STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING

how-to guide

identifying mitigation actions

and implementation strategies
STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

foreword

introduction

STEP ONE develop mitigation goals and objectives

task A review and analyze the results of the hazard profiles and loss

estimation

task B formulate goals

task C determine objectives

task D get public input

STEP TWO identify and prioritize mitigation actions

task A identify alternative mitigation actions

worksheet #1

task B identify and analyze state and local mitigation capabilities

worksheet #2

worksheet #3

task C evaluate, select, and prioritize mitigation actions

worksheet #4

worksheet #5

i

v

1-1

1-2

1-5

1-7

1-8

2-1

2-2

2-4

2-6

2-8

2-11

2-12

2-21

2-29

Contents

1

2
Version 1.0 April 2003

STEP THREE prepare an implementation strategy

task A identify how the mitigation actions will be implemented

task B document the implementation strategy

task C obtain the consensus of the planning team

STEP FOUR document the mitigation planning process

task A make decisions about the style of the document

task B write the plan

task C review the plan

afterword

appendix a glossary

appendix b library

appendix c worksheets

appendix d worksheet job aids

appendix e example questionnaire

3-1

3-1

3-8

3-9

4-1

4-2

4-3

4-5

a-1

b-1

c-1

d-1

e-1

3

4
STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

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 human-caused 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 April 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

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 activities, 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.

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 Part 201 and 206, which establishes planning and funding criteria for states, tribes, and local

communities.
ii STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

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 goals and priorities 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 human-caused

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 appropriate action to minimize damages;

You can lessen the impact of disasters and speed the response

and recovery process for both natural and human-caused hazards; and
iii Version 1.0 April 2003

foreword

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/or staff

resources in your effort to reduce the effects, and hence the

costs, of natural and human-caused 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 in 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 third phase of the

hazard mitigation planning process and

will help you develop a mitigation plan

that meets DMA 2000 requirements.
introduction
Version 1.0 April 2003 v

This third guide in the state and local mitigation planning howto series is about developing your community’s mitigation strategy and documenting the planning process. It builds on the resources and organizational framework discussed in Getting Started:

Building Support for Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-1) and the results of the loss estimation conducted according to Understanding

Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (FEMA 386-2).

This guide provides you and your planning team with the tools necessary to develop mitigation goals and objectives, identify and prioritize mitigation actions, formulate an implementation strategy,

and assemble the planning document.

How do you use this how-to guide?

Developing the Mitigation Plan, the third of the how-to guides, addresses the third phase of the mitigation planning process. In this

phase, you and your planning team will develop goals and objectives that will guide the identification of actions to address the potential losses identified in Phase 2. Once you have prioritized these

actions, you can then formulate an implementation strategy, identify responsible agencies, and set appropriate time frames for completing mitigation actions. The final step in this phase is to write a

plan that documents the planning process and includes your

implementation strategy.

The figure on the next page illustrates the process involved in completing this phase of the planning process, including how to use

the worksheets and job aids. The relationships between state and

local planning activities that should occur are also shown.

This guide will help you address the following questions:

Has your initial understanding of the hazards affecting your community changed as a result of completing the loss estimation?

How did your loss estimation change your initial perceptions of the hazards

affecting your community? Did you discover “new” hazards or threats? Is a

introduction

Developing the Mitigation

Plan: Identifying Mitigation

Actions and Implementation Strategies is the third in a

series of guides that will help you identify, plan, and implement cost-effective

actions to reduce the effects of hazards

through a comprehensive and orderly

process known as

Hazard Mitigation

Planning.

As detailed in

the Foreword,

the process consists of four basic phases as

shown here. The

first phase,

Organize Resources, consists of organizing resources, mobilizing the community, and getting started with the planning process. The second phase,

Assess Risks, identifies hazards and

estimates the losses associated with

these hazards. The third phase, Develop the Mitigation Plan, consists of

identifying mitigation actions and implementation strategies, and is covered in

this guide. The fourth phase, Implement

the Plan and Monitor Progress, discusses how to implement, monitor, and

evaluate mitigation actions to keep the

mitigation plan current.
vi STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

particular community asset vulnerable to multiple hazards? Do hazards

disproportionately affect a particular portion of your community?

Now that you have the loss estimation findings, you can formulate

goals and objectives to address the identified problems. These goals

and objectives can be revised as necessary to accommodate changing community priorities.

Step 1: Develop Mitigation Goals and Objectives explains how to use

the loss estimation developed in Phase 2 of the planning process in

concert with your mission statement created in Phase 1 to determine where to focus your time and attention.
vii Version 1.0 April 2003

introduction

Hazard Mitigation

Planning is the coordination of actions taken to

reduce injuries, deaths,

property damage, economic losses, and degradation of natural resources due to natural or

human-caused hazard events. Hazard

mitigation actions have long-term and

cumulative benefits over time.

An effective mitigation plan provides

documentation of valuable local knowledge on the most efficient and effective

ways to reduce losses from hazard

events. The benefits of preparing a mitigation plan include:

 More direct access to a wide range

of technical and financial resources for

mitigation projects and initiatives. Not

only will your jurisdiction have the benefit of a well-thought-out blueprint for

executing projects efficiently, but several federal and state emergency management programs require hazard

mitigation plans as prerequisites to

awarding funds.

 The mitigation planning process promotes the development of an informed

citizenry who are knowledgeable about

their vulnerability to hazards and the

options for reducing their losses–

creating an advocacy group that will

support plan implementation.

 Integration of mitigation strategies

with other community needs and

goals—the mitigation planning process

encourages the mitigation strategy to

be developed in light of economic, social, and political realities.

 Improved ability to recover after a

disaster. Having a hazard mitigation

plan in place when a disaster strikes

will greatly improve the response and

recovery process and ensure that longterm mitigation issues are addressed.

How can future losses be reduced?

How can existing plans, programs, procedures, and assets be augmented or

strengthened to protect against future losses? What new actions will achieve

your mitigation goals? What makes the most sense for your community, and

what should be done first?

Losses from hazards can be reduced if states, tribes, and communities take constructive action before the next disaster occurs. Some

mitigation actions may be low-cost initiatives that can be readily

adopted; others may depend on available funding or would be best

implemented following a disaster when additional funding may

become available. The challenges of involving the public and engaging them in decisions that can be costly to implement, yet are

often invisible to the eye, require diligence and fortitude. The cost

of implementing this list of mitigation opportunities will most

likely be far greater than the funds that are or will be available. You

will need to prioritize this list of initiatives to ensure that the

projects you consider to be the most important get implemented as

funding or resources become available.

Step 2: Identify and Prioritize Mitigation Actions explains how to identify, research, evaluate, and prioritize mitigation actions to reduce

future losses.

How do you prepare an implementation strategy?

Who will implement the mitigation projects? What will be the funding

sources for these projects? When will the projects be completed?

Once mitigation actions are identified and prioritized, the planning team must identify the responsible agency or organization,

funding source, and time frame for completing each project.

Step 3: Prepare an Implementation Strategy will help you identify the

resources and appropriate steps necessary to implement mitigation

projects.

What should be included in the mitigation plan?

Does the plan accurately depict the process that your planning team undertook? Is it written so that anyone who reads it can understand the

community’s risks and desired solutions? Will it meet the plan requirements

of DMA 2000 and/or other programs?

The mitigation plan provides a comprehensive strategy for addressing mitigation priorities. The plan should be easily readable, and it

should convey a complete perspective of your community, tribe, or

state’s hazards and potential losses, as well as approaches to miti-
viii STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

gate them, so that anyone who picks up the plan can understand

the vulnerabilities and the specific strategies for addressing them.

The content of the mitigation plan must meet planning requirements in 44 CFR Part 201 in order for the state, tribe, or community to be eligible for FEMA mitigation funds. See Table 1: Hazard

Mitigation Planning Process – Local Planning Requirements by

Program for a list of these requirements. The plan should include:

Discussion of the planning process and partners involved;

Discussion of the hazards and associated potential losses;

Goals aimed at reducing or avoiding losses from the identified

hazards;

Mitigation actions that will help accomplish the established

goals;

Strategies that detail how the mitigation actions will be implemented and administered; and

Description of how and when the plan will be updated.

Step 4: Document the Mitigation Planning Process helps you organize

all of your information into a coherent, practical plan that will

meet the DMA 2000 criteria.

The steps in this how-to guide suggest one possible planning approach. You may find it necessary to alter the sequence of steps or

tasks to fit the needs of your particular jurisdiction. However, the

process illustrated here is based on certain concepts common to all

successful planning processes, and you should be sure to incorporate the major elements suggested in each step. A subsequent

States and tribes that choose to serve as grantees

under HMGP must decide which level of mitigation plan to develop:

By identifying and

prioritizing mitigation actions, you will

have a list of projects that

will reduce future hazard

vulnerabilities. FEMA publication 386-5, Using Benefit-Cost Analysis in Mitigation Planning, will help you

prioritize actions by describing appropriate benefit-cost methodologies for

evaluating the effectiveness of a range

of potential mitigation actions. You may

also require assistance from engineers,

surveyors, or the appraiser’s office to

help estimate costs and benefits associated with particular mitigation actions.

Contact your local, county, and state

governments to find out who may be

able to provide this technical assistance.

 Enhanced State Mitigation Plans

After November 1, 2004, states and tribes with a FEMA-approved Enhanced State Mitigation Plan at the time of a disaster declaration will qualify to receive up to 20% of disaster

outlays through HMGP funding. In addition to all requirements

in the Standard Plan, Enhanced State Mitigation Plans must

demonstrate a broad, programmatic mitigation approach and

systematic and effective administration of the mitigation program.

 Standard State Mitigation Plans

After November 1, 2004, states and tribes with a FEMA-approved Standard State Mitigation Plan at the time of a disaster declaration will qualify to receive up to 7.5%* of disaster

outlays through HMGP funding. Standard State Mitigation

Plans include all the requirements described above. These

plans also discuss how states coordinate mitigation planning

with local and tribal jurisdictions, and document funding and

technical assistance they will provide to these jurisdictions.

* Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, P.L. 108-7 includes language that reduces the 15% maximum of Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds generally available to a state under Section 404(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to 7.5%.

This applies to all disasters declared after February 20, 2003.
Version 1.0 April 2003 ix

introduction

FEMA How-to

Series

Hazard Mitigation Grant

and Pre-Disaster

Mitigation Program

(DMA 2000 Plan Criteria)

Flood Mitigation Assistance

Program

Community Rating System

Floodplain Management

Planning

(10-Step Process)

Phase 1

Organize

Resources

Coordination among

agencies

Coordination with other agencies or

organizations

Coordination with other

agencies

Integration with other

planning efforts

Public involvement. Describe the

planning process. Public

involvement may include

workshops, public meetings, or

public hearings

Involve the public

Involve the public throughout

the planning process

Organize to prepare

the plan

State coordination of local

mitigation planning

Phase 2

Assess Risks

Identify all hazards Flood hazard area inventory.

Identify the flood risk and include

estimates of the number and types

of structures at risk and repetitive

loss properties

Assess the flooding

hazard

Profile hazard events

Assess vulnerability Problem identification. Describe the

existing flood hazard, the extent of

flood depth and damage potential,

and the applicant's floodplain

management goals

Assess the problem

Estimate potential losses

Phase 3

Develop the

Mitigation Plan

Documentation of planning

process

Review of possible mitigation

actions. Identify and evaluate cost- effective and technically feasible

mitigation actions

Set goals

Local hazard mitigation goals Review possible activities

Capability assessment Draft an action plan

Identification and analysis of

mitigation actions

Funding sources

Phase 4

Implement the

Plan and

Monitor

Progress

Adoption Document formal plan adoption by

the legal entity submitting the plan

(e.g., Governor, mayor, county

executive)

Adopt the plan

Implementation of mitigation

actions

Implement, evaluate, and

revise the plan

Implementation through

existing planning mechanisms

Monitoring, evaluating, and

updating the plan

Continued public involvement

Table 1: Hazard Mitigation Planning Process – Local Planning Requirements by Program

FEMA mitigation programs such as those listed below have specific planning requirements that must be met in order

to be eligible to participate in these programs. Therefore, when submitting a plan, you can either tailor it according to

the specific criteria of the program, or you may submit a comprehensive, multi-hazard plan that explains which sections of the plan address which mitigation program requirements. This explanation is often called a “cross-walk” and

it provides the reviewer with an easy way to link program requirements to specific sections of the plan. If you are

completing a Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program or Community Rating System (CRS) plan, it may need to be

expanded to receive credit under DMA 2000; however, if you complete a DMA plan, most other program requirements

will probably be met. The planning process outlined in this series of how-to guides will help you meet the basic

planning requirements of FEMA’s mitigation programs.

Planning Requirements
x STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

guide, Bringing the Plan to Life: Implementing the Hazard Mitigation

Plan (FEMA 386-4), will provide guidance from mitigation plan

creation through adoption, implementation, monitoring, and updating the plan.

Types 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 roles 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 efState, Tribal, and Local Mitigation Planning

To implement a comprehensive approach to mitigation planning, states, tribes,

and communities must coordinate their policies and activities. States should play

a lead role and establish guidelines, goals, and priorities that communities adhere

to when preparing plans. To facilitate communities meeting these requirements,

states should provide technical assistance, funding, and information that may not

be readily available at the local level. This can include demographic, economic,

and vulnerability assessment and loss estimation modeling data, as well as benefit-cost analysis guidance, depending on the needs of the community. Meanwhile, local government mitigation planning should be consistent with established

state goals and policies. Plans should identify local priorities and projects to be

considered when states set priorities and allocate limited resources. Communities are required to have FEMA-approved mitigation plans to be eligible to receive

federal grants from programs such as the post-disaster HMGP, Flood Mitigation

Assistance (FMA) Program, and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. States must

also have FEMA-approved plans to be eligible for HMGP funding, Fire Management Assistance Grants, and non-emergency Stafford Act assistance. Following

the guidance in this how-to guide will help you prepare a multi-hazard plan that

can be packaged in a manner that allows you to meet FEMA planning requirements. Go to the FEMA Mitigation Planning home page, http://www.fema.gov/

fima/planning.shtm, for current information on planning requirements for the

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program and HMGP.
xi Version 1.0 April 2003

introduction

forts. 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 a city,

county, or parish), or it may not have a

political boundary (an unincorporated

community or watershed, for example).

