsible for forwarding the plan to the FEMA Regional Office for review.

Task E. Publicize the adoption and approval of the plan.

Once the plan has been approved, stakeholders should be informed of your success. You may want to package the message differently to reach various audiences. This can be accomplished by

sending a press release to your local newspaper, holding a press

conference with important civic leaders, sending a mailing, or posting a notice on the community’s Web site. You may also want to

celebrate your success by beginning a project immediately. For example, after the plan is approved, you may request that the governing body vote on a resolution or ordinance that is important to

accomplishing your mitigation goals, or to authorize funding to

undertake a highly visible project, such as flood-proofing City Hall

or some other important public facility.

44 CFR §201.4(c)(6)

and §201.6(c)(5) of

the Interim Final

Rule require plans to be

adopted before being submitted to FEMA for formal review and

final approval. A copy of the resolution

of adoption must be included with the

plan.

Resolutions are expressions of a governing

body’s opinion, will, or intention and can be legally binding or not. Most planning

documents must undergo a legally binding council resolution, which, in order

to be adopted, must be supported by

an official vote of the majority of members.

Formal adoption of

the state plan will vary

according to state protocols.

Generally, states should obtain the signature of the

state emergency management director

as approval of the plan. The plan also

can be distributed to members of the

state legislature to broaden support for

the plan and to potentially pave the way

for any new legislation or budget items

that may be necessary to carry out the

plan recommendations. States must

submit plans to their FEMA Regional

Office for review and approval. Depending upon regional procedures, states

also may opt to submit the results of the

risk assessment or draft plan to FEMA

for an informal review before officially

adopting it and sending it to FEMA for

official review and approval. Once any

necessary changes have been made,

the state can proceed with formal adoption and final FEMA review. If a tribal

organization has developed a state-level

plan, it should be submitted directly to

the FEMA Regional Office.
1-4 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

Summary

By the time you finish Step 1, you will have a plan that has the support of the community, state, tribe, and elected officials. Adoption

of the plan gives the plan greater authority, fulfills certain FEMA

program eligibility requirements, and will ease implementation of

your mitigation actions. Once the mitigation plan has been

adopted, your state, tribe, or community is ready to begin implementing the mitigation strategy.

Consider developing an executive

summary of the plan for

use in publicizing it with

other government agencies

or partners. A brochure may be appropriate for citizens while you also make

the executive summary or entire plan

available to them.
adopt the mitigation plan 1

Version 1.0 August 2003 1-5

The Hazardville Post

Vol. CXIII No. 45 Friday, February 14, 2003

Town of Hazardville Adopts THORR’s Plan

(Part 1 of a 4-Part Series on the Hazard Mitigation Implementation Process)

[Hazardville, EM] The Hazardville Town Council adopted the

Hazardville Hazard Mitigation Plan

on Thursday by resolution (included

below) to serve as the town’s guide

in reducing risks to citizens and

property. Marion Jackson, Chairperson of the Town Council, announced that “in light of the

community’s involvement and obvious support for the plan, indicated

by citizen turnout at the hearing

and letters of support submitted for

the record by respected community

organizations, the Council unanimously voted to adopt the

Hazardville Hazard Mitigation Plan

as an official plan of the Town of

Hazardville.” The plan will take effect immediately.

The Town of Hazardville Organization for Risk Reduction (THORR)

was instrumental in developing the

plan and marshaled its forces to support adoption of the plan through

written support from the community. “This plan is one of the few

community initiatives that is relatively unopposed, no doubt due to

THORR’s diligent public outreach

efforts,” Jackson said.

Resolution #2003-53

WHEREAS the Town of

Hazardville has experienced severe damage from hurricanes,

flooding, earthquakes, wildfires,

landslides, and tornadoes on many

occasions in the past century, resulting in property loss, loss of life,

economic hardship, and threats to

public health and safety;

WHEREAS a Hazard Mitigation Plan (the Plan) has been developed after more than one year

of research and work by the Town

of Hazardville Organization for

Risk Reduction and the people of

the Hazardville community;

WHEREAS the Plan recommends many hazard mitigation

actions that will protect the people

and property affected by the natural hazards that face Hazardville;

WHEREAS a public meeting

was held to review the Plan as required by law;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Town

Council of the Town of Hazardville

that:

1.The Hazard Mitigation Plan is

hereby adopted as an official plan

of Hazardville.

2.The respective town officials identified in the strategy of the Plan

are hereby directed to implement

the recommended actions assigned to them. These officials will

report quarterly on their activities, accomplishments, and

progress to the Town of

Hazardville Organization for Risk

Reduction.

3.The Town of Hazardville Organization for Risk Reduction will provide annual progress reports on

the status of implementation of

the plan to the Mayor and Town

Council. This report shall be

submitted to the Town Council

by February 28th of each year.

PASSED by the Town Council of

Hazardville, this 13th day of February 2003.

Council Chairperson

APPROVED by me this 13th day

of February 2003.

Mayor

ATTESTED and FILED in my office this 13th day of February 2003.

Clerk
step
Version 1.0 August 2003 2-1

2

implement

the plan

recommendations

Overview

Citizens and officials who participated in creating the plan

will expect to see results from their hard work and effort.

This step describes how to place the recommendations of the plan

within the administrative framework of your state, tribe, or community. The section presents ideas on how the planning team can get

the recommendations implemented on schedule and, over time,

integrate mitigation actions into the day-to-day operations of government agencies. It will also show how to bring action items

within the mitigation strategy to fruition through creative use of

available resources.

When implementing the plan, various stakeholders will have distinct roles and

responsibilities:

The Planning Team. During the implementation of the mitigation strategy, the planning team’s role may change to

one of overseer. As the developers of the mitigation plan, the planning team should also regularly monitor its progress.

The planning team can help ensure that the spirit of the plan is not sidetracked by political or personal concerns, and keep the

community energized so citizens can hold the government accountable for the legitimate performance of the plan. The team

can also alert officials to issues that may affect emergency management and hazard mitigation.

Elected Officials and Local Administrators. The executive or delegated administrator may be a likely candidate for keeping

all participating local agencies or departments on track. Elected officials play a unique role in the implementation of the plan.

They will be pressured by those opposed to the plan as well as those who expect to see it enacted as intended. Furthermore,

elected officials have the capacity and responsibility to distribute resources among competing interests. The planning team will

have identified supportive elected officials not only when organizing to prepare the plan (Phase 1, Getting Started, FEMA 386-

1), but also when evaluating the relevant political factors of potential mitigation actions (see Developing the Mitigation Plan,

FEMA 386-3, Step 2).

Elected officials and local administrators should provide:

 Oversight. Officials not only can assign staff and provide incentives to implement planning initiatives, they also can

support the hard work of the professional staff and volunteers.

 Visibility. Community leaders must keep the spotlight on the identified hazard-related problems and opportunities

and make sure that problems are not overlooked by any relevant department or office—community planning, emergency services, zoning, public service, and economic development, for example.

 Budgets. Elected officials and local administrators must ensure that the community’s annual budget includes funding to implement previously adopted long-term actions. This includes commitments that the community has made to

cost-share, maintain, operate, repair, or otherwise bear the burden for activities that may have been undertaken with

outside assistance.

(continued on page 2-2)
2-2 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

In the third phase of the planning process, the planning team

identified mitigation actions and implementation strategies that

included target dates for the completion of projects and assigned

responsibilities to agencies, departments, organizations, or specific

people (see Steps 2 and 3 of Developing the Mitigation Plan, FEMA

386-3). This information should help the planning team meet the

objectives of the plan on time and provide indicators by which the

implementation will be monitored and evaluated.

It is important to decide how success will be determined before

implementation and evaluation occur. From an administrative

standpoint, success may be simply a measure of whether the

project was finished on time, and within budget. On the other

hand, even projects that are well thought out and executed may

not be completed for a long period of time due to the nature of

the project, the lack of available funding, or other reasons beyond

the control of the community. In this case, it is important to identify successes in the short-term, even if completion is not in sight.

For example, if a community decides to pursue zoning changes in

flood hazard areas, the actual changes may not occur for years due

to administrative procedures that must be followed within the context of local and state zoning and land use law. However, successes

(in the form of completion of milestones) can and should be identified along the timeline that is appropriate for that type of mitigation action. In this zoning example, short-term successes can

include key meetings or briefings held to present risk information

to support zoning changes.

(continued from page 2-1)

Partners–Nonprofit Organizations and Businesses. Throughout implementation of the plan, the planning team should

consider innovative ways for its partners to facilitate the implementation of projects. The nonprofit and private sectors can help

in a number of ways, including lending expertise, discounted materials, staff or volunteer time, or meeting space. The planning

team can, in turn, offer the private organizations an opportunity for greater public exposure, and thus greater name recognition.

The planning team can also offer tips and expertise in mitigation; businesses often do not realize the danger that their property

or sources of income face from hazards. The planning team can inform partners about the hazards they potentially face, the

ways they can mitigate these hazards, and how their staff can mitigate hazards at home.

Citizens. Citizens have an ongoing role to play in project implementation. The planning team should actively seek volunteers

to help implement programs and activities. Knowledgeable citizens also can be recruited to provide expertise in specific

subject areas. The more you involve people in implementing the plan, the greater the support it will receive.

State Agencies. State agencies can lend their time, expertise, and funds to the implementation of hazard mitigation projects.

Make sure your list of state contacts is very broad, as the resources of one state agency may be unknown to another.

Academic Institutions. Colleges and universities can provide technical expertise to projects that may require Geographic

Information System (GIS), engineering, planning, or other technical assistance. They can also provide meeting space, laboratories, and other logistical support.
Version 1.0 August 2003 2-3

implement the plan recommendations 2

In Step 3, you will also measure the effectiveness of your mitigation

actions. It will be therefore important in Step 2 to establish indicators of effectiveness.

The planning team should also determine the manner in which

plan implementation will be monitored. In any incorporated community, there are elected or appointed officials who have the ultimate responsibility for carrying out specific community policies

and programs. The planning team should continue to serve as a

resource to the community by helping its leaders identify, measure,

and publicize successes, and mobilize community members to contribute and participate where appropriate. The planning team can

also work to secure funding to implement the plan.

Your team may decide that frequent meetings are no longer practical. It may consider an alternative, such as periodically issuing a

memorandum to keep team members informed of progress in

implementing the plan. An annual internal review of progress by

the planning team is also a good monitoring method. Keep in

mind that the need for maintaining sustained communication is

more important than the form of communication selected.

Procedures & Techniques

Task A. Confirm and clarify responsibilities.

In Step 3 of Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3), the planning team identified who would be involved in implementation of

the mitigation actions. Now is the time to revisit those assignments

and confirm that the responsible parties understand their duties.

One way to communicate your expectations to public agencies and

other organizations with specific responsibilities is to draw up a

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the different agencies

and organizations. An MOA is a non-binding statement that defines the duties, responsibilities, and commitment of the different

parties or individuals as established by the hazard mitigation strategy developed in Phase 3. It provides a clear statement of values,

principles, and community hazard mitigation goals, and establishes

an organizational structure to assist in measuring and evaluating

the plan’s progress.

The MOA should include:

A vision or goal statement;

An organizational structure to maintain the effort over time;
2-4 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

A statement that specifies the duration of the MOA and how it

will be reviewed or revised;

A statement indicating how decisions will be made to continue the MOA;

A statement describing the circumstances under which partners should consult each other;

A statement requiring the organization to submit periodic or

annual reports on the progress of its projects or programs;

A statement regarding responsibility for actions; and

A resource commitment statement on the staffing, technical

resources, and funding that the department, agency, or organization is expected to provide.

Example of a Memorandum of Agreement

Agreement is made this 4th day of March 2003 by these parties:

The Town of Hazardville (the Town) and its local corporate and nonprofit partners, and the State of Emergency and its partners

WHEREAS the parties:

Strive to create sustainable communities that are resistant to the human and economic costs of disasters;

Recognize that actions taken in advance of disasters are effective in reducing losses; that partnerships among government

agencies, private companies, voluntary and professional associations, educational institutions, and community organizations

are essential for the success of these efforts;

Recognize that vulnerable conditions exist in public and private facilities, and the utility and transportation systems that serve

them; that increasing population growth and diversity, escalating disaster costs, and other factors increase the Town’s vulnerability to disaster;

Recognize that financial support is necessary to enable the expansion and integration of public and private mitigation efforts;

Agree to continue to receive and encourage the input of stakeholders with the State, Town, businesses and nonprofit organizations in Hazardville, neighboring communities, citizens, and other appropriate partners;

NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed that the parties voluntarily enter into this non-binding Agreement to establish the

Town of Hazardville Partnership for Disaster Mitigation (the Partnership).

The principal objective of this Agreement is to further develop private, volunteer, and public-sector capabilities (people, policies, resources, working relationships, long-term plans, and a schedule for accomplishments) necessary to carry out projects

that will reduce vulnerability to risk and minimize losses.

1. MEMBERSHIP. Membership in the Partnership is open and can be expanded to include new (additional) partners in the

future. The Partnership will work together to advise the Town and participate in the implementation of the Town of

Hazardville Hazard Mitigation Plan to further mutual loss-reduction goals subject to the terms and conditions recited

below.

2. TERM. The respective duties, responsibilities, and commitments of the parties hereto shall commence on the date this

Agreement is signed by the parties and may be periodically renewed or revised at the option of the parties.

(continued on page 2-5)
Version 1.0 August 2003 2-5

implement the plan recommendations 2

(continued from page 2-4)

3. CONSULTATIONS. The Partners shall make their representatives available to consult with the Town of Hazardville on

ways in which the Hazard Mitigation Initiative (see Appendix A below) can be improved and applied successfully. The

Partners, in consultation and conjunction with other public-sector entities and related community-wide initiatives, shall

consult with each other on:

 Identification and delineation of natural and manmade hazards within the Town;

 Assessment of risk to and vulnerability of buildings, facilities, utilities, communications, and transportation systems in

the public and private sectors;

 Techniques to plan for, reduce, and manage expected losses; and

 Technical and financial assistance and incentives to facilitate loss reduction projects.

4. ANNUAL EVALUATION. The parties shall annually review the Partnership created by this Agreement to determine and

document successes achieved over the past year and discuss actions to be undertaken in the following year. The

Partnership will prepare an Annual Report describing accomplishments resulting from the Hazardville Hazard Mitigation

Initiative and implementation of the Hazardville Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Partnership shall also make recommendations for improving this Agreement and other disaster mitigation/recovery strategies.

5. RESOURCE COMMITMENT. The parties will consider committing human, technical, and financial resources, coordinate with current and future partners, and carry out the fundamental actions of this voluntary, non-binding Agreement.