Counties comprised of numerous townships or boroughs can also be considered local governments in addition to

other multi-jurisdictional arrangements.

Local governments should consult with

the State Hazard Mitigation Officer

(SHMO), Councils of Governments

(COGs), or other regional planning organizations and the State Emergency

Management Agency for guidance on

how “local governments” are defined in

their state. “Local government” is formally defined in 44 CFR §201.2 of DMA

regulations.

Keep in mind that the

World Wide Web is an everchanging source of information, and Web addresses

and the information they contain change over time.

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 “HAZUS” icon identifies suggestions for using the

loss estimation tool, HAZUS (Hazards U.S.). HAZUS

contains national databases of economic, demographic,

building stock, transportation facilities, utilities, and

other information that can be used in risk assessment, response

and recovery, and awareness and preparedness programs. A new,

multi-hazard version of HAZUS, HAZUS-MH (Multi-Hazard),

contains earthquake, hurricane, flood, and wind loss estimate

components.

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.
xii STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

You will gather

information and

data from a number of

sources during the development of a mitigation plan. As with any

effort of this type, it is important to be

aware of how different authors use

terms. The easiest way is to look for

specific definitions within the source

documents to be sure you understand

the intended meaning. Additionally, data

displayed graphically must be assessed

to determine the map scale, and the

quality and resolution of source data

used to create the map.

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 to correspond with the structure of this guide. Worksheets

have been completed with Hazardville examples to illustrate the

type of information to be included in these worksheets. Blank

worksheets are included in Appendix C. Job aids to assist you in

completing the worksheets are included in Appendix D. You can

photocopy the worksheets and job aids to record your progress as

you undertake the process of developing the mitigation plan.
xiii Version 1.0 April 2003

introduction

The Hazardville Post

Vol. CXII No. 168 Monday, June 17, 2002

Town Council Approves Mitigation Planning Funds

Vote is Unanimous—Thorough Work Credited

[Hazardville, EM] The Hazardville Town Council unanimously

approved local funds to continue the

hazard mitigation planning process

begun by the Town of Hazardville

Organization for Risk Reduction

(THORR). THORR completed the

Hazardville loss estimation and presented those findings to the Town

Council during its December meeting. The overwhelming vote has

been attributed to the thorough

manner in which the loss estimation was performed. Equally influential was the method used to

convey the results of the risk assessment and loss estimation. “It really

hit home for the first time how vulnerable our town is when I saw

those maps. My shop is right near

the beach and that old lighthouse!”

cried Joe Fish, owner of Country

Joe’s Fish Market.

The local funds will be used to

complete the hazard mitigation plan

that will be based on the loss estimation THORR completed last

November. The planning process

will provide a comprehensive strategy to address potential losses due

to hazards within the community.

Hazardville’s mitigation plan will

include:

Discussion of the process and

partners involved;

Discussion of the hazards and

risks within the community;

Mitigation goals and objectives

aimed at reducing and avoiding

long-term vulnerabilities to the

hazards identified during the loss

estimation;

Mitigation actions that will help

the community accomplish its

hazard reduction goals;

Strategies that detail how the

mitigation actions will be implemented and administered; and

Description of how and when the

plan will be updated.

Planning Department Director Joe

Norris indicated that it was very

important for THORR to continue

the work it began last year. “We

have a real opportunity to move forward with our plans to make

Hazardville a viable, sustainable

community long into the future,”

said Norris during the Town Council meeting in which the necessary

funding was approved. Hazardville’s efforts to reduce future disaster losses were applauded by Ben

Thompson, State Floodplain Management Coordinator, who spoke in

favor of the funding request at the

Town Council meeting.
step
Version 1.0 April 2003 1-1

1

develop

mitigation

goals and

objectives

Overview

Now that your hazard profile and loss estimation as described in

Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2) has been completed,

it’s time to identify appropriate mitigation actions and develop a

strategy to implement them. To guide your decisions, you will develop goals based on your hazard profile and loss estimation findings. You will then formulate objectives to define a path for

attaining your goals.

Goals are general guidelines that explain what you want to achieve.

They are usually broad policy-type statements, long term, and represent global visions, such as:

 The economic vitality of the community will not be threatened by

future flood events.

 Minimize wildfire losses in the urban wildfire interface area.

 The continuity of local government operations will not be significantly disrupted by disasters.

Objectives define strategies or implementation steps to attain the identified goals.

Unlike goals, objectives are specific and measurable, such as:

 Protect structures in the historic downtown area from flood damage.

 Educate citizens about wildfire defensible space actions.

 Prepare plans and identify resources to facilitate reestablishing county operations after a disaster.

Mitigation Actions are specific actions that help you achieve your goals and

objectives. For example:

 Elevate three historic structures located in the downtown district.

 Sponsor a community fair to promote wildfire defensible space.

 Retrofit the police department to withstand high wind damage.

Goals, objectives,

and actions are based

on a community’s values,

identity, and culture. There

are no “wrong” goals when

it comes to mitigating the effects of hazards. However, community mitigation

goals should be consistent with the

state’s goals and should not contradict

other community goals, such as those

expressed in the local comprehensive

or general plan.

You should address all of your

hazards, but focus first

on what you determine to be

the most significant and

then address the others when time and

resources are available. New tools such

as HAZUS-MH are capable of producing multi-hazard risk assessments and

aggregating loss estimates when more

than one hazard is present.

In this step, information revealed in the hazard profiles and loss

estimation will be used to develop clear mitigation goals—general

guidelines that explain what you want to achieve—and objectives—

statements that detail how those goals will be achieved. One way to

begin this step is to phrase the findings of the vulnerability assessment as problem statements by reviewing the results of the hazard
1-2 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

The loss estimation

you completed in the

second phase of the mitigation planning process

should have helped you determine the following:

 Which areas of the community or

state are affected by hazards;

 What assets will be affected and

how;

 How likely it is that the hazard event

may occur; and

 How intense the hazard event may

be in terms of its economic and social impacts.

and loss estimations and noting trends or patterns in the types and

location of previous or potential hazard events, and in the vulnerability of infrastructure, buildings, or populations. You can then

structure goals and objectives that steer you toward appropriate

mitigation actions.

Procedures & Techniques

Task A. Review and analyze the results of the hazard

profiles and loss estimation.

If you followed the planning process outlined in these guides, you

completed a profile and loss estimation for each of the hazards affecting your community or state using the methodology outlined in

Understanding Your Risks (FEMA 386-2). The hazard profiles include

details on the causes of hazards, the likelihood of occurrence, severity, and extent of areas affected. Knowing the severity and frequency of a hazard are factors, among others, that you will

consider as you decide which hazards to focus on first.

The loss estimation provides a dollar amount of damages for a particular hazard event in your jurisdiction. It can also provide related

economic information, such as business interruption and revenue

losses. After reviewing the loss estimation results, the planning

team will have a better understanding of the potential impacts or

consequences of the hazards. The planning team can now use the

loss estimation and community asset data, and hazard profiles to

prioritize the hazards and develop problem statements.

1. Review the findings of your risk assessment.

At the end of Phase 2, you compiled the results of your work into a

written report. Most of the information needed to complete this

task can be drawn from this report. Some technical assistance may

be needed to interpret these findings:

a. Note the causal factors of each hazard. For example, flooding

in your community may be due to increased flows from excessive rains, snow melts, or backwaters from another river, or

your community may experience flash floods in a particular

area because of a small creek’s capacity or increased paved

surfaces due to development. Knowing the causes of the hazard will help determine what type of actions you can take to

prevent future damage. Look at the hazard profiles you completed at the end of Step 2 in Understanding Your Risks for this

information.
develop mitigation goals and objectives 1

Version 1.0 April 2003 1-3

b. Note the hazard characteristics. How the hazard behaves will

greatly influence the range of actions you take and when you

implement them. For example, if areas in your community are

vulnerable to chronic, low-level, but high-frequency hazard

events (e.g., a 10-year flood), you may decide to take immediate actions to protect these assets. Similarly, knowing that the

community is vulnerable to a lower probability, but high-damage hazard event (such as an earthquake in the New Madrid

fault area) may lead you to take actions that could be accomplished over a longer period of time, but should also be

started immediately. An example of this would be initiating

the adoption of updated building codes. Look at the hazard

profiles you completed at the end of Step 2 in Understanding

Your Risks for this information.

Keep in mind that even if you followed the steps in Understanding Your Risks, you may not have necessarily distinguished

between areas subject to chronic, low-damage events and areas

subject to low probability, high-consequence events. However,

understanding these conditions at this point is important for

developing goals, objectives, and mitigation actions.

c. Note which important and/or critical assets (historic, civic,

emergency facilities, transportation, lifelines, etc.) identified

in Phase 2 are located in hazard areas. Look at the asset inventory you completed at the end of Step 3 in Understanding Your

Risks for this information.

d.Identify specific characteristics of assets in hazard areas that

contribute to their vulnerability (e.g., older buildings not up

to current code located in the floodplain, manufactured housing located in flood- or tornado-prone areas, a hospital whose

access can be blocked by landslides that may occur following

an earthquake, or houses with wood shingle roofs located next

to fire-prone woodlands). Look at the asset inventory you

completed at the end of Step 3 in Understanding Your Risks for

this information.

e. Review the composite map of vulnerabilities and loss estimate

tables to identify the areas and hazards that would produce the

most potential losses (see page 4-2 of Understanding Your

Risks). Note whether there are special features or characteristics in these hazard areas, such as an economic hub, parkland,

or special needs populations, including the elderly or low-income residents.
1-4 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

You should also revisit the community’s collective notions of perceived risks and compare them to the actual risks and potential

losses threatening your community. In the beginning of the planning process, team members, elected officials, and the public may

have had preconceived notions of which hazards presented the

greatest risk, but after preparing your hazard profiles and loss estimation, you now have a more fact-based idea of the hazards that

present the greatest threats to your community. This may be an

opportunity for a special briefing for community leaders, and for a

more concerted effort to inform the public. The hazard profiles

and loss estimation results should be reviewed with stakeholders

when they come together to develop the goals and objectives for

the plan.

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

Your risk assessment findings may not clearly point you to which

hazard to address first. You may be asking: Should we focus on the

hazard that could affect the greatest portion of land, such as a wildfire? Maybe our best bet is to focus on the hazard that would result

in the greatest amount of damage, such as an earthquake with the

potential to level the entire community, or maybe we should focus

on the hazard with the greatest chance of occurring, such as a

flood. Where should the planning team start in this analysis? One

way to carry out this analysis is to develop a list of problem statements. Start by addressing previously listed items a through e to see

your community’s vulnerabilities more clearly. Write down each

problem that was identified in the report. For example, in

Hazardville, the risk assessment identified flooding, wildfires, and

earthquakes as hazards affecting the town. THORR can now write

such statements as:

a. The manufactured home park is the most vulnerable area to

flooding. This area floods each year. Flooding is caused by excessive rains.

b. The sewage treatment plant is located in the 100-year floodplain.

c. The lighthouse, of significant historic value, is threatened by

erosion from coastal flooding. The rate of erosion is 5 feet per

year.

d. Wildfires could destroy the primary forest and a number of

residential structures. We are experiencing the fourth year of

drought conditions.

While taking note of

the losses your community faces in this step, begin

to think about development

policies, regulations, and/or

practices that may need to be revised

so that future development and construction occur in a safe manner. Furthermore, note whether there are

businesses, other organizations, or individuals in the hazard areas that you

previously overlooked as potential partners in the planning process.

Results from the

loss estimation must

be presented to citizens,

business owners, and

elected officials so that they

can understand the information. It may

be necessary to reformat the data for

different types of meetings or presentations, depending on the technical

background of the audience. The preformatted data reports and graphic

maps contained in HAZUS-MH are useful and effective at communicating risks

and making presentations.
develop mitigation goals and objectives 1

Version 1.0 April 2003 1-5

e. Hazardville has a moderate earthquake threat. The town lies

within a seismic zone that has a 10% chance of exceeding 0.3g

in 50 years. An earthquake of that size could damage much of

the town and disrupt lifelines, but would cause the most damage to the older buildings located in the downtown business

district.

You will probably end up with several problem statements for each

hazard. You may also notice that some areas or assets could be affected by multiple hazards. Writing down these issues will help you

to better decide which issues to address first.

By the time you complete this exercise, you may have a very long

list of problem statements. The challenge you now face is to convert the problem statements into general goal statements to address these issues. One approach you can take is to group problem

statements by theme. Look for common or similar characteristics

and group those statements together.

Task B. Formulate goals.

Your mitigation goals should articulate the community’s desire to

protect people and structures, reduce the costs of disaster response

and recovery, and minimize disruption to the community, tribe, or

state following a disaster. These should not identify specific mitigation actions (those will be developed later), but identify the overall

improvements you want to achieve.

Your state will have goals and objectives they wish to focus on, and

any funding made available through state or tribal programs may

need to address these priorities. Learn what these goals are before

developing your own. Your goals should reflect the mitigation mission statement you developed in Phase 1 of the planning process

(see Getting Started, FEMA 386-1), as well as state or tribal mitigation goals and other local community goals. Contact your State

Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) to verify your state’s goals.

1. Develop proposed goal statements.

Once your problem statements have been grouped by similar

themes, you can develop proposed goal statements that correspond

to the problem statements. Goals are broad, forward-looking statements that succinctly describe your aims. Several problem statements can lead to one broad goal.

You may want to take the

opportunity to prioritize

the issues/problem statements to reflect their relative

challenge to the state/community.
1-6 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

For example, if your problem statements addressing floods are:

The manufactured home park is the most vulnerable area to

flooding. This area floods each year. Flooding is caused by excessive rains.

The sewage treatment plant is located in the 100-year floodplain.

Your proposed goal statement may be:

Minimize losses to existing and future structures within hazard

areas, or

Minimize losses to existing and future structures, especially

critical facilities, from flooding.

The first goal is very general. It can apply to any structure, including critical facilities, and also addresses other hazards. The second

goal focuses only on floods and points out critical facilities as a priority. There is no right or wrong way of writing your goals. Some

mitigation plans have very general goal statements (see the following two excerpts), while others may be more specific. The key is to

write goals that are achievable through the corresponding objectives.

2. Review existing plans and other policy documents to identify potential

conflicts.

Hazard mitigation goals, while broad, should be consistent with the

goals and objectives of other plans in your community. Comprehensive plans, for example, may address issues such as sustainable

development, smart growth, watershed protection, and transportation policies. Review existing plans and list the goals established in

these plans to assess whether they conflict with those for reducing

the effects of hazards. In the event that goals do conflict, it is important to discuss how such a conflict would be resolved. It may be

that the existing plan did not benefit from the hazard knowledge

you now have. When the goals complement each other, an opportunity to build support for mitigation is created, and there is the

potential to implement planning initiatives that serve multiple objectives for your community.

Look for plans or policies that address topics that are closely related to mitigating the effects of hazards, including:

Sustainability

Economic growth

Growth management

The

Comprehensive

Plan

A comprehensive plan (also

called a general or master plan) is a

document that expresses community

goals and objectives. This plan documents the community’s desired physical development and includes policy

statements that indicate the desired rate

and quantity of growth, community character, transportation services, location

of growth, and siting of future public facilities and transportation. It also indicates how these goals are to be

achieved. These plans are comprehensive in that they cover the entire geographic area of a community and

include all of the physical elements that

will determine the community’s future

development. These plans usually contain written policies and land use maps.

The comprehensive plan has no authority in and of itself, but it serves as a guide

for community decision-making. One of

the most common tools used to implement plan policies is the community’s

zoning ordinance, which creates land

use districts and specifies the land uses

permitted in each district. All land within

the community is classified into one of

the zoning districts. Other tools that are

used to implement plan policies include

subdivision ordinances, site planning

and development codes, tax policies,

capital improvement policies, and building permit policies. Not all communities

have such plans, however.

Most communities update their comprehensive plans on a periodic basis, generally every 5 to 10 years. These plans,

therefore, should be reviewed for their

relevance to current conditions. During

review of the community’s comprehensive plan, consider ways to incorporate

hazard mitigation components into the

plan at its next scheduled update. Many

communities already have comprehensive plans, and incorporating hazard

mitigation into the next plan update is a

good way to keep the community focused on making day-to-day decisions

that support hazard loss reduction.
develop mitigation goals and objectives 1

Version 1.0 April 2003 1-7

Environmental preservation

Historic preservation

Redevelopment

Health and/or safety

Recreation

Land use/zoning

Public education and outreach

Transportation

When reviewing the plans, note sections and related ordinances

that could be revised or updated to provide a more comprehensive

approach to hazard mitigation. These changes may end up as recommended actions in Step 2. For example, sections addressing redevelopment may be revised to include provisions to incorporate a

hazard mitigation assessment of new redevelopment proposals. Review goals presented in other community mitigation plans within

your state, or those of other communities with similar hazards, to

determine whether you have overlooked any key issues. Contact

your SHMO for assistance.

Task C. Determine objectives.

After you have developed your mitigation goals, you are ready to

formulate objectives. Objectives are more specific and narrower in

scope than goals. They expand on the goals and provide more detail on the ways to accomplish them. While the planning team undoubtedly will have many good ideas, the public should also be

involved in developing these objectives. Several ways to include the

public in this process are discussed in Task D. It is important to

have measurable objectives because they provide a roadmap for

successfully implementing the strategy.

Some goals and objectives may not be based solely on the results of

the loss estimation, but also on social and environmental values,

political desires, historic preservation concerns, and/or state mitigation priorities and funding opportunities. For example, a community with a large tourism industry may be more interested in

protecting historic or commercial assets first than in protecting

other assets that demonstrate a higher vulnerability to hazards. If

this is the case, the planning team should document the reasoning

behind these goals or objectives.

Objectivesdefine strategies or implementation

steps to attain the identified

goals. Unlike goals, objectives are specific and measurable.
1-8 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

Task D. Get public input.

Involving the public when developing the community’s goals and

objectives is important to ensure fair representation of all sectors in

the community or tribe and reduces the chance that any concerns

will be overlooked. The more that the public or those who will be

affected by your plan participate in the process, the more likely it is

that they will support the process and the plan. The method you

choose to use to involve the public depends on the size of your jurisdiction, the style of public input that normally is used for community issues, the established timeline, and the resources available.

You most likely developed a set of procedures earlier in the planning process when you established the planning team and secured

support for the process. The following summarizes some of the inExample of state goals and objectives:

North Carolina State Mitigation Goals (excerpted from the August

2001 state plan).

Goal 1 Maintain and enhance the North Carolina Division of Emergency

Management’s capacity to continuously make North Carolina less

vulnerable to hazards.

Objective 1.1 Institutionalize hazard mitigation.

Objective 1.2 Improve organizational efficiency.

Objective 1.3 Maximize utilization of best technology.

Goal 2 Build and support local capacity and commitment to become continuously less vulnerable to hazards.

Objective 2.1 Increase awareness and knowledge of hazard mitigation principles and practice among local public officials.

Objective 2.2 Provide direct technical assistance to local public officials and

help communities obtain funding for mitigation planning and

project activities.

Objective 2.3 Encourage communities to develop, adopt, and implement

local hazard mitigation plans.

Goal 3 Improve coordination and communication with other relevant

organizations.

Objective 3.1 Establish and maintain lasting partnerships.

Objective 3.2 Streamline policies to eliminate conflicts and duplication of

effort.

Objective 3.3 Incorporate hazard mitigation into activities of other organizations.

Goal 4 Increase public understanding, support, and demand for hazard

mitigation.

Objective 4.1 Identify hazard-specific issues and needs.

Objective 4.2 Heighten public awareness of natural hazards.

Objective 4.3 Publicize and encourage the adoption of appropriate hazard

mitigation actions.
develop mitigation goals and objectives 1

Version 1.0 April 2003 1-9

Example of community goals and objectives:

Village of Gurnee, Illinois, Mitigation Goals (excerpted from the

November 15, 2001 plan)

Goal 1 Protect existing properties.

Objectives:

 Use the most effective approaches to protect buildings from flooding, including acquisition or relocation where warranted.

 Enact and enforce regulatory measures that ensure new development will not

increase flood threats to existing properties.

 Use appropriate actions to mitigate against the danger and damage posted

by other hazards.

Goal 2 Protect health and safety.

Objectives:

 Advise everyone of safety and health precautions to take against flooding and

other hazards.

 Improve traffic circulation during floods and at other times.

 Improve water quality and habitat.

Goal 3 Improve the quality of life in Gurnee.

Objectives:

 Preserve and improve the downtown core of businesses and services.

 Ensure that current owners can maintain and improve their properties.

 Use acquisition programs to expand open space and recreational opportunities.

 Maintain an attractive riverfront and other public open spaces.

Goal 4 Ensure that public funds are used in the most efficient manner.

Objectives:

 Prioritize mitigation projects, starting with sites facing the greatest threat to

life, health, and property.

 Use public funding to protect public services and critical facilities.

 Use public funding for projects on private property where the benefits exceed

the costs.

 Maximize the use of outside sources of funding.

 Maximize owner participation in mitigation efforts to protect their own properties.

 Encourage property-owner self-protection measures.

formation contained in Getting Started: Building Support for Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-1).

1. Organize public forums to solicit input on community goals and

objectives.

You may choose to conduct more than one of the approaches proposed below, or you may use another method that has already been

successful in your community, tribe, or state. All of the approaches

provide citizens with an opportunity to voice their concerns,

present ideas about the mitigation plan, and learn about how proposed actions may affect them.
1-10 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

a. Town Hall meetings. Town Hall meetings are an effective way

to bring citizens and other stakeholders together to learn

about study findings and the progress being made on the

plan, and to provide input on the proposed goals and mitigation strategy.

b. Working groups or advisory committees. Working groups or

advisory committees may have already been established by

topic areas, such as land use, environmental protection, and

transportation. These committees can help the planning team

identify goals and objectives specific to their topic areas. Membership in such committees should be broad-based. They

should include people with direct knowledge or understanding of the topic, as well as those directly affected by the problems and/or those with a specific interest in it.

c. Facilitated meetings. A large workshop or group session may

be more appropriate when many stakeholders are expected to

attend. These meetings are most productive when a trained

facilitator is used. With the facilitator’s assistance, the planning team can get opinions, suggestions, and other information that may be useful to consider when setting goals and

objectives.

Other participation methods include hosting a public workshop,

establishing a hotline, conducting interviews, and distributing a

survey or questionnaire (these methods are covered in Getting

Started, FEMA 386-1). Workshops can be held at different milestones in the planning process for large or small groups of community, tribal, or state representatives, business representatives, and

citizens. These meetings can bring problems and issues to the table

and provide new ideas for solutions.

2. Develop consensus on goals and objectives.

An important task to accomplish during your public involvement

activities is to build consensus on the proposed goals and objectives. Make sure that you allow time in the agenda for the participants to formally express their opinions on the proposed goals and

objectives. See Getting Started (FEMA 386-1) for consensus building

methods to use in your meetings. It is important for your elected

leaders, civic organizations, and agencies to agree on the proposed

goals and objectives, as they will guide your mitigation strategy.

Involving the public

and other stakeholders in the development of goals and objectives

is crucial to developing an

effective plan. Inviting stakeholders to

join a working group or advisory committee is a good way to involve them.

People may be hesitant to serve on one

of these committees because they may

not realize how important it is or not

know what to expect. Recruiting people

may be easier if, from the beginning of

the planning process, the planning team

has organized public involvement and

education activities. (See Step 3 in Getting Started, FEMA 386-1 for additional

information.)
develop mitigation goals and objectives 1

Version 1.0 April 2003 1-11

Summary

Developing clear goals and objectives that reinforce your overall

purpose and mission for undertaking a mitigation planning process keeps the planning team focused and helps clarify solutions to

problems and issues as they arise. Well articulated goals and objectives that are agreed upon by the planning team, elected officials,

and the public provide the necessary framework by which decisions

on mitigation actions will be based.

Sample Performance-Based Objectives

You may wish to include time frames and specific targets within those

time frames as part of your objectives (see examples). There is no

single method for developing good objectives. What is important is

that the objectives you develop achieve the goals and allow you to

measure progress toward reducing your risks.

Element Sample Performance-Based Objectives

Housing Within 2 years, reduce by 10% the number of houses in

the floodplain that are subject to repetitive losses from

flooding.

Within 10 years, reduce by 30% the number of houses

that are in the floodplain and vulnerable to flooding.

Business Within 2 years, increase by 20% the number of

businesses that have developed a business risk reduction

plan.

Within 3 years, increase from 15% to 60% the proportion

of businesses that have flood insurance.

Critical

Facilities

Within 5 years, increase by 25% the number of

wastewater treatment plants that have carried out

mitigation measures to ensure their functionality in a 100-

year flood.

Within 5 years, increase by 20% the number of electric

utilities in seismically vulnerable areas that have

undertaken seismic retrofit measures to ensure their

functionality following a damaging earthquake of

magnitude 6.0 or greater.

Environment Within 3 years, reduce by 20% the number of agricultural

businesses that have production, storage, or processing

facilities that are vulnerable to flooding.

Source: Hazard Mitigation in North Carolina: Measuring Success, February 2000
1-12 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

The Hazardville Post

Vol. CXII No. 234 Thursday, August 22, 2002

THORR Develops Hazard Mitigation Goals and Objectives

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

[Hazardville, EM] In a facilitated

workshop last night, the Town of

Hazardville Organization for Risk

Reduction (THORR) developed several hazard mitigation goals to

guide the town in its mission of disaster resistance. THORR has been

working for the past several months

to develop a hazard mitigation plan,

using the process outlined in the

Federal Emergency Management

Agency’s (FEMA) how-to guides.

To identify goals and objectives,

THORR first overlaid a base map

of the town with a hazard map created during the loss estimation

study completed in November 2001.

Highlighting the areas in the town

likely to suffer losses during hazard

events, THORR and the advisory

committee clarified the town’s concerns with a list of problem statements, including the following:

The manufactured home park is

the most vulnerable area to flooding. This area floods each year.

Flooding is caused by excessive

rains.

The sewage treatment plant is located in the 100-year floodplain.

The lighthouse, of significant historic value, is threatened by erosion from coastal flooding. The

rate of erosion is 5 feet per year.

Wildfires could destroy the primary forest and a number of residential structures. We are

experiencing the fourth year of

drought conditions.

Hazardville has a moderate earthquake threat. The town lies

within a seismic zone that has a

10% chance of exceeding 0.3g in

50 years. An earthquake of that

size could damage much of the

town and disrupt lifelines, but

would cause the most damage to

older buildings in the downtown

business district.

From these statements, THORR

developed goals and objectives to

address these problems. Joe Norris,

Hazardville’s Planning Department

Director and task force leader, said

that by defining the goals and objectives, “We are taking a long-range

view to make our community more

disaster resistant. We are developing these goals and objectives on a

town-wide basis but are also considering statewide priorities.”