6. THE HAZARD MITIGATION INITIATIVE. This Agreement includes two Appendices. Appendix A offers an overview of

the Hazardville Hazard Mitigation Initiative. Appendix B lists commitments made by the parties to be included as part of

the Hazardville Hazard Mitigation Plan that will be acted upon after execution of this Agreement. These actions will

constitute steps toward accomplishing the loss-reduction goal. The period of time for completing defined actions will be

set and reported by the Partnership.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized representatives on the

date first mentioned above.

Appendix A – Hazardville Hazard Mitigation Initiative – Proposed Actions:

The Hazardville Hazard Mitigation Initiative is an element of this Memorandum of Agreement. In summary, the Initiative addresses the following:

A. Reducing flood hazards to low-income, residential structures. The Town of Hazardville Emergency Management

Agency, the Hazardville Department of Planning, and the Hazardville Habitat for Humanity are working to acquire floodprone, low-income housing in the manufactured-housing park and other low-income areas in the floodplain, and to find

appropriate, affordable housing for displaced residents.

B. Establishing public education and outreach projects. The Partnership will cooperate to inform the public about the

accomplishments of the Hazardville Hazard Mitigation Initiative, progress of projects, and upcoming public planning

efforts. Working with Hazardville Hardware, the Partnership will also educate the public on insurance, family disaster

preparedness planning, and other safety tips to protect houses from natural and technological hazards.

C. Strengthening the community’s resistance to seismic and landslide hazards by retrofitting vulnerable structures. This project component will strengthen the community’s housing stock to resist damage from earthquakes by (1)

developing a consistent, sustainable retrofit capability among local builders, contractors, and homeowners; (2) seismically

retrofitting vulnerable structures in the downtown business district; and (3) incorporating standardized retrofit practices

into home and downtown commercial rehabilitation programs.

Under this component, the Partnership will also strive to find additional funding to complete the retrofit of the Town’s

lighthouse, threatened by coastal erosion.

Appendix B – Hazardville Hazard Mitigation Initiative – Resource Commitments:

The Town of Hazardville will:

1. Provide leadership for the Partnership and serve as the point of contact for the Hazardville Hazard Mitigation Initiative.

(continued on page 2-6)
2-6 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

(continued from page 2-5)

2. Provide financial management of the grant funds provided to the Town for hazard mitigation projects, including Hazard

Mitigation Grant Program funds, Flood Mitigation Assistance funds, Pre-Disaster Mitigation funds, etc.

3. Procure the support and assistance of appropriate Town departments and agencies to further the objectives of the

Hazardville Hazard Mitigation Initiative.

4. Supply meeting space and other logistical support for Partnership meetings.

The State of Emergency will:

1. Supply peer review of plans, planning processes, and project implementation to identify potential problems, recommend

solutions, or procure appropriate State support.

2. Attend project review meetings to meet with partners implementing the projects.

3. Facilitate Federal grants applied for by the Town and the Partnership.

Hazardville Department of Planning will:

1. Supervise the acquisition and demolition of vulnerable structures in the floodplain.

2. Designate the resultant publicly owned open space as an area precluded from future development.

Hazardville Department of Housing will:

1. Support the acquisition and demolition of the flood-prone houses of low-income residents by providing additional funding for replacement housing in non-hazardous areas.

Hazardville Habitat for Humanity will:

1. Solicit its corporate and other partners to supply building materials for new, affordable housing.

2. Organize volunteers to build new, affordable housing in non-hazard areas for current residents of the manufactured

home park and other low income areas in the floodplain.

Hazardville Hardware will:

1. Design and fund public education brochures advising the public about hazard mitigation for homeowners, safety during

hazard events, and the importance of purchasing insurance.

2. Develop a marketing display for the Hazardville Hardware store advertising hazard mitigation for homeowners and

related products that can be purchased at the store.

Task B. Begin to integrate mitigation actions throughout

government operations.

The planning team should work with chief administrative officials

to begin to integrate the newly adopted hazard mitigation goals

and actions into the general operations of its government and partner organizations. By initially working within existing administrative mechanisms, communities and states can quickly and

efficiently implement and finance their hazard mitigation projects

and programs, and incorporate them into their governing systems.

The following sections discuss several options to consider.

1. Use processes that already exist.

A good initial strategy is to take advantage of tools and procedures

that were identified in your capability assessment in Step 2 of

Capability

Assessment

Results

In completing your capability assessment in Phase 3 of the planning process, you identified policies,

programs, practices, and procedures

that could be modified to accommodate

hazard mitigation actions. Consider developing an implementation strategy

that addresses recommendations that

can be easily implemented first, followed by those that need to be modified, and last, those that require the

adoption of new regulations or policies

or infusion of outside funding sources

for implementation.
Version 1.0 August 2003 2-7

implement the plan recommendations 2

Developing the Mitigation Plan, FEMA 386-3. Your research of Social, Technical, Administrative, Legal, Economic, and Environmental (STAPLEE) criteria for mitigation activity should have

uncovered information on the administrative, financial, or legal

mechanisms in your state, tribe, or community. These mechanisms are already in use and familiar to the governmental departments and organizations. This will give the planning

implementation phase a strong initial boost, especially if your

plan calls for expanding existing agency mandates or departmental funds, or creating new programs later on.

Administrative

Departmental or organizational work plans, policy, and procedural changes. Updating the work plans, policies, or procedures to include hazard mitigation concepts and

activities can help integrate the plan into daily operations.

These changes can include how major development

projects and subdivision reviews are addressed in hazardprone areas or ensure that hazard mitigation concerns are

considered in the approval of major capital improvement

projects.

Job descriptions. Working with department or agency

heads to revise job descriptions of government staff to include mitigation-related duties could further institutionalize hazard mitigation. This change would not necessarily

result in great financial expenditures or programmatic

changes.

Budgetary

Capital and operational budgets. Instead of solely relying

on funding from hazard mitigation programs or other external sources of grant monies, states, tribes, and communities might consider a line item for mitigation project

funding in their capital or operational budgets. Having a

line item in these budgets may not guarantee funding every

year, but it is certainly easier to get the money allocated if it

is already there. Examples include a revolving fund to finance a buyout program or a low-interest program to fund

retrofits.

Examples of using existing

resources to accomplish

mitigation:

 The Department of Public Works could

adopt more rigorous procedures for inspecting and cleaning debris from

streams and ditches. Instead of cleaning only after storms or complaints from

citizens, the Department could require

inspections of streams and ditches at

least semi-annually.

 The Planning Department could add

hazard vulnerability to subdivision and

site plan review criteria and incorporate

any necessary actions at the planning

stage.

 A community conservation society or

other interested voluntary organization

could perform inventories of historic sites in hazard areas that

might require special treatment

to protect them from specific

hazards.

You may want to add

some or all of the following language into job descriptions for

a community planner, floodplain

manager, emergency manager,

building code official, or water resources engineer in the Public Works Department:

Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities

Knowledge. Knowledge of the principles

of emergency management, specifically

hazard mitigation. Knowledge of the principles and practices of sustainable development and how it is incorporated into

hazard mitigation planning. Knowledge of

FEMA’s pre- and post-disaster mitigation

programs, as well as other federal agency

programs (HUD, EPA, SBA) that provide

technical and/or financial assistance for

implementing pre- or post-disaster mitigation planning. Knowledge of private/nongovernmental programs that can support

reconstruction and mitigation strategies.

Skills. Consensus building and team building, communication (verbal and written)/interpersonal skills.

Abilities. Ability to apply planning principles

and tools to the goals of hazard loss reduction.
2-8 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

Regulatory

Executive Orders, ordinances, and other directives. The governing body or local executive often has the authority to issue

directives to require departments and agencies to carry out

certain hazard mitigation actions. Using one of these mechanisms, the governing body or executive can direct department

heads to provide progress reports to the planning team on the

hazard mitigation initiatives that the departments are responsible for carrying out.

Comprehensive planning. Adding a hazard

element to the comprehensive plan is one of

the most effective mechanisms to institutionalize hazard mitigation for new construction.

For communities with a comprehensive plan,

Getting Started (FEMA 386-1) listed several

reasons why a community should integrate

mitigation planning and comprehensive

planning. A primary benefit of combining

these processes is that they both influence

the location, type, and characteristics of

physical growth, specifically buildings and

infrastructure. While planning in and of itself

may not be regulatory, it uses regulatory

mechanisms (zoning, development ordinances, etc.) for implementing goals and objectives. Additionally, in many parts of the

country, the comprehensive planning process

is an established activity that is already familiar to the public, and it usually generates a

great deal of interest and public participation.

2. Secure traditional sources of financing.

In Phase 3 of the planning process, potential

sources of funding to implement the priorities

in your mitigation strategy were identified. Now

that the plan has been adopted, you have a

strong basis for obtaining these resources. Communities and states have a range of tools to finance projects. Use of fees, taxes, bonds, and

loans to finance projects are options if there is

proper state enabling legislation, local authorSee Developing

the Mitigation Plan

(FEMA 386-3) for more

information on using the following implementation tools

for hazard mitigation:

 Building Codes

 Zoning Ordinances

 Subdivision Ordinances

 Special Hazard Area Regulations

Integrating Hazard Elements into

Comprehensive Planning

 For guidance on what to include in a local hazard

element, see the American Planning Association’s

Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook at

www.planning.org/growingsmart.

 In July 2002, the Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS)

published a report entitled Summary of State Land Use and

Natural Hazards Planning Laws. This report focused on the

relationship between state planning laws and other statutes

that addressed natural hazards and their effect on local-level

comprehensive planning and land-use regulations. More information about the results of this report is available at http:/

/www.ibhs.org/research_library/view.asp?id=302.

 Oregon has long been recognized as a pioneer in local planning for natural hazards. In 1969, Oregon adopted Senate

Bill 10, which required every city and county in the state to

have comprehensive land use plans that met state requirements. This mandate, however, did not grant any authority to

enforce the requirement or provide for any technical support

or training to the communities. Subsequently, Senate Bill 100

was passed to address these issues, creating the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). Among its

responsibilities, the LCDC was charged with establishing

statewide planning goals that were to be congruent with regional, county, and city concerns; preparing statewide planning guidelines, model ordinances, and regulations; and

ensuring widespread citizen involvement and input throughout all phases of the planning process.

One of the state planning goals requires Oregon communities to inventory known natural hazards and to implement

appropriate safeguards for development in hazard areas. On

behalf of the LCDC, the Department of Land Conservation

and Development (DLCD) developed Planning for Natural

Hazards: Oregon Technical Resource Guide to help communities appraise and potentially improve the effectiveness

of the natural hazard planning element in their comprehensive plans. The guide also provides useful information on

how to identify and plan for a variety of natural hazards, and

implement programs to address them. The publication is available online at http://www.lcd.state.or.us/hazhtml/

Guidehome.htm.
Version 1.0 August 2003 2-9

implement the plan recommendations 2

ity, and enough political will. Once the plan has been adopted,

there is a legitimate basis for initiating the process required to use

these financial tools.

All of your plan’s mitigation recommendations probably cannot be

implemented using local funding sources. Furthermore, it may

take some time to work through the legal and administrative processes to use proceeds from bond issues and similar vehicles. To

supplement local funds, communities can apply for grants from

federal or state governments, nonprofit organizations, and foundations, as well as seek funding from other private sources. The advantage of applying for grants is that they do not have to be paid

back or generate long-term debt; however, most federal grants require state and/or local governments to provide some matching

funds.

State and federal grants are a logical source of funding for some of

the larger, more costly mitigation initiatives. Many federal grant

mechanisms allow local “in-kind services” as a match for federal

dollars, as well as the possibility of using state grant funds to meet

the local match requirements. Review your capability assessment

from Phase 3 and consider looking to regional planning agencies,

universities, or economic development districts, if present and active in your state, for research or grant-writing technical assistance.

The adjacent sidebar describes three major FEMA mitigation grant

programs. Don’t forget the potential of other federal grant programs for community development, even if they are not specifically

disaster or mitigation related—the U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development’s Community Development Block Grant

(CDBG), for example. For more on funding sources, see Planning

for a Sustainable Future: The Link Between Hazard Mitigation and

Sustainability (FEMA 364), and the Mitigation Resources for Success CD

(FEMA 372).

3. Develop creative partnerships, funding, and incentives.

Incentives that minimize financial or administrative burden can

stimulate momentum to undertake mitigation initiatives. For example, states and communities can provide tax rebates for code

upgrades, offer reduced property taxes and insurance premiums

for citizens and businesses that take steps to lower their exposure

to hazards, or provide low interest loans for retrofit projects.

Some states, tribes, and communities have developed creative ways

to get things done without spending a lot of their money. These

Three FEMA programs that provide funding for hazard mitigation

actions are the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program

(PDM), Flood Mitigation Assistance

Program (FMA), and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Web

access to information on these programs is available at www.fema.gov/

fima/.

 PDM, authorized under DMA 2000,

provides pre-disaster funding to

states, tribal, and local governments,

and tribal organizations for mitigation

planning and projects through a competitive process. A FEMA- approved

mitigation plan is required to receive

project funding. Check with your

FEMA Regional Office or SHMO for

the latest information on availability

of funds.

 FMA provides annual grants to communities, tribes, and states to reduce

the risk of flood damage to structures

with flood insurance coverage. This

funding is available for mitigation

planning, implementation of mitigation actions, and technical assistance. An approved flood mitigation

plan is required to receive project

grants, but is not required for planning or technical assistance grants.

Interim final regulations implementing this program can be found at 44

CFR Part 78.

 HMGP provides post-disaster grants

to states, tribes, and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation actions after a major

disaster declaration. FEMA can fund

up to 75% of the eligible costs of each

project, and up to 7% of HMGP funds

available per state may be used for

planning. An approved mitigation

plan is required to receive project

funding. See Interim Final Rules at

44 CFR §201 and §206.
2-10 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

Some examples of different types of partnerships that can provide funding or other resources

to implement hazard mitigation actions are provided below. See Mitigation Resources for Success (FEMA 372) for

additional examples and a more detailed discussion of funding mitigation actions.

Public-Private Partnerships. Partnership agreements between local governments and businesses or organizations can be advantageous for all parties involved. Private organizations and businesses routinely offer discounted or free

goods and services to local governments in exchange for publicity or other benefits. In the end, the governments, organizations, businesses, and the public can all benefit from working together. Examples of successful public/private partnerships

include the following:

 In Houston, Texas, FEMA and two prominent home improvement stores teamed up to provide information and advice on

cleaning up and rebuilding after flooding caused by Tropical Storm Allison. FEMA Hazard Mitigation Teams staffed

booths at both stores for three days, providing information on mitigation methods and techniques and the importance of

flood insurance. By providing space, the stores played an important role in promoting community awareness of flooding

hazards and helped foster public involvement in recovery.