Much of the credit for developing

goals and objectives goes to the advisory committee. Advisory committee members had some very lengthy

discussions about the difference

between goals and objectives. Some

members wanted to write very specific goals that sounded more like

actions. Joe Norris was helpful in

pointing out the difference and using existing goals and objectives of

other Hazardville plans as examples

to help guide the group.

“Sheila Frost, a local business

leader and member of the advisory

committee, worked really hard to

bring town and county leaders together in a workshop to discuss sustainable development,” Norris said.

“At first, some THORR members

didn’t get the connection, but even-

(continued on page 1-13)
develop mitigation goals and objectives 1

Version 1.0 April 2003 1-13

tually everyone realized that sustainable development could truly

help our mission of disaster-resistance.”

As stated by Mayor McDonald,

“The primary purpose of hazard

mitigation is to minimize or eliminate the vulnerability of people,

property, and resources to all types

of hazards. A key benefit is that

money spent on hazard mitigation

today will significantly reduce human suffering and future demand

for large amounts of dollars when

disasters strike. As part of this, we

must closely examine all current

town operations and policies.”

Vincent D’Blizzard, a member of

the advisory committee and president of the chamber of commerce,

said that a hazard mitigation plan

would reduce the economic losses

that often follow a hazard event,

including destruction of property,

loss or interruption of jobs, and closing or disabling of businesses and

critical facilities. D’Blizzard reminded business leaders that the

manufactured home park where

many of the workers live is prone

to flooding and unreinforced commercial masonry buildings located

in the older part of town are prone

to earthquake damage. Mayor

McDonald agreed, and added, “Mitigation is a philosophy that includes

a range of actions that, when holistically implemented, increases a

community’s resiliency to disasters.”

(continued from page 1-12)

Some of the goals, and their associated objectives, identified in the

workshop included:

Goal #1: Minimize losses to existing and future structures within

hazard areas.

Objectives:

Reduce damages to the manufactured home park in the

floodplain.

Address potential flooding problems to the sewage treatment

plant.

Strengthen existing buildings to withstand the impact of

earthquakes.

Goal #2: Preserve invaluable cultural resources threatened by

hazards.

Objective:

Protect the lighthouse from erosion and coastal flooding.

Goal #3: Promote sustainable development to improve the quality

of life.

Objectives:

Establish open space parks and recreational areas in hazard areas.

Provide for the conservation and protection of natural resources.

Prohibit additional housing (especially elderly and high density)

in areas of high hazard risk.

Goal #4: Increase public awareness of hazards to facilitate support

for and adoption of mitigation actions.

Objectives:

Develop education programs to reach all citizens, especially those

within high hazard areas.

Encourage businesses and private property owners to adopt

appropriate mitigation actions.

Goal #5: Prevent destruction of forests and structures in the Urban

Wildland Interface.

Objectives:

Improve communications capability between local and county

emergency management and law enforcement personnel.

Protect structures in the Urban Wildland Interface.

Develop evacuation procedures to enable residents near the forest

to evacuate safely.
step
Version 1.0 April 2003 2-1

2

identify

and

prioritize

mitigation

actions

Overview

I

n Step 2, you will identify, evaluate, and prioritize mitigation

actions that address the goals and objectives developed by the

planning team in Step 1. These actions form the core of your mitigation plan, and will be the most outward representation of the

planning process to the general public and political leadership in

your community. As such, it may be tempting at this point in the

planning process to quickly finalize a list of projects that would simply get the job done. However, it is important to take time to evaluate the relative merits of the alternative mitigation actions and the

local conditions in which these activities would be pursued. In doing so, you can be confident that the actions you end up with will

have public, government, and political support, and will be the

appropriate technical response to the hazard issues in your community.

Some actions you identify may be “bricks and mortar” projects,

such as constructing tornado shelters or safe rooms, and retrofitMitigation actions can be grouped into six broad categories:

1. Prevention. Government administrative or regulatory actions or processes that influence the way land and

buildings are developed and built. These actions also include public activities to reduce hazard losses. Examples

include planning and zoning, building codes, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and

storm water management regulations.

2. Property Protection. Actions that involve the modification of existing buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard,

or removal from the hazard area. Examples include acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofits, storm shutters,

and shatter-resistant glass.

3. Public Education and Awareness. Actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, and property owners about

the hazards and potential ways to mitigate them. Such actions include outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard

information centers, and school-age and adult education programs.

4. Natural Resource Protection. Actions that, in addition to minimizing hazard losses, also preserve or restore the functions

of natural systems. These actions include sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation.

5. Emergency Services. Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a disaster or hazard event.

Services include warning systems, emergency response services, and protection of critical facilities.

6. Structural Projects. Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Such structures

include dams, levees, floodwalls, seawalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
2-2 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

ting or rehabilitating existing structures to resist flood, wind, or

seismic forces. Others may be non-construction related projects,

such as acquisition and relocation of threatened structures and

implementation of educational awareness programs. Regulatory

actions are also non-construction alternatives that often take the

form of new legislation or amendments to existing laws, building

codes, or land development ordinances.

The evaluation and prioritization of the alternative mitigation actions will produce a list of recommended mitigation actions to incorporate into the mitigation plan. The process outlined in this

step includes a comparative evaluation of the pluses and minuses

for each potential action. During this effort, the planning team will

address a number of important questions, including:

 Which actions can help us meet our mitigation objectives?

 What capabilities do we have to implement these actions?

 What impacts (if any) will these actions have on our community?

Procedures & Techniques

Task A. Identify alternative mitigation actions.

The purpose of this task is to identify a variety of possible actions to

address the mitigation objectives you developed in Step 1. You will

use Worksheet #1: Identify Alternative Mitigation Actions to record

these actions for use in subsequent tasks. Start by filling in your

community’s goal and corresponding objective. Then consult a variety of sources, some of which follow, to identify potential alternative mitigation actions appropriate for your area. List these

alternative actions and the sources used on your worksheet.

1. Review existing literature and resources.

Using your list of mitigation objectives as the foundation, identify

alternative actions that may achieve these objectives. Existing literature can help identify alternative mitigation actions and shed light

on specific issues to consider when you evaluate the alternatives

later. A number of publications, Web sites, and other resources provide information on the structural integrity, specific design features, and approximate cost ranges of actions.

While there is no single source of information for all possible mitigation actions, the library in Appendix B provides many resources

as a starting point for the planning team. Additionally, Worksheet

Document the process you used and the

sources you sought to help

identify possible mitigation

actions. You will need this information in Step 4 to write your mitigation plan in accordance with relevant

FEMA program requirements.
Version 1.0 April 2003 2-3

identify and prioritize mitigation actions 2

Job Aid #1: Alternative Mitigation Actions by Hazard (Appendix D)

may help you identify potential mitigation actions. The matrix lists

alternative mitigation actions that may be applicable across a range

of seven major natural hazards. This job aid is organized according

to the six broad categories of mitigation actions presented earlier.

This listing is not exhaustive; therefore, the planning team should

also ask the “expert” partners identified in Phase 1 (see Getting

Started, FEMA 386-1) to suggest other possible mitigation actions.

Scientists and hazard experts (e.g., geologists, seismologists, hydrologists, etc.), as well as floodplain managers, emergency managers, fire marshals, public works engineers, transportation

engineers, and civil engineers who are expert in applying mitigation and emergency management principles all have valuable experience in knowing what works to mitigate hazards. These experts

can help you evaluate whether the mitigation alternative will fulfill

your objective, if the action provides a long-term solution to the

problem, and possibly what some of the social, administrative, environmental, and economic implications are for your planning area.

Furthermore, some potential alternative actions involve complex

engineering and may require additional study before a solution or

alternative mitigation action can be identified. For example, if your

objective is to reduce flood damage in a particular location, but

you are not sure if the flooding is caused by undersized culverts,

inadequate storm drainage, or debris, you will have to ask an engiExamples of alternative mitigation actions include:

Adopting land use planning policies based on known hazards

Developing an outreach program to encourage homeowners to buy hazard insurance to protect belongings

Relocating structures away from hazard-prone areas

Developing an outreach program to encourage homeowners to secure furnishings, storage cabinets, and utilities to prevent injuries and damages during an earthquake

Retrofitting structures to strengthen resistance to damage

Developing, adopting, and enforcing effective building codes and standards

Engineering or retrofitting roads and bridges to withstand hazards

Requiring the use of fire-retardant materials in new construction

Requiring disclosure of hazards as part of real estate transactions

Adopting ordinances to reduce risks to existing hazard-prone buildings

Imposing freeboard requirements in special flood hazard areas

Implementing V Zone construction requirements for new development located in coastal A Zones

When identifying alternative mitigation

actions, be sure to evaluate needs for both existing

and future buildings and infrastructure.

States have prepared technical

guides to assist local

communities. The following

two guides available

through the Web include descriptions

of various mitigation actions to address

hazards:

North Carolina Division of Emergency Management, Tools and Techniques for Mitigating the Effects of

Natural Hazards at http://www.dem.

dcc.state.nc.us/mitigation/Library/

Full_Tools_and_Tech.pdf

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD),

Planning for Natural Hazards—Oregon Technical Resource Guide at

http://www.lcd.state.or.us/hazhtml/

Guidehome.htm
2-4 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

Worksheet #1 Identify Alternative Mitigation Actions step 

Fill in the goal and its corresponding objective developed in Step 1. Use a separate worksheet for each objective.

Make sure you note the sources of information. Use Worksheet Job Aid #1 in Appendix D as a starting point for

identifying potential mitigation actions. The examples in this worksheet and the remaining worksheets refer to

Hazardville and are for illustrative purposes. Blank worksheets can be found in Appendix C.

Goal: Minimize losses to existing and future structures within hazard areas.

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

Have you considered alternative mitigation actions from other mitigation action categories?

Check off ones that apply to this objective.

 Prevention

 Property Protection

 Public Education and Awareness

 Natural Resource Protection

 Emergency Services

 Structural Projects





Alternative Actions

Sources of Information

(Include sources you consulted for

future reference and

documentation.)

Comments

(Note any initial issues you may want to discuss or

research further.)

1. Acquire flood-prone

structures

State Hazard Mitigation Officer Effective for existing development. Some floodplain

residents are just unwilling to sell. A number of elderly

renters may be disproportionately affected because there

are few affordable rental units in the community.

2. Construct a berm

around the park

Hazardville Dept. of Public Works This option would only work in areas where flooding is less

than 2 feet deep, according to our risk assessment. Many

of the sites at risk will get more than 4 feet of flooding

during a 100-year flood.

3. Elevate structures Hazardville Dept. of Public Works Suitable for structures in good condition. Cost of elevation

may outweigh expected losses to the home. Elevated

structures can be more vulnerable to earthquakes unless

additional bracing is used.
Version 1.0 April 2003 2-5

identify and prioritize mitigation actions 2

neer to evaluate the flooding condition, or recommend that an

engineering analysis be conducted to identify potential solutions.

2. Review “success stories.”

Other communities or states may have already addressed your same

problem and developed a solution that may also work for your

community. Ask your State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) to

help identify success stories from other communities or states. In

addition, FEMA has “success stories” and “best practices” guides

that can help identify what other communities have done.

3. Solicit public opinion and input.

Surveys or questionnaires are very effective tools for gathering information on potential alternative mitigation actions that would be

acceptable or preferred by community residents. With surveys, not

only can you collect valuable information, but you can also establish rapport and foster involvement among citizens. Best of all, you

reach people who don’t show up for meetings. A survey or questionnaire can be included in a utility bill mailing, conducted doorto-door, or posted on a community Web site.

The survey should ask for information such as:

 The residents’ understanding of what is currently being done

to address hazards;

 What residents think is lacking in current efforts and what

could be improved upon;

 Suggestions and preferences of proposed mitigation actions

(see survey excerpt); and

 Which of your mitigation goals and objectives do residents

feel are most important to pursue.

Surveys, however, can be costly for a community, tribe, or state to

undertake. Volunteers can help to reduce costs. For some communities, however, a survey may be too expensive and alternative ways

to obtain information must be pursued.

FEMA’s Mitigation

Resources for Success CD (FEMA 372)

features a variety of technical, case study, and federal

program information that will help build

support and provide resources for undertaking hazard mitigation activities

and programs. The CD includes useful

information, publications, technical fact

sheets, photographs, case studies, and

federal and state mitigation program information and contacts. The documents

and photographs can be exported to

other documents, Web sites, and publications, and can be used in educational

and training presentations. To obtain a

copy, call the FEMA publications warehouse at 1-800-480-2520. FEMA’s Web

site also includes a Web page with information on success stories: http://

www.fema.gov/fima/success.shtm.

Acknowledge current policies and

practices that have

been successful in your

community, tribe, or state.

Publicizing these successes fosters

support for continuing or increasing mitigation efforts.

University and college students are a useful and low-cost resource for developing

surveys. Sociology, environmental sciences, or urban

planning departments are

good places to start. Workshops or public gatherings

are another good way to involve the

public in identifying a range of alternative mitigation actions. Survey questions

can be handed out and collected from

the group as part of the meeting to ensure that the planning team has provided an opportunity for public input to

the plan. The survey excerpt shown

here was developed and implemented

with assistance from students in the

University of Oregon Department of

Community and Regional Planning.
2-6 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

4. Summarize your findings.

The planning team will use the results of Task A to evaluate the

alternative mitigation actions in Task C. The planning team can

use Worksheet #1 as the summary or, if a team member has time,

he or she can summarize the research and present it in a more detailed manner. Any background information the planning team

discovers along the way regarding the implications of various alternatives (e.g., relative costs, potential environmental impacts, regulatory requirements, etc.) should be available to the whole

planning team for consideration in the next task.