 In Kinston, North Carolina, affordable housing was disproportionately affected by Hurricanes Fran and Floyd. The Permanent Housing Initiative, a partnership between the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management, the North

Carolina Department of Corrections, and private sector home improvement companies, was formed to help address the

housing shortage and subsequent housing acquisitions. Using a Habitat for Humanity housing model, energy efficient

and hazard-resistant affordable housing was constructed in already established neighborhoods. Homes were constructed by volunteers using prefabricated wall panels (made by prison labor experienced in construction) and other

donated tools and materials. The foundation, electrical system, and ductwork were done by certified professionals.

 In an effort to promote awareness of hurricanes and flooding in the coastal community of Virginia Beach, Virginia, the

city held a Home Safety and Preparedness Exposition that included a section devoted to building disaster-resistant

communities. More than 20 local businesses and organizations and the Virginia Department of Emergency Management sponsored the event. In return, sponsors were given display booths at the event to promote their goods and

services.

Community Volunteers. State and local governments rely upon their citizens to perform work that might otherwise have to be

paid for by money from government coffers. Some governments have institutionalized volunteerism by requiring students to

contribute volunteer hours to local and regional initiatives. Others have partnered with nonprofit agencies, organizations,

schools, and businesses to give their time and energy to help further community goals.

 Citizen Corps is a program within the USA Freedom Corps that promotes several initiatives to engage volunteers in

Homeland Security efforts, including mitigation actions, across the country. These community-based efforts include

Community Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), Neighborhood Watch, Volunteers in Police Service, Operation TIPS,

and the Medical Reserve Corps.

 Following flooding in 1993, the City of Petersburg, Illinois, bought out riverfront property that had been flooded and

engaged a group of high school students, the Community Problem Solvers (CmPS), to formulate a creative solution for

rehabilitating the area as perpetual open space. The CmPS developed a garden and a preschool playground, a solution

that was responsive to the needs of the neighborhood, city government requests, and federal government requirements.

To fund the project, the CmPS team applied the same initiative and creativity that they had used to design it. The team

organized a “Decorate an Abe” contest in honor of former Petersburg resident Abraham Lincoln. Area businesses

sponsored and decorated Abe silhouettes, and residents paid to vote for their favorites. The “Abes” were later auctioned

off to raise additional funds. In addition, the team designed and sold Historic Petersburg placemats. Volunteers from civic

organizations donated funds to sponsor specific pieces of playground equipment, and a local business donated Lincoln

Bears to be sold. Preschool children participated in a clean-up day at the site. Overall, many Petersburg residents

governments have engaged untapped resources by developing relationships with businesses, nonprofit organizations, and volunteers.

Time spent earlier in the planning process developing relationships with citizens, businesses, and other communities can really

pay off at this point in the process (see Getting Started, FEMA
Version 1.0 August 2003 2-11

implement the plan recommendations 2

contributed their funds, talents, and energy to make the project successful. The CmPS members not only helped

minimize its community’s vulnerability to flooding, they did it in a way that promoted community pride and civic involvement.

 Oakland, California, developed a community partnership called Safety and Future Empowerment (SAFE). Two initiatives, the Week of Caring and Spring Break, brought together city firefighters, corporate employees, students, the

California Office of Emergency Services, and AmeriCorps members to make homes in the community safer and less

vulnerable to earthquakes and fire. Four volunteer teams spread out across the city for a week to make the homes of

elderly and low-income residents more disaster resistant. The teams installed smoke alarms and cupboard latches,

strapped water heaters and free-standing cabinets to house frames, and rigged safety releases on window security

bars. Local businesses donated or provided supplies at reduced costs in support of the effort.

State cooperation. Local governments often underestimate the wealth of resources that their states can provide. States are

excellent sources of funding, support, and technical assistance. State geological surveys, water resources agencies, and

departments of planning or natural resources often have useful data related to hazard identification and risk assessments.

Your state may also have a GIS department that can provide data and support.

Unfortunately, localities sometimes pay for studies that have already been conducted by the state. You can avoid these

duplications by inviting your state officials to participate in the planning process to help ensure that studies or reports can be

compiled from readily available sources.

State fairs and other state-sponsored events can be great places for displays on hazard reduction techniques and hazard

awareness campaigns. States can further help publicize awareness and generate interest by declaring a Hazard Awareness

Week and promoting related local events on their Web sites.

In-kind resources. Federal or state grants often require the awarded locality to provide matching funds to cover a percentage

of hazard mitigation project costs. In-kind resources, however, substitute monetary outlay with services that the community

can perform. For example, HMGP pays up to 75% of the eligible costs of a hazard mitigation project, but the remaining amount

must also be contributed to the project by non-federal sources. A municipality without sufficient resources can ask the state to

help fund the match through state or Community Development Block Grant funds, or it can use in-kind resources. In-kind

resources can be labor or salaries contributed toward the implementation of the project (such as technical or administrative

support from community officials and personnel). The dollar value of the resource must be calculated, and those costs must

be allowable under the grant. Communities can have quite a bit of leeway in developing sources of in-kind resources; however,

your state’s specific program requirements must be verified first. Federal regulations regarding in-kind matches for FEMA’s

grant programs can be found at 44 CFR §13.24.

386-1). For more details on funding and creatively using planning

resources, see FEMA 372, Mitigation Resources for Success.

Task C. Monitor and document the implementation of

your projects and actions.

As mentioned earlier, the planning team must continuously monitor and document the progress of the plan’s recommended actions. This documentation is essential for determining the progress

made on the hazard mitigation initiatives.

The planning team may decide to ask the agencies, departments,

organizations, or people with duties identified in the mitigation

strategy to periodically submit a work progress report on those

projects being implemented. This report will come in handy at

evaluation time. If there is a problem with the project or program,

the planning team will be better able to pinpoint where the prob-
2-12 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

lem lies. An example of the report agencies could use should include the following information:

The hazard mitigation action’s objectives;

Who the lead and supporting agencies responsible for implementation are;

How long the project should take, including a delineation of

the various stages of work along with timelines (milestones

should be included);

Whether the resources needed for implementation, funding,

staff time, and technical assistance are available, or if other

arrangements must be made to obtain them;

The types of permits or approvals necessary to implement the

action;

Details on the ways the actions will be accomplished within

the organization, and whether the duties will be assigned to

agency staff or contracted out; and

Current status of the project, identifying any issues that may

hinder implementation.

Requiring the responsible parties to explain exactly how and when

the project or programs will be carried out helps determine the

extent of the project’s progress. It also helps break the implementation process into smaller, more manageable tasks. The responsible agency, department, or organization can decide the

particulars of incorporating these additional considerations into

their daily operations, while the planning team will know what to

expect and when to expect it. See Worksheet #1: Progress Report

to help you monitor progress.

Task D. Establish indicators of effectiveness or success.

In Step 3, you will measure or evaluate the effectiveness of your

mitigation project and initiatives. It will be important to establish

measurable indicators of effectiveness now so that those involved in

the projects understand how their actions contribute to the success

of the projects. Indicators should be tied to the goals and objectives of the plan and its projects. They are often expressed as numerical representations of planning objectives.

For example, if an objective of the planning process is to increase

community participation in risk reduction, and a related initiative

includes an outreach program to introduce new partners to
Version 1.0 August 2003 2-13

implement the plan recommendations 2

Worksheet #1 Progress Report step 

Progress Report Period:_________________ to ___________________________________________________

(date) (date)

Project Title: _________________________________________ Project ID#: ____________________________

Responsible Agency: _________________________________________________________________________

Address: __________________________________________________________________________________

City/County: ________________________________________________________________________________

Contact Person: _______________________________________ Title:_________________________________

Phone #(s): ____________________________ email address: _______________________________________

List Supporting Agencies and Contacts:

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Project Cost: ___________________________________________________________________________

Anticipated Cost Overrun/Underrun: _____________________________________________________________

Date of Project Approval: _________________________ Start date of the project: _________________________

Anticipated completion date: ___________________________________________________________________

Description of the Project (include a description of each phase, if applicable, and the time frame for completing each

phase): ___________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

October 1, 2003 December 31, 2003

Raging River Views Park Flood Acquisition Project HVMP-2003-01

Hazardville Department of Planning

1909 Burnham Way

Hazardville, Emergency

Eunice Euclid Grants Administrator

(555) 555-8473 eeuclid@town.hazardville.em

Hazardville Department of Housing: Noah Hudson (555) 555-8465

Hazardville Habitat for Humanity: Carter Goodman (555) 555-9432

$360,000

$N/A

July 21, 2003 November 15, 2003

Summer 2005

Acquire and demolish 14 structures located at the Raging River Views Park. Work with Habitat for Humanity and the Department of Housing

to construct new housing or rehabilitate existing housing for displaced low-income residents. The Department of Housing will also provide

funds for temporary housing to displaced residents.

Milestones Complete

Projected

Date of

Completion

Conduct surveys of ground and first-floor elevations 

Obtain Notices of Intent by owners 

Conduct structure appraisals 

Send letters of offer to homeowners 1/31/04

Perform title work 3/30/04

Acquire structures 6/30/04

Begin construction of new housing or reconstruction of existing housing for relocated residents 6/30/04

Send payment for relocation to renters 9/30/04

Finalize contract for demolition 1/12/05

Demolish structures 4/26/05

Landscape open parcels 6/30/05

Page 1 of 3
2-14 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

Plan Goal(s)/Objective(s) Addressed:

Goal: _____________________________________________________________________________________

Objective: __________________________________________________________________________________

Indicator of Success (e.g., losses avoided as a result of the acquisition program):

In most cases, you will list losses avoided as the indicator. In cases where it is difficult to quantify the benefits in dollar

amounts, you will use other indicators, such as the number of people who now know about mitigation or who are taking mitigation actions to reduce their vulnerability to hazards.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Status (Please check pertinent information and provide explanations for items with an asterisk. For completed or

canceled projects, see Worksheet #2 — to complete a project evaluation):

Minimize losses to existing and future structures within hazard areas.

Reduce potential damages to the manufactured home park in the floodplain.

Losses Avoided. After a major flood (100-year), the Department of Economic Development will assist the Planning Department in

calculating the losses avoided.

Summary of progress on project for this report:

A. What was accomplished during this reporting period?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

B. What obstacles, problems, or delays did you encounter, if any?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

C. How was each problem resolved?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Project Cost Status

 Cost unchanged

 Cost overrun*

*explain: ___________________________________

_________________________________________

 Cost underrun*

*explain: ___________________________________

_________________________________________

Project Status

 Project on schedule

 Project completed

 Project delayed*

*explain: ___________________________________

_________________________________________

 Project canceled

 

The Department of Planning contacted the owners of the properties vulnerable to floods to determine their willingness to sell their properties.

Of the 14 property owners contacted, 10 agreed to have their homes acquired. An appraiser contracted by the Department of Planning estimated

the value of the 10 properties.

The owners of four properties refused to sell. There has been some limited neighborhood opposition to various suggestions for the community

open space created by the acquisitions.

The Department of Planning has proposed to the residents a design charrette to develop alternatives for the open space that would be created,

with the understanding that no permanent structures can be constructed on the open parcels after acquisition and demolition has been

completed. Recreational activities will be limited to passive uses such as trails and bike paths.

Page 2 of 3
Version 1.0 August 2003 2-15

implement the plan recommendations 2

Next Steps: What is/are the next step(s) to be accomplished over the next reporting period?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Other comments:

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Adapted from the North Carolina HMGP Progress Report Form at http://www.dem.dcc.state.nc.us/mitigation/document_index.htm.

1. Send offer letters to homeowners.

2. Do title work.

3. Work with the Department of Housing and Habitat for Humanity to identify existing housing for rehabilitation and viable vacant parcels

to construct new housing for the displaced residents.

None

Page 3 of 3
2-16 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

mitigation, an indicator could be the number of organizations that

are on the planning team.

Task E. Celebrate success.

It is important to maintain community support throughout the

implementation process. One particularly effective technique is to

simply keep the community informed about the incremental

progress and success of the program. Sharing the findings of

progress reports with interested organizations, neighborhood

groups, elected officials, and citizens keeps stakeholders up-to-date

on your accomplishments and possible setbacks. Posting these findings on your local Web site or including them in your newsletter

will help everyone stay informed of your progress. Consider holding events to recognize key milestones to keep the public interested. Step 3 contains more information about how to maintain

this important part of the overall effort.

Summary

Implementation is the culmination of the initial planning process.

Monitoring progress and maintaining momentum is key to ensuring success of the planning process. Through the implementation

of your plan, you will draw upon the diverse resources of your

state, tribe, or community. While many of the tools you use already

exist in one form or another, your team should try to use as much

creativity and resourcefulness as possible to advance your plan’s

goals and objectives.
Version 1.0 August 2003 2-17

implement the plan recommendations 2

The Hazardville Post

Vol. CXV No. 252 Friday, September 9, 2005

Hazardville Partnership Completes First Home

(Part 2 of a 4-Part Series on the Hazard Mitigation Implementation Process)

[Hazardville, EM] “Yep, that’s my

new house,” Susan Harris grinned.

“I can’t believe how great it looks!”

As Mrs. Harris showed off the interior of the nearly completed house,

she noted where her furniture

would go. “I would have put my

mother’s sideboard over here,”

frowning as she pointed to a spot in

the dining room, “but it was ruined

in the flood in 2002. It had been

passed down from her mother, and

I had wanted to pass it down to my

daughter.”

Mrs. Harris is just one of the residents of Hazardville affected by

flooding in 2002. She and nine of her

neighbors have had their homes

bought by the town and are working with town, state, and federal

officials to build new homes out of

the floodplain. “My house really

wasn’t worth very much, and I don’t

have enough income to handle a big

mortgage payment,” Mrs. Harris

said, “but the town has been working with the Hazardville Habitat for

Humanity to help me build a new

one.”

Habitat for Humanity requires

contributions of “sweat equity” in

order to be eligible for participation

in their program. Mrs. Harris claims

that thanks to her contribution she

is now quite capable of fixing just

about everything in her new home.

“Since my husband passed away

almost 10 years ago, I have had to

rely on my friends to help out with

even simple repairs. Now that I have

helped with the construction of several of my neighbor’s houses I am

very comfortable using all kinds of

tools!” Mrs. Harris is so comfortable

with her new skills that she is thinking about building her own shed

after she gets settled.

“The process is working!” beamed

Joe Norris, lead planner for

Hazardville. Norris, referring to the

hazard mitigation plan adopted by

the town in 2003, pointed to the

emphasis the Town of Hazardville

Organization for Risk Reduction

(THORR) had placed on reducing

flooding and disaster-related damages to existing structures while

recognizing the needs of residents

with limited resources. Part of that

emphasis was on creating and following through with community

partnerships.

The Town of Hazardville Partnership for Disaster Mitigation is a

partnership of nonprofits, businesses, and local, state, and federal

agencies. The Partnership is an initiative that Hazardville established

in 2003, following adoption of the

hazard mitigation plan. Each partner contributed something to the

effort. Funding from the FMA program was used to purchase ten repetitive loss structures. Local businesses contributed to the project by

donating building materials and

supplies. Community volunteers

worked throughout the summer to

make this a reality for Mrs. Harris

and the other homeowners.
step
Version 1.0 August 2003 3-1

3

evaluate your

planning

results

Overview

The evaluation step of the planning process allows the planning

team to review the plan, the planning process, and the results

of implemented actions. The evaluation assesses whether the planning process and actions have been effective, if the community’s

goals are being reached, and whether changes are needed. The

planning team should periodically evaluate the community’s

progress in implementing the plan. Regular evaluation keeps the

community informed of the plan’s status and, ideally, keeps those

responsible for implementing the mitigation actions motivated.

These periodic evaluations may reveal the need for small changes

that may not be necessary to incorporate into the plan annually,

but that accumulate over time until large-scale revision to the plan

is needed (see Step 4, Revise the Plan).

Communities that commit to conducting periodic evaluations give

themselves the opportunity to determine the effectiveness of their

procedures and recommendations, identify new areas of concern,

and renew enthusiasm for the cause of hazard mitigation. This step

will show you how to keep the planning team, the planning process, and the implementation actions effective. The result is a hazard mitigation process that people have confidence in, and are

willing to support.

What you learn in this evaluation will be used to determine

whether or not to revise the plan document, to be described in

Step 4. By looking impartially at what took place the previous year,

the planning team will create a foundation on which to base its

revision of the plan and a trigger to re-invigorate the cause for hazard mitigation in the community.

DMA 2000 requires

communities to evaluate their hazard mitigation

plan at least every five years.

The way in which this is to

be done must also be documented in

the plan. By including a provision in the

adoption mechanism to evaluate the

plan and the implementation process,

you have a built-in mechanism to institutionalize and sustain the mitigation initiative beyond the creation of the original

document.

Communities that

want credit for their

hazard mitigation plan under

the Community Rating System (CRS) must evaluate

their plan annually.

The plan should

also be evaluated and revised following disasters, to

determine if the recommended actions are appropriate given the impact of the event. The

risk assessment should also be revisited to see if any changes are necessary based on the pattern of disaster

damages.

According to DMA

2000 requirements,

states that want to be eligible

for the 20% share of HMGP

funds must develop a process to assess the effectiveness of a

mitigation activity after its completion.
3-2 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

Procedures & Techniques

Task A. Evaluate the effectiveness of the planning

process.

To evaluate the results of your planning efforts, begin by stepping

back and looking at the big picture. Governments must be highly

accountable to their citizens and able to defend their decisions.

Evaluating the planning process is a good way to discover if the

plan is working for the good of your state, tribe, or community. A

review of the planning process will give you an idea of how successfully mitigation has been integrated into your normal administrative processes so far, and what procedural areas may need to be

refined or changed.

The first year of the planning process is the most critical because

you are beginning to implement the plan. While the energy and

momentum generated during this phase of planning are still

present, your state, tribe, or community may have established an

annual review process at the time of adoption to address the unanticipated problems that may affect the success of your planning

efforts. An annual review is also a good opportunity to reflect on

whether certain relationships developed during the process should

be enhanced, and to initiate new partnerships based on experiences from developing and implementing the plan. The planning

team should take this opportunity to reflect on the processes used

so far to engage partners and the public, to develop loss reduction

priorities, and to finance projects.

1. Reconvene the planning team.

The first step in evaluating the plan is to reconvene the planning

team. Ideally, the planning team was established as a permanent

working group within your state, tribe, or community to oversee

the development and implementation of the mitigation strategy.

Even after the plan is adopted, the planning team should meet at

least semi-annually to review the progress of the mitigation planning efforts.

At this point, however, your team may want to think about inviting

new stakeholders to join during the evaluation. These meetings are

a good opportunity to bring new members up to speed on the

planning team’s history, mitigation strategy, and planning process.

Use Worksheet #2: Evaluate Your Planning Team to assist you in

this task.

DMA 2000 regulations do not require annual evaluations. The

recommendations presented here will help you to

meet the five-year local update requirements.

The evaluation

phase should not

be anticipated with anxiety.

If the planning team, citizens, government, and

other stakeholders have diligently

implemented the recommendations,

the evaluation phase will give the

community reasons to celebrate the

success of its mitigation efforts.
Version 1.0 August 2003 3-3

evaluate your planning results 3

When gearing up for the plan evaluation, the planning team should reassess its composition

and ask the following questions:

YES NO

Have there been local staffing changes that would warrant inviting different members to the planning

team? 

Comments/Proposed Action: NA

Are there organizations that have been invaluable to the planning process or to project

implementation that should be represented on the planning team?



Comments/Proposed Action: Hazardville Habitat for Humanity has been invaluable in assisting the relocation of former

Raging River Views Park residents. The organization should be invited to participate in THORR.

Are there any representatives of essential organizations who have not fully participated in the

planning and implementation of actions? If so, can someone else from this organization commit to

the planning team?



Comments/Proposed Action: It is essential that the Department of Public Works be represented at each meeting because

so many mitigation actions involve them. However, representatives from the department have been unable to attend meetings

consistently since the development of the plan. THORR will work with the departments director to find consistent, active

representation.

Are there procedures (e.g., signing of MOAs, commenting on submitted progress reports, distributing

meeting minutes, etc.) that can be done more efficiently? 

Comments/Proposed Action: Again, the Department of Public Works has been unable to provide timely progress reports

of its mitigation actions. Administrative duties and paperwork have fallen through the cracks since the department has been

assigned numerous new duties in Hazardville's mitigation efforts. Perhaps the department, in partnership with THORR,

should approach the Town Council for funding for more department staff.

Are there ways to gain more diverse and widespread cooperation? 

Comments/Proposed Action: THORR members believe that better publicity about mitigation actions will garner more

interest from the public, affected/interested organizations, and state agencies.

Are there different or additional resources (financial, technical, and human) that are now available for

mitigation planning? 

Comments/Proposed Action: THORR has learned about new PDM funding. The state has asked that local jurisdictions

submit applications for brick and mortar projects and risk assessments studies.

If the planning team determines the answer to any of these questions is “yes,” some changes may be necessary.

Worksheet #2 Evaluate Your Planning Team step 
3-4 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

2. Review your planning process.

One of the first areas for the planning team to assess is the planning process itself. With a year of hindsight, you can now step back

and see what you would have done differently had you known what

you know today. Look at each of the key elements of your planning

process, such as building the planning team, engaging the public,

gathering data to conduct your risk and capability assessments, and

coordinating with other agencies, and determine how well they

worked. The following are some suggested questions to ask:

a. Building the Planning Team. In continually building your

planning team, have you left anyone out? Are there roles

that need to be clarified or better defined? Has the planning team met as agreed upon? Have meetings been productive? Are procedures for implementing, monitoring,

and evaluating the plan being followed? Are the lead

agency and staff still able to play the lead? Again,

Worksheet #2 will help with this task.

b. Engaging the Public. When looking at public involvement, you may need to conduct a survey to gauge how

the public perceived your planning effort. Determine

whether stakeholders and citizens felt that they had

enough opportunities to provide input; the extent to

which they are now aware of their hazards and are willing

to support your efforts; what they think of the progress

you are making; and whether outreach efforts—public

meetings, workshops, Web site, newspaper notices, etc.

were effective. Ask them what they would like to see done

differently to involve them or keep them informed. In

many cases, this may be a matter of simply asking residents if they now understand what hazards they are susceptible to, and what “hazard mitigation” means to them.

c. Data Gathering and Analysis. Are data gathering procedures working? Did someone follow up with the local university or other agencies to obtain research findings or

reports that were not available during the planning process? Have team members provided copies of studies that

their agencies or organizations completed? Are there

more efficient methods of collecting data and maintaining up-to-date information from established sources?

Evaluating Public

Involvement in

Hazard Mitigation

Surveys are a good tool to

assess how well your public education

and outreach projects are working, how

the community perceives your hazard

mitigation planning efforts, and to obtain feedback on proposed mitigation actions. Following are a few sample

questions to ask:

Do you have a greater understanding of the hazards to which

you are susceptible? On a scale

of 1-5 (1=very little; 5=a great

deal), how much more do you

know than you knew before planning efforts began?

Do you now have a greater understanding of what you and your

community can do to lessen the

effects of natural hazards?

(1=very little; 5=a great deal)
Version 1.0 August 2003 3-5

evaluate your planning results 3

d. Coordinating with other Agencies. How well did coordination work? Did agencies have sufficient notice for

meetings? Did they have enough time to review the draft

plan? Have agreements been followed? Do MOAs need to

be revised, due to changes in funding, priorities, staffing,

or other events?

Look at what worked and what didn’t as you prepared and implemented the plan, and identify ways to improve the process.

Task B. Evaluate the effectiveness of your actions.

Measuring the effectiveness of your programs, policies, practices,

and projects is another important element of your evaluation. If

your plan called for strategies with a relatively short implementation time frame, their overall success can be evaluated if they have

been completed. Additionally, you can assess actual losses avoided

as a result of projects implemented following a disaster. Most mitigation projects, however, are done gradually, as resources and conditions allow. The progress to date of these projects can therefore

be evaluated by reviewing whether the project is on time, in line

with the budget, and moving ahead as planned. Now is the time to

gather data to assess your progress toward meeting your objectives,

and ultimately meeting your plan goals. This is also a good time to

pull together the progress reports agencies submitted to you periodically. These will enable you to answer the questions that follow

and help your planning team evaluate how effective the mitigation

projects and actions have been. Use Worksheet #3: Evaluate Your

Project Results to assist you in completing this task.

1. What were the results of the implemented actions? Did the results

achieve the goals/objectives outlined in the plan? Did the actions have

the intended results?

Review the goals and objectives of your plan. Be able to show how

(or whether) the project met the objective it was designed to

achieve. This is where you can measure the results of the project

against the identified indicator of success.

Sometimes projects have unintended results, which can be good if

they provide an extra benefit to the state or community, or not as

good if they did not achieve or protect everything to the extent

planned. Examples of unintended results can extend to environmental, social, or economic impacts.

If you received federal funds for the

project, you have been submitting quarterly reports to

the responsible agency on

its progress. These quarterly reports will

be very helpful in showing the project’s

current status, such as percentage complete, total project costs obligated versus amount spent, problems with

implementation, and anticipated

completion date.
3-6 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

IF YES

IF NO

Project Name and Number:

Raging River Views Park Flood Acquisition Project (HVMP-2003-01)

Project Budget:

$360,000

Project Description:

Acquisition and demolition of 14 flood-prone structures

Associated Goal and Objective(s):

Goal: Minimize losses to existing and future structures within

hazard areas

Objective: Reduce potential damages to the manufactured home park

in the floodplain

Indicator of Success (e.g., losses avoided):

Losses avoided by acquisition and demolition of flood-prone structures

Worksheet #3 Evaluate Your Project Results step

Was the action implemented? YES NO

What were the results of the implemented action?

Of the 14 proposed properties, 10 were acquired. The benefit-cost ratio is 2.19, based on project benefits of $789,000 and

costs of $360,274. Benefits are based on the net present value of the avoided damages over the project life. Furthermore,

about 40 people are no longer in the path of a potential flood, making emergency rescue operations in that area less likely

and evacuation easier.

Why not?

Was there political support for the action?

Were enough funds available?

Were workloads equitably or realistically distributed?

Was new information discovered about the risks or community that made

implementation difficult or no longer sensible?

Was the estimated time of implementation reasonable?

Were sufficient resources (for example staff and technical assistance) available?

YES NO



page 1 of 2
evaluate your planning results 3

Version 1.0 August 2003 3-7

Date:

Prepared by:

YES NO

Were the outcomes as expected? If No, please explain: 

The project originally set out to acquire 14 properties. Four of the 14 owners did not want to participate in the buyout program.

Did the results achieve the goal and objective(s)? Explain how: 

Despite four properties still in harm's way, the objective has been largely met. See additional comments.

Was the action cost-effective? Explain how or how not: 

The FEMA Limited Data module was used to perform the benefit-cost analysis. Data for the analysis was collected from

historical flood data and used as benchmarks in the before mitigation section of the analysis. The damages after mitigation

section was left blank, due to the properties being permanently acquired, and the economic risk removed completely. The

analysis resulted in a benefit-cost ratio of 2.19, with benefits totaling $789,000 for 10 properties.

What were the losses avoided after having completed the project?

Total avoided losses are $789,000 over the lifetime of the project (estimated at 100 years).

If it was a structural project, how did it change the hazard profile?

N/A

Additional comments or other outcomes:

The Planning Department has agreed to work with the remaining four homeowners in evaluating other flood-proofing options.

October 12, 2005

Hazardville Department of Economic Development

Hazardville Department of Planning

page 2 of 2
3-8 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

Sample Indicators to Measure Progress in

Reducing Risk

There are a variety of ways to measure effectiveness of mitigation

actions. You can look at dollar amounts in losses avoided, both expected (prior to implementing a project) and actual (following a disaster). You can

also look at how the mitigation actions have changed the number of households,

businesses, critical facilities, and environmental assets that are at risk. Some

other indicators are listed below.

For more on indicators, see the publication Hazard Mitigation in North Carolina:

Measuring Success, Chapter 6 available online at http://www.dem.dcc.state.nc.us/

Mitigation/Library/Success_Stories/Measuring_Success_Vol2/Chapter6.pdf.

Housing Business

Number of households living in

unsafe areas.

Number of businesses in unsafe

areas.

Number of households living in

structures that are vulnerable to

natural hazards.

Number of businesses in unsafe

structures.

Number of repetitively damaged

houses.

Number or percentage of

businesses that have purchased

adequate insurance to cover

property casualty, fire, liability, loss

of revenue, and flood damage.

Losses avoided as a result of the

implementation of acquisitions.

Losses avoided as a result of the

implementation of elevations-in-place.

Number or percent of businesses

that have conducted a business

impact analysis, and have

developed and implemented a

business risk reduction plan.

Infrastructure and Critical Facilities Environment

Number of infrastructure elements –

water supply, roads, bridges,

sewerage, telecommunications, port

facilities – that are located in areas

that are hazard-prone.

Number of unsafe land use

activities that take place in the

100-year floodplain or in

environmentally sensitive areas.

Number of repetitively damaged

infrastructure elements.

Number of critical facilities –

hospitals, emergency operations

centers, police and fire stations,

schools – that are located in areas

that are hazard-prone.

Number of commercial or

industrial facilities in the 100-year

floodplain that have undertaken

structural or non-structural

mitigation measures.

Number of repetitively damaged

critical facilities.