Task B. Identify and analyze state and local mitigation

capabilities.

In this task, you will review and analyze state and local programs,

policies, regulations, funding, and practices currently in place that

either facilitate or hinder mitigation in general, including how the

construction of buildings and infrastructure in hazard-prone areas

is regulated. You will also learn how your local, tribal, and state governments are structured in terms of professional staff that would be

available to directly carry out mitigation actions, or to provide technical assistance. This inventory and analysis is often called a capability assessment. By completing this assessment, you will learn how

Excerpt from the Oregon Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaire,

January 2003. The complete survey can be found in Appendix E.

18. A number of activities can reduce your community’s risk from natural hazards. These activities can be both

regulatory and non-regulatory. An example of a regulatory activity would be a policy that limits or prohibits development in a known hazard area such as a floodplain. An example of a non-regulatory activity would be to develop a public

education program to demonstrate steps citizens can take to make their homes safer from natural hazards. Please check the

box that best represents your opinion of the following strategies to reduce the risk and loss associated with natural disasters.

Capability Assessment

A capability assessment has two components: an inventory of an agency’s

mission, programs, and policies; and an

analysis of its capacity to carry them

out. A capability assessment is an integral part of the planning process in

which you identify, review, and analyze

what your state and community are

currently doing to reduce losses and

identify the framework that is in place

or should be in place for the implementation of new mitigation actions. Depending on how your community or

state is developing the mitigation plan,

capability assessments can be conducted effectively at different points in the planning

process. The capability assessment has been included here in this guide

because the inventory will

generate information that

will help the community and state evaluate alternative mitigation actions. Similarly, analyzing what your community

and state has the capacity to do, and

understanding what needs to be

changed or enhanced to facilitate loss

reduction, enables you to address such

shortfalls in your mitigation plan.

Community-Wide Strategies

A. I support a regulatory approach to reducing risk.

B. I support a non-regulatory approach to reducing risk.

C. I support a mix of both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to

reducing risk.

D. I support policies to prohibit development in areas subject to natural

hazards.

E. I support the use of tax dollars (federal and/or local) to compensate

land owners for not developing in areas subject to natural hazards.

StronglyAgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStronglyDisagreeNot Sure
Version 1.0 April 2003 2-7

identify and prioritize mitigation actions 2

or whether your community will be able to implement certain

mitigation activities by determining:

 Types of mitigation actions that may be prohibited by

law;

 Limitations that may exist on undertaking actions; and

 The range of local and/or state administrative, programmatic, regulatory, financial, and technical resources

available to assist in implementing your mitigation strategy.

This information will feed directly into the analysis of the specific mitigation actions you will undertake in Task C.

1. Review the state capability assessment.

The state capability assessment provides local jurisdictions

with valuable information to determine the viability of certain

mitigation actions. Review the information provided in the

state capability assessment with regard to the following:

 Will the state be able to provide sufficient resources to

assist you (financially, technically, administratively, or

with respect to regulations) in implementing specific

alternative mitigation actions (e.g., is technical staff or

funding available to assist in evaluating your critical facilities for natural hazard vulnerability)?

 Will certain mitigation actions not be available to you

(e.g., does the state prohibit the use of public funds to

purchase private property)?

 Are there state regulations, initiatives, or policies that

operate at the local level that have negative implications

for improving loss reduction efforts? (For example, does

the state require that all incorporated jurisdictions use a

specific building code? This would be considered somewhat supportive because everyone in the building industry would use the same code throughout the state;

however, it may hinder a coastal community’s ability, for

example, to enact stricter requirements regarding wind

loads.)

If the state capability assessment has not been completed, you

may wish to work with your State Hazard Mitigation Officer

to obtain the information to complete Worksheet #2: State

Mitigation Capability Assessment. You will need this information to determine local capabilities.

Inventory and analyze

your capabilities for implementing mitigation actions at the

state and local levels.

DMA 2000 requires states, as part of their mitigation strategy, to discuss their “pre- and postdisaster hazard management policies,

programs, and capabilities to mitigate the hazards in the area, including: an evaluation of state

laws, regulations, policies and programs related

to hazard mitigation as well as to development

in hazard-prone areas; a discussion of state

funding capabilities for hazard mitigation

projects; and a general description and analysis of local mitigation policies, programs and

capabilities” [44 CFR §201.4 (c)(3)(ii)]. The capability assessment provides an opportunity for

the state to identify the resources and tools (programs, laws, policies, practices, and staffing) that

pertain to loss reduction, and to evaluate these

tools based on whether they support, facilitate,

or hinder loss reduction at the state and local

levels.

The state’s mitigation capabilities will have significant implications for the local planning effort.

For example, the state may require that all local

floodplain management ordinances contain the

provision that new construction must be elevated

to one foot above the base flood elevation. This

is an example of a policy that supports mitigation. The state may have established a fund to

assist local governments in acquiring property

for various public benefits (including loss reduction). This is an effort that can facilitate local mitigation efforts. Alternatively, in an effort to

stimulate tourism, the state may have an economic development program that provides incentives to businesses that locate along coastal

waterfronts. This is an example of a program

that may hinder mitigation efforts.

The state capability assessment serves as the

backdrop or prelude to the identification of specific mitigation efforts targeted for state-level

planning, as well as for local planning. Similarly,

by evaluating the effectiveness of their existing

activities with respect to capabilities of local jurisdictions, states can determine the need for

any additional programs to assist communities

in their mitigation efforts, and include those additional action items in the state mitigation plan.

States should coordinate the results of their capability assessment with tribal and local governments within their jurisdictional area.

Worksheet #2: State Mitigation Capability Assessment provides a suggested template for

states to complete a capability assessment.
2-8 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

List the name of the agency and its mission and function in the first column. By identifying the missions and

functions, as well as programs, plans, policies, regulations, funding, and other practices administered by agencies, states create an inventory of resources that can be brought to bear on mitigation efforts within the state.

List any programs, plans, policies, etc., this agency has in the second column. It is important to include

within this column any legal authorities (which will be found within state regulations) that govern how land

would be developed within hazard areas. Typically, these types of regulations are found in state codes under

emergency management or public safety codes, building and construction codes, or planning codes. You should

also take the opportunity to include any resources that this organization has developed for either state or local

use as part of each respective program. Include any appropriate legal citations or source references for programs,

regulations, policies, etc.

If you know a point of contact, list it in the third column.

Check off what type of effect the programs, plans, policies, etc., have on loss reduction. States should now

evaluate the effects or implications of these activities on efforts to reduce losses within the state (fourth column).

This evaluation should address the implications for both the state and local levels. The essential questions to be

answered are: Does/would this program/plan/policy etc., support or facilitate mitigation efforts, or does/would

it hinder these efforts? How or why? Put these reasons in the Comments column. At this point, you will not yet

try to resolve any issues (such as if a particular program or policy could negatively affect proposed mitigation

efforts). However, the planning team will carry forward this information as input into the evaluation of specific

actions in Task C.

Finally, add any other comments you may have about the agency or its activities in the last column.

*Definitions:

Support: Programs, plans, policies, regulations, funding, or practices that help the implementation of mitigation actions.

Facilitate: Programs, plans, policies, etc., that make implementing mitigation actions easier.

Hinder: Programs, plans, policies, etc., that pose obstacles to implementation of mitigation actions.

Agency Name

(Mission/Function)

Programs,

Plans, Policies,

Regulations,

Funding, or

Practices

Point of Contact

Name, Address,

Phone, Email

Effect

o ( n Loss Reduction* )

Comments

Support Facilitate Hinder

Department of

Economic

Development

(To enhance the

economic well-being

of the citizens of

the State of

Emergency through

public investment.)

1. Infrastructure

Development

Fund

Goldie Graham

586 Ventura Blvd.

Capitalia, EM

(555) 555-2345 

Provides grants and loans to fund

local infrastructure improvements,

including stormwater management

projects, for new or expanding

businesses.

2. Development

Tax Credits

for Priority

Growth

Communities

Buck Doughman

200 Greenback Dr. Capitalia, EM

(555) 555-2346



Provides tax credits to private

investors who develop land in

Priority Growth Communities. Because Hazardville is one of the

state's Priority Growth

Communities, the state could be

subsidizing developers to build in

the floodplain.

Worksheet #2 State Mitigation Capability Assessment step 
Version 1.0 April 2003 2-9

identify and prioritize mitigation actions 2

After you have obtained state level information on programs, plans,

policies, regulations, funding, and practices, review the results to

gain a greater understanding of how these state resources will affect mitigation in your specific community. Since you have already

done some research into potential mitigation actions (Task A), and

you know your goals and objectives (Step 1), you can address in at

least a minimal way whether these policies, regulations, etc., will

have an impact on the type of mitigation actions you are beginning

to explore.

2. Complete a local capability assessment.

The planning team can use Worksheet #3: Local Mitigation

Capability Assessment and Worksheet Job Aid #2: Local Hazard

Mitigation Capabilities to complete this subtask. The planning

team can use Job Aid #2 to identify specific regulatory tools, staff,

and financial resources that exist in your jurisdiction. The team

can then transfer this information to Worksheet #3.

Your proposed mitigation actions will be evaluated against the

backdrop of what is feasible in terms of your government’s legal,

administrative, fiscal, and technical capacities. Additionally, there

are many types of mitigation activities, some of which will require

funding, construction-related actions, and procedural and policy

changes. As such, local jurisdictions should examine these capabilities in light of the type of activities they are interested in pursuing.

As shown in Worksheet #2, your state’s capability assessment should

include a description of a range of agencies and their resources,

responsibilities, and limitations related to implementing mitigation

initiatives. It is now time to create your own local capability assessment using Worksheet #3. Make a list of state agencies, regional

organizations, and local government agencies mentioned in the

state assessment. The state capability assessment will not focus on

your specific jurisdiction; therefore, you should expand your list to

include local agencies with policies, programs, and skills in multiple departments that can have an effect on mitigation activities.

You may have identified some of these agencies when you prepared

the hazard profile and loss estimate in Phase 2. At a minimum, you

should list local government agencies, departments, and offices

with responsibility for planning, building code enforcement, mapping, building, and/or managing physical assets, as well as for

emergency management functions (see tip box above).

It may be helpful to list these organizations, as well as other departments or agencies that do not appear to have a direct impact on

The following agencies or departments can

contribute to an understanding of the local tools and resources available for loss

reduction:

Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement

Councils of Government

Economic Development

Emergency Management

Environmental

Housing

Planning

Police and Fire

Public Works

Parks and Recreation

Regional Planning Organizations

Transportation

If the planning team

feels that there are

significant political

problems in the community, a consultant may be the

best way to ensure an objective evaluation of the effects of programs, plans,

policies, regulations, funding, and practices on loss reduction. An outside consultant should have the ability to look at

a situation without attachment, emotion,

or bias. You may decide to ask the consultant to perform the entire capability

assessment, as some of the results of

this assessment may be perceived as

an attack on the responsible agency in

your state or community.
2-10 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

mitigation but could have an indirect effect on your mitigation

program. The list should also include businesses and non-governmental or nonprofit organizations—charities, churches, and the

American Red Cross, as well as operators of critical facilities, colleges, and universities—since they play important roles in pre- and

post-disaster environments.

Planning team members will need to interview department or division heads in your local government to obtain information on all

relevant programs, policies, regulations, funding, and practices.

However, before talking with officials it is advisable to review reports, plans, and other community documents that are readily

available to get a basic understanding of what exists in your jurisdiction. In this way, you can target or better tailor your questions

when you interview them. By interviewing local officials, the planning team will gain a better understanding of the functions of relevant government agencies to determine whether their missions

can, or already do, facilitate mitigation goals and objectives.

When completing the worksheet, be sure to note the sources and

types of data that these agencies or organizations possess, and the

databases, analytical tools (e.g., GIS, HAZUS, etc.), and software

they use to analyze the information.

While a formal

discussion on community capabilities

is not required by the

DMA 2000 requirements for

local plans, state plans must provide

some detail about local capabilities. To

assist the state in meeting this requirement and to develop a more comprehensive understanding of mitigation’s

role in your community, performing a

local capability assessment is highly

recommended. Rules implementing

DMA 2000 state that the local mitigation strategy must be “based on existing authorities, policies, programs, and

resources, and [the community’s] ability to expand on and improve these existing tools” [44CFR§201.6 (c)(3)].

The Institute for

Local Self Government (Institute) is a nonprofit organization that

provides research, information, and support for the development

of public policy for California communities and cities. One of its more notable

programs, the Community Land Use

Project, assists public agencies with decision-making and the defense of their

practices in environmental preservation

land use decisions. The Institute has a

wealth of information on its Web site,

including an easy to understand section on takings, government finance,

and fiscal analyses, and tips for public

participation and effective citizen involvement. Although targeted to a California audience, there is still a lot of

useful information on the Web site that

can be used by anyone. More information about the Institute can be found at

http://www.ilsg.org/.

An excellent Web site for help in evaluating building codes

and local general plans is http://www.ibhs.org. The Institute for Business and Home Safety has developed the Community Land Use

Evaluation for Natural Hazards Questionnaire (http://www.ibhs.org/

land_ use_planning). It has also produced Summary of State Land

Use Planning Laws (2002) (http://www.ibhs.org/research_library/view.

asp?id=302) and Summary of State Mandated Codes (1999) (http://www.ibhs.org/

dg.lts/id.112/research_ library.view.htm).

Compiling this inventory will help the planning team identify what

is currently being done and begin to assess what is working well.