Source: Hazard Mitigation in North Carolina: Measuring Success,

February 2000.
Version 1.0 August 2003 3-9

evaluate your planning results 3

Cost-effectiveness

is a key evaluation criterion for federal grant programs. Cost-effectiveness

has several possible definitions, although for grant-making purposes FEMA defines a cost-effective

project as one whose long-term benefits exceed its costs. An easier way to

say this is that a project should prevent

more expected damages over the

course of its effective “life” than it costs

to fund the effort. This is done to ensure

that limited public funds are used in the

most efficient manner possible. Benefitcost analysis is one way to illustrate that

a project is meritorious and deserves

funding.

2. Were the actions cost-effective? Did (or would) the project result in the

reduction of potential losses?

It is not always enough to say whether an action was generally effective or not, especially when considering publicly funded projects.

This is particularly true for mitigation actions that may require a

subsequent hazard event to truly determine effectiveness. Absent

an event, the potential losses avoided can be estimated for most

“brick and mortar” mitigation projects. The term “brick and mortar” mitigation actions in this context refers to projects such as retrofit, acquisition, demolition, or relocation, and flood works such

as levees, dams, and floodwalls.

One of the most important indicators to evaluate the effectiveness

of mitigation actions undertaken by the state, tribe, or community

is Losses Avoided. This indicator provides a dollar value estimate

of the structural, content, and displacement costs that would have

occurred if the mitigation action were not taken. The losses

avoided are most easily estimated for structural mitigation actions.

Surveys and qualitative statements may have to suffice as indicators

for educational or regulatory actions and to address other objectives that may be associated with specific mitigation actions.

If the cost-effectiveness of the hazard mitigation projects implemented was originally determined by benefit-cost analyses (BCA),

the planning team may consider reviewing the old BCA to determine whether the costs and benefits were close to what was estimated, or whether there were unforeseen costs or benefits. The

point of revisiting the BCA is to re-calculate what losses would actually be reduced if the event were to occur. If possible, repeat relevant portions of the risk assessment to see if the project reduced

potential losses. If HAZUS was used to develop the initial loss estimate, you may want to re-run it using the post-project results.

An initiative that did not have a BCA performed still can be objectively evaluated for its cost-effectiveness. Projects that do not lend

themselves to benefit-cost analyses (e.g., education and outreach

campaigns) or those projects where public values and ethical considerations ended up weighing more heavily on the final selection

of an action than the results of a BCA, may require other methods,

such as surveys, to gauge their effectiveness.

Whether you used BCA or other defensible methods to determine

the cost-effectiveness of your actions, remember to document your

results. Citizens, as well as state, local, and federal officials, will

want to know of the losses avoided or benefits gained from your

Be sure to stay in

touch with your state on

a regular basis to ensure

that you remain aware of

any changes to state mitigation goals or priorities. Similarly, states

must communicate such changes to all

localities.

Displacement

Costs

The dollar amount it would

cost for a function (business or service) to be relocated to

another structure because of a hazard event. In the case of residents, this

would be the cost to relocate individuals or families to temporary housing.
3-10 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

implemented actions. Let them know that their tax dollars are being well spent.

3. Document actions that were slow to get started or not implemented.

It is important to include a discussion of why certain actions were

slow in getting underway, never finished, or didn’t get started at all.

The project may have been delayed or removed from the list of

actions because of an unforeseen problem with the implementation. In the case of an elevation, acquisition, or relocation project,

for example, the voluntary nature of the program gives the homeowner or business the right to change their minds at any time, all

the way up to just before the physical work on the project begins or

any financial compensation has been received.

Task C. Determine why the actions worked (or did not

work).

After verifying that an action was or was not implemented and its

overall results, the planning team should try to document why the

action worked or did not work. If a mitigation activity or project

was unsuccessful, it is important to ascertain why so that more appropriate alternatives can be developed next time. If a mitigation

project ends up being only partially implemented, it is important

to get to the root cause, such as exceeding the budget. On the

other hand, be sure to evaluate and document what did work successfully, and why. Understanding the factors that contributed to

the success of a project, program, or policy is particularly important when you want to replicate or expand it. Use Worksheet #3 to

complete this task.

Several considerations to examine include:

 Availability of resources;

 The political or popular support for or against the action;

 The availability of funds;

 The workloads of the responsible parties; and

 The actual time necessary to implement the actions.

Be sure to publicize

this information to other

communities within the

state. Don’t be shy about it,

either—let other states and

FEMA know about your successes! If

possible, also communicate caveats

and warnings as a result of less positive outcomes. Everyone will benefit

from lessons learned.
Version 1.0 August 2003 3-11

evaluate your planning results 3

After a Disaster Strikes

If a disaster strikes after you have completed your hazard mitigation

plan, don’t let the document sit on the shelf—it is a valuable resource for

the long-term recovery and reconstruction of your community. The initial period

following a disaster can be very chaotic. So many issues require attention that any

thoughts of long-term recovery are crowded out by immediate recovery efforts.

Critical life and safety issues come first: search and rescue operations, treating the

injured, re-establishing vital public services, and providing emergency shelter. But

once the task of clearing debris is well underway, community decision-makers

need to shift their attention to long-term recovery. This is the opportunity to reconvene the mitigation planning team and evaluate the list of hazard mitigation priorities in light of the recent disaster.

Critical policy issues that emerge following disasters require local governments to

make difficult decisions about how best to rebuild. Disaster victims have an inherent desire to rebuild rapidly and return to normal—to the way things were before

the disaster. Communities, however, must balance this need against the objective

of building back better and stronger, and use the opportunity of the disaster to

improve the community’s disaster resilience. Pressure to restore normalcy can be

so strong that safety, hazard mitigation, and community improvement goals can be

compromised or abandoned. Communities have a very short period of time to

introduce, and gain acceptance of, new approaches to reconstruction. The mitigation plan will provide an excellent foundation for introducing these new approaches.

The diagram on the following page shows how a disaster triggers the need to reevaluate all aspects of the mitigation planning process to determine if changes are

now warranted.

1. What opportunities for hazard mitigation are presented in light of the

disaster damages?

If the hazard mitigation plan included a post-disaster recovery and reconstruction

component to the implementation strategy, this section of the plan should be the

initial focus for the recovery task force. Did the plan anticipate the type and intensity of disaster damages that actually occurred? Are there “off-the-shelf” mitigation

actions that are relevant for this recovery effort? Are there other priority hazard

mitigation actions that have not been implemented due to a lack of available resources?

Identifying potential mitigation projects in a post-disaster

scenario is the highest priority task

for the planning team or recovery task

force and the most time sensitive one.

In a major disaster that has a presidential declaration, make sure that

the SHMO and FEMA mitigation staff

working out of the Disaster Field Office (DFO) have a copy of the hazard

mitigation plan and have a clear understanding of community priorities

for potential mitigation actions. State

and federal mitigation

planning staff can provide

technical assistance to

your community if necessary.

(continued on page 3-13)
3-12 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

After a Disaster:

Re-evaluate Your

Mitigation Plan and

the Planning

Process
evaluate your planning results 3

Version 1.0 August 2003 3-13

2. Following the initial recovery phase, re-evaluate the hazard profiles and

vulnerability assessment.

Did the hazard information presented in the plan reflect the location, intensity,

and duration of the recent event? There may be a need to collect additional data

regarding the event and incorporate that information into the vulnerability assessment.

3. Following a disaster is a good time to evaluate the results of implemented

projects.

How well did your mitigation actions perform? The best time to measure losses

avoided is in the aftermath of a recent disaster, when you can actually see the

difference that mitigation actions made. For example, if a house was protected

from a flood because it was elevated above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE)

before a disaster occurred, it should be relatively easy to obtain the actual flood

height and determine what kind of damages would have occurred if the house

had not been raised. Louisa County, Iowa, and Long Beach, Mississippi, illustrate

the losses avoided due to flood mitigation actions implemented after floods in

1993 and 1998, respectively.

Federal and state

agencies may have

collected enough information from various sources

to determine the reoccurrence interval for the recent event.

This indicates the severity or degree

of magnitude of the event. Technical

assistance may be available to survey high-water marks (in the case of

flooding) or to conduct a building performance assessment. Knowing the

reoccurrence interval for the hazard

will help you reevaluate the accuracy

of the hazard information in the current plan. To do this for a flood, for

example, you would compare the extent of the actual flooding to existing

flood maps to determine whether the

maps accurately portray the true hazard scenario.

Applying for HMGP Funding

The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property from natural disasters and enable mitigation

actions to be implemented during the recovery process following a presidential disaster declaration.

Eligibility. Individual homeowners and businesses are not eligible, but a community may apply on their behalf. State

governments, tribes and other tribal organizations, and certain nonprofit organizations are eligible, in addition to local

governments.

Project possibilities. All eligible projects must provide a long-term mitigation solution. Additionally, a project’s potential

savings must be more than the cost of implementation. Funds may be used to protect either public or private property.

Examples of possible projects include, but are not limited to: property acquisition and relocation/demolition, retrofitting of

structures to minimize damage from natural hazards, elevation of flood-prone structures, and development and initial

implementation of vegetative management programs. In addition, hazard mitigation planning initiatives are also eligible.

States prioritize and select project applications; however, all potential projects must meet certain minimum criteria addressing five issues:

1. Does the project conform to your State’s Hazard Mitigation Plan?

2. Will the project beneficially impact the disaster area?

3. Does the application meet federal environmental requirements?

4. Does the project solve a problem independently?

5. Is the project cost-effective?

After a disaster declaration, the state will advertise the availability of HMGP funding and provide guidance on eligibility

criteria. If you are interested in applying, you should contact the SHMO to find out about the application deadline and

about the state’s funding priorities.

Choosing a project and submitting your application. Consider your list of potential projects, and then choose the

project that conforms to the state’s priorities, meets all of the minimum criteria, and can be adequately funded (25% of the

total cost). For additional information, contact your SHMO or the FEMA Mitigation Division in your Region, or visit FEMA’s

Web site at http://www.fema.gov/fima/hmgp. FEMA 345 (Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Desk Reference) contains

more information as well.

(continued on page 3-15)

(continued from page 3-11)
3-14 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

Louisa County, Iowa

In 1993, a severe flood occurred in Louisa County, located along the Mississippi River, resulting in damage to

more than 275 homes and the evacuation of nearly 200 families. Following this flood event, the County used

both acquisition and relocation of affected properties to mitigate future flooding problems. In May 2001, the

flood pattern of 1993 repeated itself, and the Mississippi River and its tributaries flooded Louisa County yet again. By

comparing calculated damages from the 1993 flood to the 2001 flood, the effectiveness of the acquisition and relocation

program could be measured. As shown in Tables 1 and 2 below, significant reductions in emergency shelter, family

assistance, and public assistance expenditures were realized in 2001 as a result of the acquisitions and housing relocations that occurred in the aftermath of the 1993 flooding.

Furthermore, Table 3 shows the losses avoided as a result of the housing acquisitions that occurred. If Louisa County had

chosen not to take any action following the 1993 flood, potential property damage to these structures in the 2001 flood

would have exceeded one million dollars. Calculation of reduction in public assistance expenditures and losses avoided

as a result of proactive mitigation can further highlight the value of hazard mitigation planning efforts to concerned

citizens, local and federal governments, and potential funding agencies.

Table 1. Emergency Shelter and Family Assistance in Louisa County

1993 2001

Number of families evacuated and temporarily sheltered due to displacement 200 11

Number of Red Cross cases (individuals requesting post-disaster assistance) 800 3

Disaster Housing Assistance (FEMA) $742,500 $0

Source: Hazard Mitigation in Iowa: Measuring Success, FEMA 2003 (unpublished)

Table 2. Public Assistance Expenditures, 1993 and 2001 (2001 values)

1993 2001

A Debris Clearance $542,215 $0

B Emergency Protective Measures $44,367 $0

C Roads and Bridges, Culverts, Ditches $2,941 $0

D Water Control Facilities & Levees $0 $0

E Public Buildings & Contents $0 $0

F Utility Distribution Systems $0 $0

G Public Parks $0 $0

H Total Public Assistance $589,523 $0

Source: Hazard Mitigation in Iowa: Measuring Success, FEMA 2003 (unpublished)

Table 3. Losses Avoided from Acquisition of Flood-Prone Properties in Louisa County,

Aggregated by Building, Contents, Displacement, and Total for the Spring, 2001 Flood (DR-1367)

Depth of Flooding

(Feet)

Avoided Losses to

Buildings

Avoided Losses to

Contents

Avoided

Displacement Costs

Total

0 $24,672 $11,103 $0 $35,775

1 $319,533 $143,790 $82,500 $545,823

2 $386,880 $174,096 $126,500 $687,476

Total $731,085 $328,989 $209,000 $1,269,074

Source: Hazard Mitigation in Iowa: Measuring Success, FEMA 2003 (unpublished)
Version 1.0 August 2003 3-15

evaluate your planning results 3

Long Beach, Mississippi

Located along the Gulf of Mexico, the coastal city of Long Beach, Mississippi, has been affected by seven

hurricanes and repetitive flooding, often as a result of spring storms. In addition to its vulnerability to flooding

because of its coastal location, the City also suffered from poor drainage, resulting from three poorly maintained

drainage channels. While these channels were better managed in the 1980s, the City, and particularly the areas around the

canals, is still plagued by poor drainage. Following Hurricane Georges in 1998, the City began to take a proactive approach

to flood damages, and identified 95 properties, many of them repetitive loss properties located adjacent to the canals, for

an acquisition and demolition program. This long-term acquisition project had an estimated cost of $7.7 million (see Table

1), with a portion of the funding coming from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. In 2001, midway through the acquisition

and demolition project, Tropical Storm

Allison struck the Gulf Coast. The

storm caused an overflow from the

drainage system, which flooded the

neighborhoods located near the canals. Because 44 homes had already

been purchased and demolished prior

to the storm, the losses avoided from

this single flood event were estimated

to be $690,033 (see Table 2). This figure only represents the losses avoided

to houses, their contents, and displacement costs. It does not include

the additional savings to the local government in emergency services and

disaster assistance costs that would

have been incurred had families remained in the floodplain. By combining much-needed improvements to its

drainage system with the acquisition

of many repetitive loss properties, the

City of Long Beach shows that mitigation projects can lead to substantial savings for the local government

and affected communities.

Table 1: Estimated Costs for Acquisition of 95 Properties in

the City of Long Beach for the Master Watershed Plan

Item Total Cost

Acquisition of Properties $6,578,924

Relocation Pay to Tenants $ 52,000

Demolition of Properties $ 918,065

Fees for Appraisals and Legal Assistance $ 171,000

Total $7,719,989

S 3 ource: Hazard Mitigation in Mississippi: Measuring Success, FEMA 200

(unpublished)

Table 2: Losses Avoided during Tropical Storm Allison from

Acquisition of 44 Flood-Prone Properties in the City of Long

Beach, MS

Item Total Cost

Estimated Avoided Losses to Buildings $502,917

Estimated Avoided Losses to Contents $ 85,826

Estimated Avoided Displacement Costs $101,290

Total $690,033

S 3 ource: Hazard Mitigation in Mississippi: Measuring Success, FEMA 200

(unpublished)

4. Depending upon the severity of the recent disaster, it may be necessary

to re-evaluate the range and priority given to specific hazard mitigation actions.