The second part of a capability assessment is the analysis of how

effective the existing actions and capacities are and what gaps exist

that hinder implementation. This evaluation allows the planning

team to identify what may need to change to enhance what is working, or what to put into place to undertake new actions or implement existing ones. However, the more extensive analysis will occur

when the planning team evaluates specific alternative mitigation

actions by objective, as described in the next task.
Version 1.0 April 2003 2-11

identify and prioritize mitigation actions 2

Worksheet #3 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment step 

List the name of the agency and its mission in the first column. By identifying the missions and functions, as

well as programs, plans, policies, regulations, funding, and other practices administered by that agency, local

and tribal jurisdictions create an inventory of resources that can be brought to bear on mitigation efforts within

the community or tribe. Use Worksheet #2: State Mitigation Capability Assessment and Worksheet Job Aid #2 in

Appendix D to complete this worksheet.

List any programs, plans, policies, etc., this agency has in the second column. It is important to include

within this column any legal authorities (which can be found by reviewing the state capability assessment) that

govern how land would be developed within hazard areas. Typically, these types of regulations are found in local zoning, building, subdivision, and other special land development codes (such as floodplain management

ordinances, hillside ordinances, etc.). You should also take the opportunity to include any resources that this

organization has developed for local use as part of each respective program. Include any appropriate legal citations or source references for programs, regulations, policies, etc.

If you know a point of contact, list it in the third column.

Check off whether the programs, plans, policies, etc., have an effect on loss reduction. Communities and

tribes should now evaluate the effects or implications of these activities on efforts to reduce losses within the jurisdiction (fourth column). The essential questions to be answered are: Does/would this program/plan/policy

etc., support or facilitate mitigation efforts, or does/would it hinder these efforts? How or why? Put these reasons in the Comments column. At this point, you will not try to resolve any issues (such as if a particular program or policy could negatively affect proposed mitigation efforts), but the planning team will carry this

information forward as input into the evaluation of specific actions in Task C.

Finally, add any other comments you may have about the agency or its activities in the last column.

*Definitions:

Support: Programs, plans, policies, regulations, funding, or practices that help the implementation of mitigation actions.

Facilitate: Programs, plans, policies, etc., that make implementing mitigation actions easier.

Hinder: Programs, plans, policies, etc., that pose obstacles to implementation of mitigation actions.

Agency Name

(Mission/Function)

Programs,

Plans, Policies,

Regulations,

Funding, or

Practices

Point of Contact

Name, Address,

Phone, Email

Effect

o ( n Loss Reduction* )

Comments

Support Facilitate Hinder

Department of

Public Works

(To ensure the

proper functioning

of public

infrastructure.)

1. Sanitation

Division

M. T. Trashmore

800 Dumptruck

Ave. Hazardville, EM

(555) 555-1234



Responsible for cleaning storm

drains, gutters, roadside ditches,

etc.

2. Stream

maintenance

policy

M. T. Trashmore



Streams and culverts are only

scheduled to be

cleaned/maintained every 3 years.

3. Transportation

Division

Potsy McAsphalt

495 Mixing Bowl

Lane

Hazardville, EM

(555) 555-1235



State DOT maintains funds to

renovate state highways and

bridges. Priority given to

elevating structures vulnerable to

flooding.
2-12 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

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

In this task, the planning team will select mitigation actions suitable to your community and then decide in what sequence or order these actions should be pursued. Task C includes suggested

methods for evaluating and prioritizing the alternative mitigation

actions identified in Task A. There are other ways to evaluate and

prioritize mitigation actions. However, the methods suggested here

will help the planning team fulfill DMA 2000 requirements that

require state, tribal, and local governments to show how mitigation

actions were evaluated and prioritized.

Remember, your evaluation should determine whether the action

would work for the specific mitigation objectives you formulated in

Step 1. Your evaluation is not a judgment of the general merits of

the action, but an assessment of the effect the action will have on

the specified mitigation objective in a particular location within

your jurisdiction.

The planning team should agree on the evaluation criteria and the

process for prioritizing mitigation actions. See Getting Started

(FEMA 386-1) for ideas on gaining consensus.

1. Evaluate alternative mitigation actions.

Now that the planning team has completed Worksheet #1 and the

capability assessment (Worksheet #3) in Task B, it must evaluate

whether existing and potential alternative mitigation actions fulfill

your objectives and if they are appropriate for the planning area.

There are many ways to develop and apply evaluation criteria. One

method enables the planning team to consider in a systematic way

the Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic,

and Environmental (STAPLEE) opportunities and constraints of

implementing a particular mitigation action in your jurisdiction.

The planning team can use Worksheet #4: Evaluate Alternative

Mitigation Actions to record the team’s discussions.

The box that follows provides a list of the types of questions you

can ask as part of the evaluation process to help you sort through

which alternative actions may be best for your community. All of

this information is intended to help the planning team weigh the

pros and cons of different alternative actions for each of the identified objectives. However, this decision-making is not necessarily a

straightforward process; it is highly specific to each jurisdiction.

This process would be difficult to describe in a step-by-step procedure that would reliably lead all communities to the “right” solu-
Version 1.0 April 2003 2-13

identify and prioritize mitigation actions 2

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR MITIGATION ACTIONS

The following discussion explains each of the STAPLEE evaluation criteria. It

includes examples of questions the planning team should consider, as well as

who may be the appropriate person or agency to answer these questions as

the team works through the list of alternative mitigation actions.

SOCIAL. The public must support the overall implementation strategy and

specific mitigation actions. Therefore, the projects will have to be evaluated in

terms of community acceptance by asking questions such as:

Will the proposed action adversely affect one segment of the population?

Will the action disrupt established neighborhoods, break up voting districts, or cause the relocation of lower income people?

Is the action compatible with present and future community values?

If the community is a tribal entity, will the actions adversely affect cultural

values or resources?

Your local elected officials, community development staff, and planning board

are key team members who can help answer these questions.

TECHNICAL. It is important to determine if the proposed action is technically

feasible, will help to reduce losses in the long term, and has minimal secondary impacts. Here, you will determine whether the alternative action is a whole

or partial solution, or not a solution at all, by considering the following types of

issues:

How effective is the action in avoiding or reducing future losses? If the

proposed action involves upgrading culverts and storm drains to handle

a 10-year storm event, and the objective is to reduce the potential impacts of a catastrophic flood, the proposed mitigation cannot be considered effective. Conversely, if the objective were to reduce the adverse

impacts of frequent flooding events, the same action would certainly

meet the technical feasibility criterion.

Will it create more problems than it solves?

Does it solve the problem or only a symptom?

Key team members who can help answer these questions include the town

engineer, public works staff, and building department staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE. Under this part of the evaluation criteria, you will examine

the anticipated staffing, funding, and maintenance requirements for the mitigation action to determine if the jurisdiction has the personnel and administrative capabilities necessary to implement the action or whether outside help will

be necessary.

Does the jurisdiction have the capability (staff, technical experts, and/or

funding) to implement the action, or can it be readily obtained?

Can the community provide the necessary maintenance?

Can it be accomplished in a timely manner?

(continued on page 2-14)

The U.S. State and Local

Gateway is an invaluable resource

for understanding a range of community governmental capabilities. The Web

site was developed to give state, local,

and tribal government officials and employees access to a variety of federal,

state, local, tribal, and organizational information and links. The site includes

links to funding, best practices, tools,

training, laws and regulations, current

issues, partners, and other information

by topic. The site can be accessed at

http://www.firstgov.gov/Government/

State_Local.shtml.

Funding

Spending is a fundamental power of local government. Spending decisions

made at all levels of government can

include consideration of hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Annual budgets and capital improvement plans

offer an opportunity to include the costs

of mitigation activities as part of routine

state, community, or tribal outlays, rather

than considering mitigation projects as

separate special initiatives. Just as communities have the power to spend, they

also have the power to withhold spending for the public good. Does your state

or community have the authority to withhold spending

in hazard areas? For example, Florida Rule 9J5 discourages the extension of

public infrastructure into

coastal high-hazard zones by local communities.

tion, as the possible results or end products of the process are quite

varied and do not necessarily follow a straight path.
2-14 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

(continued from page 2-13)

POLITICAL. Understanding how your current community and state political

leadership feels about issues related to the environment, economic development, safety, and emergency management will provide valuable insight into

the level of political support you will have for mitigation activities and programs.

Proposed mitigation objectives sometimes fail because of a lack of political

acceptability. This can be avoided by determining:

Is there political support to implement and maintain this action?

Have political leaders participated in the planning process so far?

Is there a local champion willing to help see the action to completion?

Who are the stakeholders in this proposed action?

Is there enough public support to ensure the success of the action?

Have all of the stakeholders been offered an opportunity to participate in

the planning process?

How can the mitigation objectives be accomplished at the lowest “cost”

to the public?

Ensure that a designated member of the planning team consults with the board

of supervisors, mayor, city council, administrator, or manager.

LEGAL. Without the appropriate legal authority, the action cannot lawfully be

undertaken. When considering this criterion, you will determine whether your

jurisdiction has the legal authority at the state, tribal, or local level to implement

the action, or whether the jurisdiction must pass new laws or regulations. Each

level of government operates under a specific source of delegated authority.

As a general rule, most local governments operate under enabling legislation

that gives them the power to engage in different activities.

You should identify the unit of government undertaking the mitigation action,

and include an analysis of the interrelationships between local, regional, state,

and federal governments. Legal authority is likely to have a significant role

later in the process when your state, tribe, or community will have to determine

how mitigation activities can best be carried out, and to what extent mitigation

policies and programs can be enforced.

Does the state, tribe, or community have the authority to implement the

proposed action?

Is there a technical, scientific, or legal basis for the mitigation action (i.e.,

does the mitigation action “fit” the hazard setting)?

Are the proper laws, ordinances, and resolutions in place to implement

the action?

Are there any potential legal consequences?

Will the community be liable for the actions or support of actions, or lack

of action?

Is the action likely to be challenged by stakeholders who may be negatively affected?

Your community’s legal counsel is a key team member to include in this discussion.

(continued on page 2-16)

Current elected officials often

have very different priorities than their

predecessors, and every elected official is likely to have his or her own

agenda driving these priorities. However, elected officials are voted into their

position to represent their constituents,

and if your team has done a good job

of getting the public to buy into and support your plan, elected officials are more

likely to lend their support. This may be

particularly important if your plan proposes to use a significant amount of tax

revenue or other public funds to finance

mitigation projects.

State and local level

government politics

and processes can sometimes be difficult to fully understand. An online study

guide, which was designed to accompany State and Local Politics, Tenth

Edition, by Burns, Peltason, and

Magleby, provides an objective overview of the institutions and political

forces that can shape policies and outcomes in state and local jurisdictions.

The study guide is available at http://

cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/

burns6/.

An excellent resource to assist in quickly

determining your state’s legal authorities with respect

to planning to reduce natural hazard losses is available in an

online report titled A Survey of State

Land-Use and Natural Hazards Planning Laws. This report can be found at

http://www.ibhs.org/land_use_ planning/.

The Web site also provides information

on state-level technical assistance that

is available through statutory requirements.
Version 1.0 April 2003 2-15

identify and prioritize mitigation actions 2

State, Local, and Tribal Authorities

State governments possess an inherent power (also called “police power”) to enact reasonable legislation and

protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution delegates this

power to states, which in turn, through their state constitutions, delegate some of these powers to local governments.

Laws, legislation, and related topics for tribal governments can be found at http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/21indian/

index.html. The Web page includes links to law documents, briefs, articles, databases, government agencies, political

information, and other related Web sites.

Most local governments are given a fair amount of autonomy to enforce their police power, particularly as it pertains to

emergency management functions. State legislation, however, controls what local governments can legally do. While certain federal laws may have bearing on local government activities, the local government must have the proper delegation

from the state in order to act. States grant local governments the authority to exercise powers in two ways:

Dillon’s Rule. Local governments in states with this type of legislative structure are only able to exercise powers that have

been expressly granted to them in their state constitution or state laws.

Home Rule. Local governments in states with this type of legislative structure have much greater flexibility in their organizational structure, fiscal control, and governmental autonomy, as long as an activity is not prohibited by state legislation or

in conflict with any state statute or the state constitution.

For more information, see http://www.naco.org/pubs/research/briefs/dillon.cfm.

Examples of Local Police Powers

Regulation. 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.

Acquisition. Removing at-risk property from the private market is a useful mitigation tool. Legislation typically empowers

governments to acquire property for public purposes by gift, grant, bequest, exchange, purchase, lease, or eminent domain. Land acquired for these purposes, however, must be given just compensation in return, or it is considered a taking. All

of FEMA’s buyout programs operate on the basis of the voluntary cooperation of property owners.

Taxation. Taxes and special assessments can be an important source of revenue for governments to help pay for mitigation activities. In addition, the power of taxation can have a profound impact on the pattern of development in local communities. Special tax districts, for example, can be used to discourage intensive development in hazard-prone areas.

eminent domain n. the right of a government to appropriate private property for public use, usually with compensation to the owner.

Takings

Regulating development on private property can be contentious

and even litigious, particularly if the regulations are so restrictive

that they constitute a “taking,” or if they are arbitrarily applied or

enforced. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has a Takings Clause

requiring that owners of private property taken for public use be given “just

compensation.” A regulatory “taking” is a regulation or action that causes a

private landowner to lose all economically beneficial use of his or her land.

Care must be taken in drafting legislation that may reduce the fair market

value of land. Any required changes in the use of private property must be

clearly related to public health and safety concerns.
2-16 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

(continued from page 2-14)

ECONOMIC. Every local, state, and tribal government experiences budget

constraints at one time or another. Cost-effective mitigation actions that can be

funded in current or upcoming budget cycles are much more likely to be implemented than mitigation actions requiring general obligation bonds or other

instruments that would incur long-term debt to a community. States and local

communities with tight budgets or budget shortfalls may be more willing to

undertake a mitigation initiative if it can be funded, at least in part, by outside

sources. “Big ticket” mitigation actions, such as large-scale acquisition and

relocation, are often considered for implementation in a post-disaster scenario when additional federal and state funding for mitigation is available.