Should the priority ranking of mitigation actions be re-evaluated given the type and

intensity of the recent event? If the hazard event was not anticipated or given a low

priority as a goal or objective, there may be a need to go through another round of

identifying and prioritizing hazard mitigation actions for your community.

5. Consider including a special section in your mitigation plan devoted to

post-disaster issues.

Many mitigation policies or projects are not politically or economically viable until

after a disaster. Thinking through post-disaster operational and policy issues in the

pre-disaster time frame enables your community to delve into these often emotional subjects in the relative luxury of a non-disaster scenario. FEMA 321, Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction, provides more details.

(continued from page 3-13)
3-16 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

Task D. Keep the community updated and involved, and

celebrate your successes.

Project implementation brings the community’s hard work to fruition. The planning team should be sure to keep all stakeholders in

the community informed of the progress of the projects. Ways to

engage the community may include staging events to showcase

your accomplishments or taking advantage of media opportunities

to publicize the completion or significant steps of specific projects.

Refer to Getting Started (FEMA 386-1) for additional ways to communicate your success to the community.

Summary

The evaluation phase of the planning process helps your planning

team determine whether its planning process and recommendations have been effective, and if your community’s goals are being

reached. Systematically evaluating the plan keeps your community

informed and hopefully motivates those responsible for implementing the mitigation actions.

After you have evaluated your actions to determine what worked

and did not work, go to Step 4, Revise the Plan, in which you will use

the evaluation results to revise the hazard mitigation plan.

Local and state

agencies should keep

in contact with each other

about the progress of their

mitigation actions. Each

entity should update its risk assessment data using this information. Agencies responsible for maintaining the

state and local plans should update

their plans accordingly, as well.

Methods of communicating with constituents during implementation of the

recommended projects and programs

include:

Write a newsletter to provide details on projects;

Create 15- or 30-second public

service announcements and

send them to local broadcasters;

Work with your local news or

public access cable station feature a news story about your efforts;

Hold an annual event honoring

local people who have contributed to hazard mitigation

projects;

Develop a Web site to post news

articles, meeting notices, and

event notices; and

Establish a speaker’s bureau to

talk to schools, business groups,

and other organizations about

mitigation.
Version 1.0 August 2003 3-17

evaluate your planning results 3

The Hazardville Post

Vol. CXVI No. 272 Friday, September 29, 2006

Town Hall Retrofit Called a “Money Pit”

(Part 3 of a 4-Part Series on the Hazard Mitigation Implementation Process)

[Hazardville, EM] In response to

a complaint about the progress of

the seismic retrofit project of the

historic Hazardville Town Hall, the

Hazardville Board of Supervisors

recently held an informal hearing

on the matter. The retrofit, begun

under Hazardville’s initiative to

become more disaster resistant and

overseen by the Town of Hazardville

Organization for Risk Reduction

(THORR), is now estimated to have

cost taxpayers about double the

original projected cost.

When asked about the escalating

costs, Joe Norris, lead planner of

THORR, commented that the overruns could be attributed to misjudgments THORR had made about the

extent of repairs that the building

needed. “We didn’t realize the extent of work that would have to be

done to bring the building up to current code, much less to be

seismically resistant.” Norris explained that much of the work had

nothing to do with seismic standards. “Not only did the contractor

discover asbestos-based insulation

and ceiling tiles on the first floor

where most of the work was to be

done, but he also found lead-based

paint on pipes that had not been

removed during renovation in the

late 1960s. These factors were not

considered in our original project

estimates, but they had to be addressed in the retrofit in order to

comply with local, state, and federal

laws,” Norris said.

Board of Supervisors Chairperson

Seymour Hale likened the building

retrofit to a “money pit,” saying that

THORR should have done its homework. Norris agreed, “As soon as we

found out about these unexpected

costs for the project, we began to reevaluate all of our other projects to

keep this from happening again. It

seems that we placed a huge amount

of work on our local building inspector. He had a tremendous work load,

and did not have enough time to do

in-depth investigation into some of

the buildings before work began.”

When asked how THORR planned

to remedy this problem, Norris replied, “We are still in the process of

evaluating our other hazard mitigation projects and will submit our

findings to the Board by the end of

the month.”
step
Version 1.0 August 2003 4-1

4

revise

the plan

Overview

The final step in the mitigation planning process is to determine

whether you need to make changes to the planning process or

the mitigation plan. You will start with an evaluation of the factual

underpinnings of the mitigation strategy: the risk assessment and

the capability assessment. Using the results of the evaluations of

the process and projects completed in Step 3, and taking into consideration the factors to be discussed under Task A below, you will

determine whether you need to revise or update your mitigation

plan or planning process.

The frequency of conducting a plan evaluation depends upon the

speed and the intensity at which changes are occurring. For example, if your community is experiencing significant growth, or if

you have experienced recent or frequent hazard or disaster events,

this evaluation may have to be conducted more frequently. Keep in

mind, however, that DMA 2000 regulations require that local plans be reviewed and updated at least every five years, and state plans at least every

three years, for a state or jurisdiction to remain eligible for assistance.

Procedures & Techniques

Planning is an ongoing process, and your plan should be treated as

a living document that must grow and adapt in order to keep pace

with the community's growth and change as these issues affect hazard vulnerability, and with changes that may be external to the

community but that affect the planning process. An annual "scan

of the horizon" should be done, so that emerging trends in data

availability or collection, land use and development, technology,

and other factors can be documented. Just prior to the three- or

five-year point, these annual observations should be evaluated to

determine what types of changes should be made to your planning

process and to the plan document. The results of your evaluations

should be re-programmed back into each phase of the planning

process and should yield decisions on how (or whether) to update

each section of your plan.
4-2 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

Task A. Review those factors that affect your

community's planning context.

Evaluating the following factors will help you determine what

changes to the plan document are warranted. Extensive or widespread changes in any one of these categories may signal a need to

reconsider some or all of your plan's fundamental assumptions.

1. Revisit the risk assessment to incorporate updated estimates of cost of

living and replacement costs, new scientific data on hazard areas, the

effect of hazards on the community, changes in growth patterns, and, particularly, reductions in vulnerability due to completion of projects.

Use Worksheet #4: Revisit Your Risk Assessment to complete this

task. See Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2) to review information on hazards and estimating losses.

 Shifts in development. The planning team should determine

whether there are changes in development patterns that

could influence the effects of hazards in your community or

create additional risks. One common example of this is when

upstream growth in a given watershed affects flood characteristics downstream in your community. For example, in

Hazardville, coastal development caused the Planning Department to undertake a coastal development plan. The effects of

erosion, wave action, and tidal surge hazards will be considered in this development plan, and corresponding policies

and/or mitigation projects should be considered.

 Areas affected by recent disasters. Recent hazard events or

disasters can provide new information about the ways in which

your community can be affected. Compare the effects of the

event against what the loss estimation analysis led you to expect.

 New studies or technologies. What have recent hydrologic,

watershed, traffic, or demographic studies revealed about

your community? Studies such as these may provide additional

information about your community. You already should be

continually researching mitigation techniques to discover

whether new technologies or methods are being used.
Version 1.0 August 2003 4-3

revise the plan 4

 Re-estimate losses. For projects that have not yet been implemented, any new information the planning team has gathered

should be used to recalculate losses or revise the benefit-cost

analysis originally prepared. See Understanding Your Risks

(FEMA 386-2) for the methodologies and considerations used

to estimate losses.

2. Revisit your capability assessment to determine changes in laws, authorities, community and state resources, and availability of financial

and technical tools that may affect what you can do.

Additionally, political will and priorities can change with the election cycle. See Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3) for more

information on how to update your capability assessment.

 Changes in community, state, or federal laws, policies, plans, or

funding. The strengthening, relaxing, or addition of land use,

environmental, or other government regulations may present

additional challenges or opportunities to the community.

 Changes in the socioeconomic fabric of the community. Broad

social transformations often have repercussions on the

community's sequence of mitigation priorities and the implementation of projects. Recessions, booming economies, cost of

living increases, changes in the political climate, demographic

shifts, or environmental justice issues may have some influence

on the way mitigation is executed in your community. On a

smaller scale, changes within the community, such as the departure of a large employer, may alter the socioeconomic balance.

 Other changing conditions. Have the successes achieved over

the past few years created a political environment that may allow the planning team to propose a new mitigation initiative

that would not have had the political support necessary earlier?

The review process

can be easier if you keep up

with annual reports.
4-4 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

Risk Assessment

Steps

Questions YES NO COMMENTS

Identify hazards Are there new hazards that can

affect your community?



Profile hazard

events

Are new historical records

available?



Are additional maps or new hazard

studies available?

Recently completed maps and studies

showing vulnerability of the new coastal

development to erosion and tidal surge are

available.

Have chances of future events

(along with their magnitude, extent,

etc.) changed?



Have recent and future development

in the community been checked for

their effect on hazard areas?



Inventory assets Have inventories of existing

structures in hazard areas been

updated?



Is future land development

accounted for in the inventories?

The Planning Department is preparing a

coastal development plan to ensure that

any future development is set back far

enough to be outside the erosion zones

and the coastal high hazard areas. Current

and future road configurations will also be

studied to ensure adequate evacuation

times before hurricane events.

Are there any new special high-risk

populations?

Coastal residents and business owners.

Estimate losses Have loss estimates been updated

to account for recent changes?



Worksheet #4 Revisit Your Risk Assessment step 

If you answered “Yes” to any of the above questions, review your data and update your risk

assessment information accordingly.
Version 1.0 August 2003 4-5

revise the plan 4

Task B. Analyze your findings and determine whether to

revise your planning process or mitigation strategy.

The planning team should use its new knowledge to identify the

areas of the plan or planning process that should be changed.

Some aspects of the planning process may warrant a briefer treatment the second time around, while others, because of additional

knowledge or more readily available technical assistance, may warrant a more in-depth treatment.

Consider updating the goals, objectives, and actions in the plan.

One of the most important steps in plan revision is to update or

refine the community’s goals, objectives, and actions, particularly

in light of experiences gained from implementing mitigation actions in the current plan. The planning team has undoubtedly

learned something new about the state or community, the administration of government, or the value that the community places on

certain objectives—all of which need to be included in a reevaluation of the strategies. As with every step in the planning process,

updating goals and strategies should use consensus building and

community-driven prioritization methods, which are explained in

Getting Started (FEMA 386-1) and Developing the Mitigation Plan

(FEMA 386-3).

Using the information gleaned in Step 3, and your results from

Task B, the planning team should discuss what actions should be

undertaken, reconsidered, or even eliminated, to further the

plan’s goals. This discussion should result in a preliminary list of

alternative mitigation actions to incorporate into the update of the

plan. As in any other step of the planning process, the community

should be engaged in reviewing these alternatives. The planning

team may choose to present these alternatives in a public forum at

this stage or as part of the plan review process discussed in Task C.

For more details on researching alternatives, see Phase 3, Step 2 of

Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3).

Important questions to discuss with the team include the following:

1. Are the goals and objectives still applicable? Have any changes in the

state or community made the goals or objectives obsolete or irrelevant?

Review the findings of changes in the community, including

changes that your mitigation initiatives have brought, to determine

whether you have met your goals and if they remain consistent with

current conditions. If you determine that you need to add new
4-6 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

goals to the plan, see Phase 3, Step 1 of Developing the Mitigation

Plan (FEMA 386-3) for formulating goal statements.

2. Do the plan’s priorities correspond with state priorities?

Where applicable, make sure your actions are consistent with any

changes to state priorities. You will continue to be aligned with

state goals and priorities by doing this.

3. Do existing actions need to be reprioritized for implementation?

Now that you have implemented some of the actions, learned what

works and doesn’t, developed new actions, and discovered that

some aspects of your community may have changed, you may need

to reprioritize your actions. See Developing the Mitigation Plan

(FEMA 386-3) for prioritizing methods.

4. Are actions appropriate for available resources?

Make sure that the community or state has enough resources to

carry out the actions. You probably will have to research to find out

what is currently available. Are past sources of funds still available?

Are there new sources of funding that can be tapped? Are there

new partnerships with nonprofit organizations or businesses that

can be developed? What creative ways of implementing similar actions have other communities used? Securing Resources for Mitigation

Planning (FEMA 386-9) covers these topics in greater detail.

Task C. Incorporate your findings into the plan.

Include your most recent findings about the community, tribe, or

state, your hazards and vulnerabilities, as well as the applicable

original actions of the plan, into a revised plan. Update your description of the planning process to include the steps you took to

revise the plan document and how you involved the public. Update

the implementation strategy to identify who will be responsible for

the new or revised actions, the time frame, and funding sources.

The revised plan must be reviewed by all stakeholders in the community for its validity, and proceed through a formal adoption process as required by local or state laws.

Use Worksheet #5: Revise the Plan to help you keep track of where

the plan document may require revisions.

In order to remain

eligible for disaster related funding, your updated

local plan must be re-submitted to your state and/or

FEMA Regional Office for review and

approval every five years. State plans

must be re-submitted to the FEMA Regional Office for review and approval

every three years.
Version 1.0 August 2003 4-7

revise the plan 4

Worksheet #5 Revise the Plan step 

Prepare to update the plan.

When preparing to update the plan: Check the box when addressed:

Consider the results of the evaluation and new strategies for the future.

When examining the community consider: Check the box when addressed:

1. Gather information, including project evaluation worksheets, progress reports, studies, related

plans, etc. 

Comments: THORR must work with the Department of Public Works to update their progress reports and stream

maintenance plans. While the department has been effectively conducting their new duties, it has been unable to attend

to administrative paperwork such as preparing progress reports and formally updating its standard operating

procedures.

2. Reconvene the planning team, making changes to the team composition as necessary (see results

from Worksheet #2). 

Comments: Invited Habitat for Humanity to participate in THORR.

1. The results of the planning and outreach efforts. 

Comments: All but one of the the Raging River Views Park residents attended the design charette put on by the Department

of Planning.

[Note: The information here only pertains to the one project highlighted in this guide. When actually completing

the worksheet, you will reflect on all projects.]

2. The results of the mitigation efforts. 

Comments: The mitigation efforts have gone as planned, except the team was unable to obtain the cooperation of the

remaining Raging River Views Park residents.

[Note: The information here only pertains to the one project highlighted in this guide. When actually completing

the worksheet, you will reflect on all projects.]

page 1 of 4
4-8 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

3. Shifts in development trends. 

Comments: The continued unwillingness of the Council to adopt hazard-based zoning will continue to be an issue. The

reauthorization and funding of the economic development program encourages development in hazard areas. Recent development

along the coast has not taken into account coastal storm hazards.

4. Areas affected by recent disasters. 

Comments: Coastal windstorms have continued to erode the hillside surrounding the lighthouse.

5. The recent magnitude, location, and type of the most recent hazard or disaster. 

Comments: The spring coastal storm of 2002 was estimated by NOAA to have a 25-year recurrence interval and accelerated

beach erosion in several areas.

6. New studies or technologies. 

Comments: THORR is currently conducting a study to determine best mitigation methods for retrofitting historic structures in

the downtown district.

7. Changes in local, state, or federal laws, policies, plans, priorities, or funding. 

Comments: See #3.

page 2 of 4
Version 1.0 August 2003 4-9

revise the plan 4

Incorporate your findings into the plan.

When examining the plan consider: Check the box when addressed:

1. Revisit the risk assessment. (See Worksheet #4) 

Comments: Acquisition of structures in the Raging River Views Park decreases the potential flood losses. Vulnerability

assessment and loss data will be incorporated into the plan.

2. Update your goals and strategies. 

Comments: N/A

3. Recalculate benefit-cost analyses of projects to prioritize action items. 

Comments: N/A

8. Changes in the socioeconomic fabric of the community. 

Comments: Most new residents along the coast are retired professionals and are new to the area.

9. Other changing conditions. 

Comments: None

page 3 of 4
4-10 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

Use the following criteria to evaluate the plan:

Comments:

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

None

Criteria YES NO Solution

Are the goals still applicable? 

Have any changes in the state

or community made the goals

obsolete or irrelevant?



Do existing actions need to be

reprioritized for

implementation?

Staffing at the Department of Public Works is a high priority.

Do the plan's priorities

correspond with state

priorities?



Can actions be implemented

with available resources?

Need to identify funding for additional staff at the Department of Public

Works.

page 4 of 4
Version 1.0 August 2003 4-11

revise the plan 4

The Hazardville Post

Vol. CXVII No. 16 Thursday, January 16, 2007

The Hazard Mitigation Planning Cycle Set to Begin Again

(Part 4 of a 4-Part Series on the Hazard Mitigation Implementation Process)

[Hazardville, EM] A strategic

planning meeting to update the

Hazardville Hazard Mitigation Plan

was held Wednesday at the Town

Hall. The Town of Hazardville Organization for Risk Reduction

(THORR), continuing in its planning capacity, led the strategy session by explaining to the community

the changes the town has undergone since the initial adoption of the

plan in 2003.

The first meeting was to review

the results of the community perception survey and to discuss the

status of the mitigation actions that

were prioritized in the town’s mitigation plan. “Overall, our residents

now seem to be more aware of the

hazards to which the town is vulnerable, and a large majority of the

survey respondents knew what they

could do to reduce their own vulnerability,” said Joe Norris, lead

planner for THORR. “With the exception of the Town Hall seismic

retrofit project, we are proud to inform the community that our

Summary

In order for the plan to remain a viable tool for your state, tribe, or community, you must regularly

review your planning process and mitigation strategy. Communities are rarely static and new challenges will arise during every revision of the plan. Disasters also present a window of opportunity to

evaluate the relative success of the mitigation plan. States, tribes, and communities should take advantage of funding that becomes available as a result of these events.

Revising the plan ensures it remains up-to-date and relevant, providing a good return on the time and

resources invested in developing it.

projects are all progressing as scheduled and under budget.”

“We promised to make this community a safer place to live and

work, and we will continue to strive

to achieve this for our community,”

Mayor McDonald said at a press

briefing yesterday. “That promise

means we must diligently prepare

for and mitigate against the many

hazards our community is vulnerable to. Accountability and diligence

are key to making this a reality.”
afterword
Version 1.0 August 2003 afterword

afterword

You have a mitigation plan. Now what?

The first plan your state, tribe, or community adopts establishes

a baseline from which to measure progress. As you implement

and evaluate actions, your knowledge of hazards and how to best

reduce your vulnerabilities increases tremendously. In order to effectively monitor your progress, it is important to take advantage of

the worksheets provided in the how-to series. Over time, new partners will become involved in the planning process, providing additional reservoirs of experience and support. Since the political and

social arenas, as well as the natural environment, are continually

changing, you must periodically revisit and update your plan. As

your plan evolves over time, you should see a corresponding improvement in your state, tribe, or community’s resilience to the

damaging effects of disasters.
appendices
Version 1.0 August 2003 a-1

appendix a

glossary

Acquisition of hazard-prone

structures

Base Flood Elevation (BFE)

Benefit

Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA)

Building

Capability assessment

Coastal zone

Community Emergency

Response Team (CERT)

Community Rating System (CRS)

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

property.

Elevation of the base flood in relation to a specified datum, such as the

National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. The Base Flood Elevation is used

as a standard for the National Flood Insurance Program.

Net project outcomes, usually defined in monetary terms. Benefits may

include direct and indirect effects. For the purposes of conducting a benefitcost analysis of proposed mitigation measures, benefits are limited to specific,

measurable risk reduction factors, including a reduction in expected property

losses (building, contents, and function) and protection of human life.

A systematic, quantitative method of comparing the projected benefits to

projected costs of a project or policy. It is used as a measure of cost-effectiveness.

A structure that is walled and roofed, principally above ground and permanently affixed to a site. The term includes a manufactured home on a

permanent foundation on which the wheel and axles carry no weight.

An assessment that provides a description and analysis of a community or

state’s current capacity to address the threats associated with hazards. The

capability assessment attempts to identify and evaluate existing policies,

regulations, programs, and practices that positively or negatively affect the

community or state’s vulnerability to hazards or specific threats.

The area along the shore where the ocean meets the land as the surface of

the land rises above the ocean. This land/water interface includes barrier

islands, estuaries, beaches, coastal wetlands, and land areas with direct

drainage to the ocean.

CERT is the mechanism to establish, train and maintain a local cadre of

residents to act as first responders in the event of an emergency. A CERT

team is especially critical in the first three days following a disaster when

conditions may prevent access by emergency response personnel.

CRS is a program that provides incentives for National Flood Insurance

Program communities to complete activities that reduce flood hazard risk.

When the community completes specified activities, the insurance premiums

of these policyholders in communities are reduced.
a-2 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

Comprehensive plan

Cost-effectiveness

Critical facilities

Debris

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000

(DMA 2000)

Earthquake

Elevation of structures

Emergency response services

Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA)

Flood Hazard Area

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)

A document, also known as a “general plan,” covering the entire geographic

area of a community and expressing community goals and objectives. The

plan lays out the vision, policies, and strategies for the future of the community, including all of the physical elements that will determine the

community’s future development. This plan can discuss the community’s

desired physical development, desired rate and quantity of growth, community character, transportation services, location of growth, and siting of

public facilities and transportation. In most states, the comprehensive plan

has no authority in and of itself, but serves as a guide for community decision-making.

Cost-effectiveness is a key evaluation criterion for federal grant programs.

Cost- effectiveness has several possible definitions, although for grantmaking purposes FEMA defines a cost-effective project as one whose longterm benefits exceed its costs. That is, a project should prevent more

expected damages than it costs initially to fund the effort. This is done to

ensure that limited public funds are used in the most efficient manner

possible. Benefit-cost analysis is one way to illustrate that a project is costeffective.

Facilities vital to the health, safety, and welfare of the population and that are

especially important following hazard events. Critical facilities include, but

are not limited to, shelters, police and fire stations, and hospitals.

The scattered remains of assets broken or destroyed in a hazard event.

Debris transported by a wind or water hazard event can cause additional

damage to other assets.

DMA 2000 (Public Law 106-390) is the latest legislation to improve the

planning process. Signed into law on October 30, 2000, this legislation

reinforces the importance of mitigation planning and emphasizes planning

for disasters before they occur.

A sudden motion or trembling caused by a release of strain accumulated

within or along the edge of the earth’s tectonic plates.

Raising structures above the base flood elevation to protect structures

located in areas prone to flooding.

The actions of first responders such as firefighters, police, and other emergency services personnel at the scene of a hazard event. The first responders

take appropriate action to contain the hazard, protect property, conduct

search and rescue operations, provide mass care, and ensure public safety.

Agency created in 1979 to provide a single point of accountability for all

federal activities related to disaster mitigation and emergency preparedness,

response, and recovery. FEMA is now part of the Department of Homeland

Security.

The area on a map shown to be inundated by a flood of a given magnitude.

Map of a community, prepared by FEMA, which shows both the special flood

hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community

under the National Flood insurance Program.
appendix a – glossary

Version 1.0 August 2003 a-3

A program created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of

1994. FMA provides funding to assist communities and states in implementing actions that reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to

buildings, manufactured homes, and other NFIP insurable structures, with a

focus on repetitive loss properties.

Any land area, including watercourse, susceptible to partial or complete

inundation by water from any source.

Actions that prevent or minimize future flood damage. Making the areas

below the anticipated flood level watertight or intentionally allowing floodwaters to enter the interior to equalize flood pressures are examples of

flood-proofing.

A geographical area shown on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that

reflects the severity or type of flooding in the area.

General guidelines that explain what you want to achieve. They are usually

broad policy-type statements, long term in nature, and represent global

visions.

A source of potential danger or adverse condition.

A specific occurrence of a particular type of hazard.

The process of identifying hazards that threaten an area.

Information booth, publication kiosk, exhibit, etc. that displays information

to educate the public about hazards that affect the jurisdiction and hazard

mitigation activities people can undertake.

Sustained actions taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk from hazards

and their effects.

Authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and

Emergency Assistance Act, HMGP is administered by FEMA and provides

grants to states, tribes, and local governments to implement hazard mitigation actions after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the program

is to reduce the loss of life and property due to disasters and to enable

mitigation activities to be implemented as a community recovers from a

disaster.

A description of the physical characteristics of hazards and a determination

of various descriptors, including magnitude, duration, frequency, probability,

and extent. In most cases, a community can most easily use these descriptors

when they are recorded and displayed as maps.

A GIS-based, nationally standardized, loss estimation tool developed by

FEMA. HAZUS-MH is the new multi-hazard version that includes earthquake, wind, hurricane, and flood loss estimate components.

Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)

Program

Floodplain

Flood-proofing

Flood Zone

Goals

Hazard

Hazard event

Hazard identification

Hazard information center

Hazard mitigation

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

(HMGP)

Hazard profile

HAZUS, HAZUS-MH
a-4 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

Hurricane

Infrastructure

Landslide

Loss estimation

Memorandum of Agreement

(MOA)

Mitigate

Mitigation actions

Mitigation plan

National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP)

Objectives

Open space preservation

Ordinance

An intense tropical cyclone, formed in the atmosphere over warm ocean

areas, in which wind speeds reach 74 miles per hour or more and blow in a

large spiral around a relatively calm center or “eye.” Hurricanes develop over

the north Atlantic Ocean, northeast Pacific Ocean, or the south Pacific

Ocean east of 160oE longitude. Hurricane circulation is counter-clockwise in

the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere.

Refers to the public facilities of a community that have a direct impact on

the quality of life. Infrastructure includes communication technology, such

as phone lines or Internet access; vital services, such as public water supplies

and sewer treatment facilities; and an area’s transportation system: airports,

heliports, highways, bridges, tunnels, roadbeds, overpasses, railways, bridges,

rail yards, depots; and waterways, canals, locks, seaports, ferries, harbors,

drydocks, piers, and regional dams.

Downward movement of a slope and materials under the force of gravity.

Forecasts of human and economic impacts and property damage from

future hazard events, based on current scientific and engineering knowledge.

A non-binding statement that defines the duties, responsibilities, and

commitment of the different parties or individuals; provides a clear statement of values, principles, and goals; and establishes an organizational

structure to assist in measuring and evaluating progress.

To cause something to become less harsh or hostile; to make less severe or

painful.

Activities or projects that help achieve the goals and objectives of a mitigation plan.

The document that articulates results from the systematic process of identifying hazards and evaluating vulnerability, identifying goals, objectives, and

actions to reduce or eliminate the effects of identified hazards, and an

implementation plan for carrying out the actions.

Federal program created by Congress in 1968 that makes flood insurance

available in communities that enact minimum floodplain management

regulations found in 44 CFR §60.3.

Objectives define strategies or implementation steps to attain the identified

goals. Unlike goals, objectives are specific and measurable.

Preserving undeveloped areas from development through any number of

methods, including low-density zoning, open space zoning, easements, or

public or private acquisition. Open space preservation is a technique that

can be used to prevent flood damage in flood-prone areas, land failures on

steep slopes or liquefaction-prone soils, and can enhance the natural and

beneficial functions of floodplains.

A term for a law or regulation adopted by a local government.
appendix a – glossary

Version 1.0 August 2003 a-5

Planning

Policy

Post-disaster mitigation

Post-disaster recovery ordinance

Post-disaster recovery planning

Preparedness

Probability

Public education and outreach

programs

Recovery

Regulation

Regulatory power

Relocation out of hazard areas

Resources

Response

The act or process of making or carrying out plans; the establishment of

goals, policies, and procedures for a social or economic unit.

A course of action or specific rule of conduct to be followed in achieving

goals and objectives.

Mitigation actions taken after a disaster has occurred, usually during recovery and reconstruction.

An ordinance authorizing certain governmental actions to be taken during

the immediate aftermath of a hazard event to expedite implementation of

recovery and reconstruction actions identified in a pre-event plan.

The process of planning those steps the jurisdiction will take to implement

long-term reconstruction with a primary goal of mitigating its exposure to

future hazards. The post-disaster recovery planning process can also involve

coordination with other types of plans and agencies, but it is distinct from

planning for emergency operations.

Actions that strengthen the capability of government, citizens, and communities to respond to disasters.

A statistical measure of the likelihood that a hazard event will occur.

Any campaign to make the public more aware of hazard mitigation and

mitigation programs, including hazard information centers, mailings, public

meetings, etc.

The actions taken by an individual or community after a catastrophic event

to restore order and lifelines in a community.

Most states have granted local jurisdictions broad regulatory powers to

enable the enactment and enforcement of ordinances that deal with public

health, safety, and welfare. These include building codes, building inspections, zoning, floodplain and subdivision ordinances, and growth management initiatives.

Local jurisdictions have the authority to regulate certain activities in their

jurisdiction. With respect to mitigation planning, the focus is on such things

as regulating land use development and construction through zoning,

building codes, subdivision regulations, design standards, and floodplain

regulations.

A mitigation technique that features the process of demolishing or moving a

building to a new location outside the hazard area.

Resources include the people, materials, technologies, money, etc., required

to implement strategies or processes. The costs of these resources are often

included in a budget.