Economic considerations must include the present economic base and projected growth and should be based on answers to questions such as:

Are there currently sources of funds that can be used to implement the

action?

What benefits will the action provide?

Does the cost seem reasonable for the size of the problem and likely

benefits?

What burden will be placed on the tax base or local economy to implement this action?

Does the action contribute to other community economic goals, such as

capital improvements or economic development?

What proposed actions should be considered but be “tabled” for implementation until outside sources of funding are available?

Key team members for this discussion include community managers, economic development staff, and the assessor’s office.

(continued on page 2-18)

Benefit-Cost

Analysis

All projects using federal

funds must be justified as

being cost-effective. This can be determined through the use of various benefit-cost analysis methodologies,

addressed in Using Benefit-Cost Analysis in Mitigation Planning (FEMA

386-5).

Grants and services from foundations,

environmental organizations, volunteer groups, and

other nonprofit organizations may be worth considering, as such

organizations are often willing to contribute financial or other resources if

they feel there is a significant need. Private industry, investors, and the business community should also be

considered for potential sources of

funding and in-kind services. As you review your state or community’s fiscal

capacity, continue to add new information to your list of potential funding

sources identified earlier in the planning

process. How to research and obtain

funding for mitigation is discussed in

more detail in Securing Resources for

Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-9).

Local foundations often play leadership

roles in communities and can provide

financial resources, technical assistance, and support. A complete list of

community nonprofit, tax-exempt, publicly supported grant making organizations by state is available at http://

www.tgci.com/resources/foundations/

community/index.html or http://www.

tgci.com/resources/foundations/

SearchGeoloc.asp.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Programs (CFDA) is a collection of federal programs,

projects, services, and activities that provide assistance or

benefits to the American public. Available federal assistance

includes grants, loans, loan guarantees, services, and other

types of support. The online document is available at http://

aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda.
Version 1.0 April 2003 2-17

identify and prioritize mitigation actions 2

Economic Analysis Tool Box

Local Economic Analysis Tools. The National Association of

Counties (NACo) collects, maintains, researches, and publishes

economic and other information about counties. Reports are available online at http://www.naco.org/pubs/research/special/index.cfm. NACo also

is currently developing a database of county policies, ordinances, and model

programs that could be used as case studies for other communities.

Thirty-five of America’s largest cities and 40 of America’s largest counties were

graded on their financial, human resources, and information technology management, and managing for results performance by the Maxwell Campbell

Public Affairs Institute. The annual report for these cities and counties is available online at http://www.governing.com/gpp/2000/gp0intro.htm and http://

www.governing.com/gpp/2002/gp2intro.htm, respectively.

Nationwide county data, including demographic and economic data and other

statistics, can be found at http://www.Capitolimpact.com.

The National League of Cities researches and reports on programs and issues affecting cities and towns nationwide. The latest annual report focuses

on recent trends in municipal finance and fiscal policy actions. According to

the report, the methodology used should provide good generalized information about cities with populations of 10,000 or more. The report is available

online at http://www.nlc.org/nlc_org/site/programs/research_reports/index.cfm.

Tribal Economic Analysis Tools. The U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration funded a report entitled Job Creation and

Job Skills Development in Indian Country. It evaluated current literature on job

creation and job skills in tribal communities and assessed tribal economic

development-related issues. The report can be accessed at the following Web

site: http://www.osec.doc.gov/eda/html/1g3_researchrpts.htm.

Native economic Development Guidance and Empowerment (eDGE) is an

interagency initiative of the federal government to promote economic development within tribal and Alaska Native communities. Native eDGE provides links

to federal and non-federal grants, loans, and technical assistance for tribal and

Alaska Native organizations and individuals. The Web site is located at http://

nativeedge.hud.gov/.

Regional Economic Analysis Tools. The National Association of Regional

Councils (NARC) has compiled demographic information for regional councils

within each state. NARC also has several publications that contain information

on gathering baseline data, economic development strategies, and a directory

of regional councils. This information can be helpful in determining current

trends in government and can give you data that will be useful if you are undertaking a multi-jurisdictional plan. The association’s Web site is located at http:/

/www.narc.org/.

HAZUS, FEMA’s natural hazard loss estimation

tool, has an extensive inventory of data that communities can

use and build upon. HAZUS-MH, the new multi-hazard version of

HAZUS, includes data from the 2000 U.S. Census. See FEMA’s

Web site for more details: http://www.fema.gov/hazus/index.shtm.
2-18 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

(continued from page 2-16)

ENVIRONMENTAL. Impact on the environment is an important consideration

because of public desire for sustainable and environmentally healthy communities and the many statutory considerations, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to keep in mind when using federal funds.

You will need to evaluate whether, when implementing mitigation actions, there

would be negative consequences to environmental assets such as threatened

and endangered species, wetlands, and other protected natural resources.

How will this action affect the environment (land, water, endangered

species)?

Will this action comply with local, state, and federal environmental laws

or regulations?

Is the action consistent with community environmental goals?

Numerous mitigation actions may well have beneficial impacts on the environment. For instance, acquisition and relocation of structures out of the floodplain, sediment and erosion control actions, and stream corridor and wetland

restoration projects all help restore the natural function of the floodplain. Also,

vegetation management in areas susceptible to wildfires can greatly reduce

the potential for large wildfires that would be damaging to the community and

the environment. Such mitigation actions benefit the environment while creating sustainable communities that are more resilient to disasters.

Key team members include the local health department, conservation commissions, environmental or water resources agency, building officials, environmental groups, fish and game commissions, etc.

SUMMARY. In many cases, it will not be possible to simply attend a planning

meeting and answer these questions. In those cases, designated team members will need to investigate the issues further and report back to the team.

See Table 2-1 for considerations and sources of information for each mitigation evaluation criterion.
Version 1.0 April 2003 2-19

identify and prioritize mitigation actions 2

Table 2-1: Researching STAPLEE Criteria

Evaluation Category Considerations Sources of Information

Social Community Acceptance 







Questionnaire (see Appendix E)

Interviews with government staff, non-profit organizations, and

neighborhood advocacy organizations

Community plans

Newspaper articles

Adversely Affects

Segment of Population

Maps showing demographics (race, age, income, voting districts, etc.)

with locations of proposed mitigation actions

Technical Technical Feasibility 



Judgment of mitigation experts, scientists, and engineers

Existing literature/studies on the action

Long-term Solution 



Judgment of mitigation experts

Existing literature/studies on the action

Secondary Impacts 







Judgment of mitigation experts

Existing literature

Maps showing environmentally sensitive resources with locations of

proposed mitigation actions

Scientific and/or engineering evaluations

Administrative Staffing (sufficient

number of staff and

training)









Capability assessment (see Worksheets #2 and #3)

Jurisdiction organizational chart

Availability of technical assistance from regional or state agencies

Interviews with department heads and relevant staff

Funding Allocated 







Capability assessment (see Worksheets #2 and #3)

Annual operating budget

Capital improvement budget

Interviews with department heads and relevant staff

Maintenance/Operations 





Capability assessment (see Worksheets #2 and #3)

Existing literature on maintenance costs

Interviews with department heads and relevant staff

Political Political Support 





Questionnaire (see Appendix E)

Interviews with elected officials

Newspaper articles

Local Champion or Plan

Proponent (respected

community member)





Questionnaire (see Appendix E)

Interviews with elected officials, community leaders, and private

sector participants in planning process

Public Support

(Stakeholders)









Questionnaire (see Appendix E)

Interviews with government staff, non-profit organizations, and

neighborhood advocacy organizations

Newspaper articles

Public meetings

Table 2-1 suggests some considerations and sources of information

for each STAPLEE criterion to use when completing Worksheet #4.
2-20 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

Table 2-1: Researching STAPLEE Criteria (continued)

Evaluation

Category

Considerations Sources of Information

Legal State Authority 



Research of state codes

Contact with state attorney general's office

Existing Local Authority 



Research of local codes and ordinances

Local legal counsel

Action Potentially

Subject to Legal

Challenge by

Opponents

(stakeholders who

would be negatively

affected)





Research by local legal counsel

Maps, census, plans

Economic Benefit of Mitigation

Action











Benefit-cost analysis software/methodology

Judgment of experts

Existing literature

Case studies of similar implemented actions

Economic impact assessment

Cost of Mitigation Action 







Order of magnitude cost estimate (e.g., Action A costs five times

more than Action B)

Judgment of experts

Local contractors

Case studies

Contributes to

Economic Goals





Judgment of experts

Evaluation of community's comprehensive plan, economic

development plan, and other community plans and policies

Outside Funding

Required





Order of magnitude cost estimate

Evaluation of state and federal funding programs

Environmental Affects Land/Water

Bodies





Maps, studies, plans

Coordination with state and federal resource agencies, including

compliance with all relevant statutes and regulations

Affects Endangered

Species





Maps, studies, plans

Coordination with state and federal resource agencies, including

compliance with all relevant statutes and regulations

Affects Hazardous

Materials and Waste

Sites







Maps, studies, plans

Hazardous waste site databases

Coordination with state and federal resource agencies, including

compliance with all relevant statutes and regulations

Consistent with

Community's

Environmental Goals







Maps of land use, zoning, sensitive areas, projected growth

Interviews with government staff

Review of local plans and policies

Consistent with Federal

Laws

Contact with federal agencies
Version 1.0 April 2003 2-21

identify and prioritize mitigation actions 2

Worksheet #4 Evaluate Alternative Mitigation Actions step 

1. Fill in the goal and its corresponding objective. Use a separate worksheet for each objective. The considerations

under each criterion are suggested ones to use; you can revise these to reflect your own considerations (see

Table 2-1).

2. Fill in the alternative actions that address the specific objectives the planning team identified in Worksheet #1.

3. Scoring: For each consideration, indicate a plus (+) for favorable, and a negative (-) for less favorable.

When you complete the scoring, negatives will indicate gaps or shortcomings in the particular action, which can

be noted in the Comments section. For considerations that do not apply, fill in N/A for not applicable. Only leave

a blank if you do not know an answer. In this case, make a note in the Comments section of the “expert” or source

to consult to help you evaluate the criterion.

Goal: Minimize losses to existing and future structures within hazard areas.

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

Alternative

Actions

Comments

1. Acquire floodprone structuresWill need to seek outside funding.

2. Construct a

berm around

park

Will not provide 100-year flood protection to most homes. May be best for units that have not been

purchased or elevated.

3. Elevate

structures

Don't know what effect the action will have on older, less sturdy structures. Would need to determine

structural integrity of older homes. Further study may be necessary.

STAPLEE Criteria

S

(Social)

T

(Technical)

A

(Administrative)

P

(Political)

L

(Legal)

E

(Economic)

E

(Environmental)

Considerations

for

Alternative

Actions

1. Acquire floodprone

structures – – + + + – – – – – + + + + + – – – + + + + +

2. Construct a

berm around

park

+ + – – – – – – + + – + + + – + + – – + + + +

3. Elevate

structures

+ + – + – – – + + + + + + + – + – + + + + + Community Acceptance Effect on Segment of Population Technical Feasibility Long-term Solution Secondary Impacts Staffing Funding Allocated Maintenance/ Operations Political Support Local Champion Public Support State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land/ Water Effect on Endan- gered Species Effect on HAZMAT/ Waste Sites Consistent with Community Environmental Goals Consistent with Federal Laws
2-22 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

A community can go through a process of identifying and evaluating alternative mitigation actions and discover that everything is in

place to undertake a certain type of action that would be very effective and easily affordable. However, the community simply may not

like some of the social or environmental implications of that action. The Town of Hazardville faces this type of issue with its historic lighthouse. One solution would be to move the lighthouse

inland to remove it from the danger it faces from the eroding cliffs.

But, the community would then lose the historic and cultural value

of its long-standing position at the main entrance to town overlooking the sea. As such, the planning team may decide to undertake a

more expensive or difficult action that it is not necessarily as

equipped for but feels strongly should be the preferred alternative.

Table 2-2 presents five possible situations the planning team could

encounter.

As you start the

prioritization process, look for ways

to eliminate from consideration those actions that,

from a technical standpoint, will not

meet your objective, even though they

may have been indicated as generally

applicable to your situation. For example, if an alternative mitigation action is to relocate a building out of the

floodplain, the building may be structurally unsound and may not survive a

move. Such an action can now be eliminated from your list and there is no need

to undertake a detailed evaluation of the

remaining criteria, thereby saving you

time. You should provide comments—a

short summary of your reasoning—in

Worksheet #4 indicating why you believe your actions will not work. If you

cannot judge the action on its technical

merits because of a lack of data, document that fact in the “Comments” section. Items in the “Comments” section

can then lead to developing a list of necessary implementation steps, such as

conducting additional studies.

At times, you may feel that your community does

not have enough information about a specific situation to

recommend a particular mitigation action. In these cases, your mitigation action can be to recommend further study. For example, if your

community has 20 critical facilities that should be addressed in the

plan, how do you decide which ones should be dealt with first, and what type of

action should be used for mitigation? In a situation like this, your recommendation could be to “Conduct an investigation of the 20 critical facilities over the next

three years to determine the most appropriate mitigation actions to protect them

from flooding, high winds, and seismic hazards.”

HAZUS can provide information to help evaluate

different mitigation approaches for a given

problem. Sophisticated HAZUS users interested in developing

more detailed damage and loss estimates for individual or groups of

buildings can use HAZUS-MH, which comes with two useful tools:

AEBM (Advanced Engineering Building Module) and InCast (Inventory Collection and Survey Tool). For earthquake mitigation purposes, using the AEBM creates building-specific damage and loss functions that could be used to assess

losses for an individual building (or group of similar buildings) both in their existing condition and after some amount of seismic rehabilitation. Building-specific

damage and loss functions are based on the properties of a particular building.