The actions taken during and immediately after an event to address immediate life and safety needs and to minimize further damage to properties.
a-6 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

Resolutions

Risk

Stafford Act

Stakeholder

State Hazard Mitigation Officer

(SHMO)

Structural retrofitting

Subdivision

Subdivision and

development regulations

Tornado

Vulnerability

Expressions of a governing body’s opinion, will, or intention that can be

executive or administrative in nature. Most planning documents must

undergo a council resolution, which must be supported in an official vote by

a majority of representatives to be adopted. Other methods of making a

statement or announcement about a particular issue or topic include

proclamations and declarations.

The estimated impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities,

and structures in a community; the likelihood of a hazard event resulting in

an adverse condition that causes injury or damage. Risk is often expressed in

relative terms such as a high, moderate, or low likelihood of sustaining

damage above a particular threshold due to a specific type of hazard event. It

also can be expressed in terms of potential monetary losses associated with

the intensity of the hazard.

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, PL

100-107 was signed into law November 23, 1988 and amended the Disaster

Relief Act of 1974, PL 93-288. The Stafford Act is the statutory authority for

most federal disaster response activities, especially as they pertain to FEMA

and its programs.

Stakeholders are individuals or groups, including businesses, private organizations, and citizens, that will be affected in any way by an action or policy.

The state government representative who is the primary point of contact

with FEMA, other state and federal agencies, and local units of government

in the planning and implementation of pre- and post-disaster mitigation

activities.

Modifying existing buildings and infrastructure to protect them from

hazards.

The division of a tract of land into two or more lots for sale or development.

Regulations and standards governing the division of land for development

or sale. Subdivision regulations can control the configuration of parcels, set

standards for developer-built infrastructure, and set standards for minimizing runoff, impervious surfaces, and sediment during development. They

can be used to minimize exposure of buildings and infrastructure to hazards.

A violently rotating column of air extending from a thunderstorm to the

ground.

Describes how exposed or susceptible an asset is to damage. Vulnerability

depends on an asset’s construction, contents, and the economic value of its

functions. Like indirect damages, the vulnerability of one element of the

community is often related to the vulnerability of another. For example,

many businesses depend on uninterrupted electrical power—if an electric

substation is flooded, it not only affects the substation but a number of

businesses as well. Often, indirect effects can be much more widespread and

damaging than direct ones.
appendix a – glossary

Version 1.0 August 2003 a-7

The extent of injury and damage that may result from a hazard event of a

given intensity in a given area. The vulnerability assessment should address

the effects of hazard events on the existing and future built environment.

An uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, exposing and

possibly consuming structures.

The division of land within a local jurisdiction by local legislative regulation

into zones of allowable types and intensities of land uses.

Designation of allowable land use and intensities for a local jurisdiction.

Zoning ordinances consist of two components: a zoning text and a zoning

map.

Vulnerability assessment

Wildfire

Zoning

Zoning ordinance

Version 1.0 August 2003 b-1

appendix b

library

Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)

FEMA Publications Warehouse

FEMA Mitigation Publications Library

General Contact Information

http://www.fema.gov

FEMA Headquarters:

500 C Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20472

202-646-4600

800-480-2520

http://www.fema.gov/library/prepandprev.shtm

http://www.planning.org

http://www.planning.org/growingsmart

http://www.cfda.gov

http://www.fema.gov/nfip/crs.shtm

http://www.pro.gov.uk/recordsmanagement/eros/

framework.pdf

http://www.allhandsconsulting.com/ERI_books.htm

http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0100/firetools.html

http://www.atlantahighered.org/memberservices/shelter/

literature.asp

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/~bernard/hazard3.pdf

http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb

http://www.fema.gov/rrr/inassist.shtm

http://www.fema.gov/fima/planning.shtm

http://www.fema.gov/rrr/pa

American Planning Association (APA)

APA, Growing Smart

Legislative Guidebook, 2002

Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Programs

Community Rating System

Developing the Implementation Strategy

Emergency Management Institute

Federal Emergency Management

Agency Individual Assistance Program

FEMA Mitigation Planning

FEMA Public Assistance Program

Web sites
b-2 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

Flood Mitigation Assistance Program

Habitat for Humanity

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

Hazard Mitigation in North Carolina:

Measuring Success

HAZUS and HAZUS-MH

HMGP Progress Report Form

Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS),

Summary of State Land Use and Natural

Hazards Planning Laws

Institute for Local Self Government

Mitigation Success Stories

Multi-hazard Mapping Initiative

National Association of Regional Councils

National Flood Insurance Program

National League of Cities

North Carolina Division of Emergency

Management, Tools and Techniques for

Mitigating the Effects of Natural Hazards

Oregon Department of Land Conservation

and Development (DLCD), Planning for

Natural Hazards—Oregon Technical

Resource Guide

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program

Small Business Administration

State Guidebook for

Developing Partnerships

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural

Resources Conservation Service

http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfma.shtm

http://www.habitat.org/

http://www.fema.gov/fima/hmgp

http://www.dem.dcc.state.nc.us/Mitigation/Library/

Success_Stories/Measuring_Success_Vol2/Chapter6.pdf

http://www.fema.gov/hazus/index.shtm

http://www.dem.dcc.state.nc.us/mitigation/

document_index.htm

http://www.ibhs.org/research_library/view.asp?id=302

http://www.ilsg.org/

http://www.fema.gov/fima/success.shtm

http://www.hazardmaps.gov/atlas.php

http://www.narc.org

http://www.fema.gov/nfip

http://www.nlc.org

http://www.dem.dcc.state.nc.us/mitigation/Library/

Full_Tools_and_Tech.pdf

http://www.lcd.state.or.us/hazhtml/Guidehome.htm

http://www.fema.gov/fima/pdm

http://www.sba.gov/disaster_recov/index.html

http://www.ibhs.org/research_library/downloads/280.pdf

http://www.usace.army.mil

http://disaster.fsa.usda.gov

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov
appendix b – library

Version 1.0 August 2003 b-3

U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development

U.S. Department of Transportation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. State and Local Government Gateway

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/

programs/dri/driquickfacts.cfm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/erelief.html

http://www.epa.gov

http://www.firstgov.gov/Government/State_Local.shtml

NOTE: The World Wide Web is an ever-changing source of information. Web addresses and the information they contain can

change over time.

Publications

American Planning Association

Federal Register

FEMA

Capital Improvement Programming, PAS Report No. 151, 1961.

Capital Improvements Programs: Linking Budgeting and Planning,

PAS Report No. 442, 1993.

Selecting and Retaining a Planning Consultant: RFPs, RFQs,

Contracts, and Project Management, PAS Report No. 443, 1993.

44 CFR Parts 201 and 206 (The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000),

February 26, 2002.

Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying mitigation actions and

implementation strategies (FEMA 386-3), 2003.

Getting Started: Building support for mitigation planning

(FEMA 386-1), 2002.

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Desk Reference (FEMA 345), 1999.

Hazard Mitigation in Iowa: Measuring Success, 2003, unpublished to

date.

Hazard Mitigation in Mississippi: Measuring Success, 2003,

unpublished to date.

Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations into

Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-6), unpublished to date.

Integrating Human-Caused Hazards into Mitigation Planning (FEMA

386-7), 2002.

Mitigation Resources for Success (FEMA 372), 2000.

Multi-jurisdictional Approaches to Mitigation Planning

(FEMA 386-8), unpublished to date.

Planning for a Sustainable Future: The Link Between Hazard

Mitigation and Livability (FEMA 364), 2003.
b-4 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Bringing the Plan to Life

Gianakis, Gerasimos A. and

McCue, Clifford P., 1999

Schwab, Jim et al., 1998

Tyler Norris Associates, 1997

Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework

(FEMA 365), 2000.

Securing Resources for Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-9),

unpublished to date.

Understanding Your Risks: Identifying hazards and estimating losses

(FEMA 386-2), 2001.

Using Benefit-Cost Analysis in Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-5),

unpublished to date.

Local Government Budgeting: A Managerial Approach.

Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction, PAS Report

Nos. 483/484.

Community Indicators Handbook: Measuring Progress Toward Healthy

and Sustainable Communities.
Version 1.0 August 2003 c-1

appendix c

worksheets

Worksheet #1 Progress Report

Worksheet #2 Evaluate Your Planning Team

Worksheet #3 Evaluate Your Project Results

Worksheet #4 Revisit Your Risk Assessment

Worksheet #5 Revise the Plan

Worksheet #1 Progress Report step 

Progress Report Period:_________________ to ___________________________________________________

(date) (date)

Project Title: _________________________________________ Project ID#: ____________________________

Responsible Agency: _________________________________________________________________________

Address: __________________________________________________________________________________

City/County: ________________________________________________________________________________

Contact Person: _______________________________________ Title:_________________________________

Phone #(s): ____________________________ email address: _______________________________________

List Supporting Agencies and Contacts:

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Project Cost: ___________________________________________________________________________

Anticipated Cost Overrun/Underrun: _____________________________________________________________

Date of Project Approval: _________________________ Start date of the project: _________________________

Anticipated completion date: ___________________________________________________________________

Description of the Project (include a description of each phase, if applicable, and the time frame for completing each

phase): ___________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Milestones Complete

Projected

Date of

Completion

Page 1 of 3

Plan Goal(s)/Objective(s) Addressed:

Goal: _____________________________________________________________________________________

Objective: __________________________________________________________________________________

Indicator of Success (e.g., losses avoided as a result of the acquisition program):

In most cases, you will list losses avoided as the indicator. In cases where it is difficult to quantify the benefits in dollar

amounts, you will use other indicators, such as the number of people who now know about mitigation or who are taking mitigation actions to reduce their vulnerability to hazards.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Status (Please check pertinent information and provide explanations for items with an asterisk. For completed or

canceled projects, see Worksheet #2 — to complete a project evaluation):

Summary of progress on project for this report:

A. What was accomplished during this reporting period?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

B. What obstacles, problems, or delays did you encounter, if any?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

C. How was each problem resolved?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Project Cost Status

 Cost unchanged

 Cost overrun*

*explain: ___________________________________

_________________________________________

 Cost underrun*

*explain: ___________________________________

_________________________________________

Project Status

 Project on schedule

 Project completed

 Project delayed*

*explain: ___________________________________

_________________________________________

 Project canceled

Page 2 of 3

Next Steps: What is/are the next step(s) to be accomplished over the next reporting period?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Other comments:

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Adapted from the North Carolina HMGP Progress Report Form at http://www.dem.dcc.state.nc.us/mitigation/document_index.htm.

Page 3 of 3

If the planning team determines the answer to any of these questions is “yes,” some changes may be necessary.

Worksheet #2 Evaluate Your Planning Team step 

When gearing up for the plan evaluation, the planning team should reassess its composition

and ask the following questions:

YES NO

Have there been local staffing changes that would warrant inviting different members to the planning

team?

Comments/Proposed Action:

Are there organizations that have been invaluable to the planning process or to project

implementation that should be represented on the planning team?

Comments/Proposed Action:

Are there any representatives of essential organizations who have not fully participated in the

planning and implementation of actions? If so, can someone else from this organization commit to

the planning team?

Comments/Proposed Action:

Are there procedures (e.g., signing of MOAs, commenting on submitted progress reports, distributing

meeting minutes, etc.) that can be done more efficiently?

Comments/Proposed Action:

Are there ways to gain more diverse and widespread cooperation?

Comments/Proposed Action:

Are there different or additional resources (financial, technical, and human) that are now available for

mitigation planning?

Comments/Proposed Action:

IF YES

IF NO

Project Name and Number: _______________________________

____________________________________________________

Project Budget: ________________________________________

____________________________________________________

Project Description: _____________________________________

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

Associated Goal and Objective(s): __________________________

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

Indicator of Success (e.g., losses avoided): ___________________

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

Worksheet #3 Evaluate Your Project Results step 

Was the action implemented? YES NO

What were the results of the implemented action? _____________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

Why not?

Was there political support for the action?

Were enough funds available?

Were workloads equitably or realistically distributed?

Was new information discovered about the risks or community that made

implementation difficult or no longer sensible?

Was the estimated time of implementation reasonable?

Were sufficient resources (for example staff and technical assistance) available?

YES NO

Insert location map.

Include before and after

photos if appropriate.

page 1 of 2

YES NO

Were the outcomes as expected? If No, please explain:

Did the results achieve the goal and objective(s)? Explain how:

Was the action cost-effective? Explain how or how not:

What were the losses avoided after having completed the project?

If it was a structural project, how did it change the hazard profile?

Additional comments or other outcomes:

page 2 of 2

Date:

Prepared by:

Risk Assessment

Steps

Questions YES NO COMMENTS

Identify hazards Are there new hazards that can

affect your community?

Profile hazard

events

Are new historical records

available?

Are additional maps or new hazard

studies available?

Have chances of future events

(along with their magnitude, extent,

etc.) changed?

Have recent and future development

in the community been checked for

their effect on hazard areas?

Inventory assets Have inventories of existing

structures in hazard areas been

updated?

Is future land development

accounted for in the inventories?

Are there any new special high-risk

populations?

Estimate losses Have loss estimates been updated

to account for recent changes?

Worksheet #4 Revisit Your Risk Assessment step 

If you answered “Yes” to any of the above questions, review your data and update your risk

assessment information accordingly.

Worksheet #5 Revise the Plan step 

Prepare to update the plan.

When preparing to update the plan: Check the box when addressed:

Consider the results of the evaluation and new strategies for the future.

When examining the community consider: Check the box when addressed:

page 1 of 4

1. Gather information, including project evaluation worksheets, progress reports, studies, related

plans, etc.

Comments:

2. Reconvene the planning team, making changes to the team composition as necessary (see results

from Worksheet #2).

Comments:

1. The results of the planning and outreach efforts.

Comments:

2. The results of the mitigation efforts.

Comments:

3. Shifts in development trends.

Comments:

4. Areas affected by recent disasters.

Comments:

5. The recent magnitude, location, and type of the most recent hazard or disaster.

Comments:

6. New studies or technologies.

Comments:

7. Changes in local, state, or federal laws, policies, plans, priorities, or funding.

Comments:

page 2 of 4

8. Changes in the socioeconomic fabric of the community.

Comments:

9. Other changing conditions.

Comments:

page 3 of 4

Incorporate your findings into the plan.

When examining the plan consider: Check the box when addressed:

1. Revisit the risk assessment. (See Worksheet #4)

Comments:

2. Update your goals and strategies.

Comments:

3. Recalculate benefit-cost analyses of projects to prioritize action items.

Comments:

Use the following criteria to evaluate the plan:

Comments:

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

page 4 of 4

Criteria YES NO Solution

Are the goals still applicable?

Have any changes in the state

or community made the goals

obsolete or irrelevant?

Do existing actions need to be

reprioritized for

implementation?

Do the plan's priorities

correspond with state

priorities?

Can actions be implemented

with available resources?

August 2003

FEMA 386-4