The particular building of interest could be either an individual building or a typical building representing a group of buildings. The procedures are highly technical, and users should be qualified seismic/structural engineers who, for example,

might be advising a local jurisdiction regarding the merits of adopting an ordinance to require cripple-wall strengthening of older wood-frame residences. The

AEBM concept will be expanded to other hazards in future HAZUS models.

For better characterization of damages to individual structures or groups of buildings, the multi-hazard InCast tool allows users to input building-specific characteristics such as location, occupancy type, and structural information. The InCast

data integrates seamlessly within HAZUS-MH and can provide enhanced and

more complete building inventories, thus improving the reliability of risk assessment results.
Version 1.0 April 2003 2-23

identify and prioritize mitigation actions 2

Table 2-2: Potential Results of the Evaluation of Alternative Mitigation Actions

This table illustrates the type of situations that may arise when evaluating mitigation actions. The intent is to help the planning

team understand that the decision-making process can lead to a variety of different types of recommendations—from clear-cut

actions to seeking more information to combinations of different actions. The point is that the planning team is highly unlikely

to face a situation that has no prospects for any type of meaningful mitigation.

Situation Example

Recommendation

(What would you do?)

1. A single preferred alternative

action can be identified to

meet an objective.

In this situation, the community

has sufficient data to provide a

clear understanding of the nature

of the problem, and an alternative

action can be identified for which

funding is readily available and

all the necessary capabilities are

in place. In addition, the

alternative action is generally

consistent with the needs and

values of the community.

Note: A desirable result, but the

least common to occur.

For a hypothetical objective to "reduce flood

losses" in a particular part of a community, an

alternative might be to "acquire properties

subject to repetitive flood loss and relocate

structures to city-owned land."

The ideal situation would include the availability

of federal grant monies and local matching funds

to acquire properties and relocate the subject

structures to city-owned land. If this land is

outside of the floodplain, is properly zoned, and

can be deeded to landowners without the

objections of the adjacent property owners, there

should be no hesitation on the part of the

community to select and implement this

alternative.

Select the alternative.

2. Two or more alternative

actions seem technically

feasible and acceptable, but

more data is needed to

determine which is most

appropriate.

Note: A very common result.

Again for a generic objective to "reduce potential

damage to critical facilities located in the

floodplain," alternative mitigation actions could

include:

Alternative A: Relocate critical facilities in the

floodplain to less hazard-prone areas.

Alternative B: Retrofit critical facilities in the

floodplain.

In this situation, if the planning team does not

have enough details about the condition of a

particular facility to determine if it is a good

candidate for relocation or would benefit more

from retrofitting, they will be hard pressed to

make the choice.

The planning team could elect to recommend a

study to assess the condition of the facility and

then determine which action is most appropriate.

Identify a study to determine

which alternative is most

appropriate as an action item

in the implementation

strategy.

Note: The time frame required

for studies can vary widely. If

the results of the study become

available within the "planning

horizon," then it would be

appropriate for the planning

team to take up the

consideration of these

alternatives as part of a

process of periodic updates

and refinements of the plan

(see FEMA 386-4).

3. A low-cost alternative action is

identified that is possible to

accomplish immediately, but is

not as effective and/or

desirable as another

alternative action that requires

the acquisition of significant

resources.

Note: Another very common

result.

For an objective to "protect structures in the

urban/wildland interface," alternatives could very

well include:

Alternative A: Begin a public education

campaign to raise awareness of the dangers

of wildfires.

Alternative B: Establish a fuel reduction

program to assist property owners in the

wildland/urban interface.

Select both alternatives.
2-24 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

Table 2-2: Potential Results of the Evaluation of Alternative Mitigation Actions (continued)

Situation Example

Recommendation

(What would you do?)

While Alternative A is less effective, it builds

support for Alternative B and has relatively small

"hard costs."

The planning team can choose to implement the

public education campaign, while simultaneously

taking steps (such as identifying funding,

recruiting staff, preparing a best management

practice guide, etc.) toward establishing a fuels

reduction program.

4. An alternative action is

identified that is possible to

accomplish, but is not

desirable from the viewpoint of

a portion of the community,

while another less

objectionable alternative action

requires the acquisition of

significant resources.

Note: A common result that is the

most difficult to resolve. These

situations are the ones that test

both the process and the

participants.

For a specific objective to "preserve historic

structures threatened by coastal erosion" (such

as a historic lighthouse that has great cultural

value to members of the community), alternative

mitigation actions can include:

Alternative A: Remove historic structures

from the coast to safer ground.

Note: This action would afford predictable

protection but would permanently alter the

historic character of the community. There are

also concerns regarding funding and the ability to

secure the technical expertise necessary for this

option.

Alternative B: Retrofit historic structures to

avoid storm surge damage, thereby

maintaining the historic character of the

community.

Note: This action will require the identification of

other sources of funding (grants, donated

materials, and in-kind labor); development of staff

capabilities; and/or hiring a consultant with

expertise in historic preservation. It may not be

as effective in the long term in reducing potential

damages to the lighthouse.

In this case, the choice is not clear-cut. If

properly designed, the planning team will

represent a reasonable cross section of the

community, and with adequate public input, will

make the decision they feel is in the best interest

of the community.

Select the alternative that

best reflects the "will" of the

community.

5. An alternative action is

identified that is desirable in

terms of the long-term

sustainability of the

community, but is opposed by

the affected population and

requires substantial funds to

implement.

Note: A common result.

An objective to "substantially reduce or eliminate

flood losses" can result in the identification of an

alternative to "acquire repetitive loss

properties in high-hazard areas."

Note: acquisition programs are voluntary and

residents often resist this potential disruption of

historic and family ties to their property.

Select the alternative and list

it as both a pre- and postdisaster action.
Version 1.0 April 2003 2-25

identify and prioritize mitigation actions 2

2. Summarize and document recommended mitigation actions.

After you have evaluated the potential alternative mitigation actions, pull out from Worksheet #4 those actions that the planning

team has determined to be appropriate for your community. Clean

up the comment notes or expand them to explain any special circumstances that must be kept in mind in the next step. For example, if you found that one action is more effective when

undertaken in conjunction with another, then note this fact.

3. Prioritize selected mitigation actions.

Now that the planning team has a list of acceptable and doable actions for your community, it’s time to prioritize them. You may

have identified a dozen actions for each of the hazards affecting

your community and are now faced with deciding where to start

when you may have more than 50 possible actions. You may want to

review your goals and objectives to see if you decided from the onset to address a particular hazard first (e.g., flooding or earthquakes) if the risk assessment and loss estimate found that these

occurred more frequently and caused major losses. You should also

review and take into account the results of your efforts earlier in

Task C, in which you evaluated the alternative mitigation actions

appropriate to your particular hazards. You now know, given state

and local capabilities, what it would take to implement the alternative actions you ultimately select. Some common ways to rank actions follow. Use Worksheet #5: Prioritized Alternative Mitigation

Actions to complete this step.

Table 2-2: Potential Results of the Evaluation of Alternative Mitigation Actions (continued)

Situation Example

Recommendation

(What would you do?)

This type of action is optimally initiated using predisaster funds, with the understanding that

complete implementation may not occur until

after a disaster. Homeowners may be opposed to

moving or may want to prevent a patchwork of

open lands and existing homes, but may be more

willing to sell if their home is substantially

damaged by a hazard event or if several people

on the block are willing to sell. Often, the largest

amount of funds a community, tribe, or state may

receive for mitigation is after a disaster.

The committee should still put the acquisition

forward as a priority item for mitigation, with the

understanding that they may not be able to

complete the action until after a disaster.
2-26 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

During this final step, the following considerations should be kept

in mind when prioritizing your mitigation actions:

 Ease of implementation. To initiate and/or maintain interest

in the planning process, particularly if support is tentative,

you may want to select those actions that are easily implemented first. Initiatives such as media attention to hazards

and risks cost little and reach a large number of citizens.

 Multi-objective actions. Some mitigation actions may work

toward achieving multiple community goals. For example, an

acquisition and demolition project can lead to new open

space that provides additional natural storage for floodwaters.

This solves the problem of repetitively flooded structures,

which are now removed, and provides opportunities for recreational use such as hiking/biking paths.

 Time. To demonstrate more immediate progress, you may

choose to initiate mitigation actions that are quickly accomplished over those that would take a long time to obtain the

necessary approvals or funding to carry out the project. For

example, if you decide to implement both riverine and coastal

flooding mitigation actions, you may decide to address the

riverine flooding first in areas where homeowners and businesses have already expressed an interest in reducing flood

damage. After initiating riverine mitigation actions, you may

then focus on mitigating coastal flooding in areas where the

property owners are perhaps not as aware of the potential benefits of hazard mitigation, and therefore getting their cooperation may take time.

 Post-disaster mitigation. A number of potential mitigation

actions being evaluated by the planning team may not be able

to be implemented in the near term due to funding availability or political and social considerations. In a post-disaster scenario, however, the extent of damages, political will, and

access to state and federal mitigation funds can dramatically

alter the feasibility of implementation. The acquisition/demolition of flood-prone structures and relocation of residents

outside of the floodplain is a prime example. In many cases,

this mitigation action becomes more feasible after a disaster.

Consider targeting specific mitigation actions for implementation following a major disaster.

A common way to rank actions is to have the planning team vote

on the actions; this approach is termed “multi-voting.” All of the

You may want to refer to your composite vulnerability

map completed during

your risk assessment to review the areas that are highly vulnerable to multiple hazards. One option is

to move to the top of the list those actions that address these problem areas.
Version 1.0 April 2003 2-27

identify and prioritize mitigation actions 2

mitigation actions under consideration must be listed so that the

entire planning team can see them. Each team member is then

given half the total number of potential actions to use as individual

votes. See the following table as an example. Assume the planning

team consists of nine people; because there are four actions, each

member is given two votes to apply to the mitigation actions he or

she feels are most important, resulting in a total of 18 votes. The

action that receives the most votes is the highest priority; the item

with the second most votes is the second priority, etc.

Numerical ranking is another way to prioritize mitigation actions.

Again, all of the mitigation actions are listed and the planning

team reviews the entire list. After careful evaluation, the members

assign a numerical ranking to each action. You then add the ranks

given to the action and the one with the lowest number is the highest priority. If there are a large number of actions and many people

voting, you can average the rankings instead of counting each one.

See the following table as an example of averaging the rankings.

Assume that the planning team consists of four people and each

person ranks all four actions from 1-4. The rankings for each action are added and then divided by the number of votes.

For example, in the following table, acquire flood-prone structures

received three “1” votes and one “2” vote. These add up to five,

which is then divided by four to equal 1.25. Since it is closest to the

“1” rank, it becomes the first priority.

Multi-Voting Ranking

Mitigation Action

Number of

Votes

Priority

Elevate structures. 3 3

Build a berm around park. 2 4

Acquire flood-prone structures. 8 1

Establish public education and outreach projects. 5 2

TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES 18
2-28 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

Los Alamos County, New Mexico, experienced a

major wildfire in 2000, which led to the burning of approximately 48,000 acres. When developing its hazard mitigation plan, the

county identified a number of objectives, including reducing direct

exposure of individual structures to wildfires. For this objective, the

planning team examined several wildfire alternative mitigation actions and

narrowed them down to two main alternatives. Several hundred houses were

located in the high fire-hazard area. Due to the architectural style of the area,

many houses had wood shake shingles as roofing material. The alternative considered was to replace all the wood roofs with fire-retardant shingles. The second alternative was to create defensible space around the houses by strategically

managing vegetation to decrease the fuel available for fires adjacent to the structures. The planning committee weighed the cost, the necessary time frame, and

the longer-term effects of both alternatives. The cost of the roof replacements

was an order of magnitude higher than the vegetation management action, would

take longer to implement, and still result in fuel close to the houses. The defensible space action was relatively inexpensive, could be accomplished quickly,

and would be effective as long as the vegetation was managed. The defensible

space action was determined to be the best solution for the county.

Numerical Ranking

Mitigation Action Rank Given

to the

Measure

Sum of

the

Rankings

Average

of

Rankings

Priority

Elevate structures. 1,3,4,3 11 2.75 3

Build a berm around park. 4,3,4,4 15 3.75 4

Acquire flood-prone

structures. 1,1,2,1 5 1.25 1

Establish public education

and outreach projects. 2,3,2,2 9 2.25 2
Version 1.0 April 2003 2-29

identify and prioritize mitigation actions 2

Worksheet #5 Prioritized Alternative Mitigation Actions step 

List the Alternative Mitigation Actions, in order of priority. Identify the goal(s) and corresponding objective(s)

each action addresses, and note the sources of information for easy reference and any comments or issues to keep

in mind when implementing the action. Note that the prioritized actions in this example cover more than one

goal.

Alternative Actions

(In Order of Priority)

Goal(s) and Objective(s)

(From Worksheet #1)

Source(s) of

Information

(From Worksheet #1)

Comments

(From Worksheets #1 and #4)

1. Acquire flood-prone

structures

Goal: Minimize losses to

existing and future structures

within hazard areas. Objective: Reduce damages to

the manufactured home park in

the floodplain.

State Hazard Mitigation

Officer

Effective for units with deepest potential

flooding (4 feet). Some floodplain

residents are just unwilling to sell. A

number of elderly renters may be

disproportionately affected because there

are few affordable rental units in the

community. Will need to seek outside

funding.

2. Establish public

education and

outreach projects

Goal: Prevent destruction of

forests and structures in the

Urban Wildland Interface.

Objective: Protect structures

in the Urban Wildland

Interface.

State of Emergency

Dept. of Forestry

Educate homeowners on benefits of

creating defensible space. Many

defensible space tips are generally lowcost and easy to implement, and many

homeowners have expressed a willingness

to implement them. Benefits will not

necessarily be widespread because it

depends on homeowner's initiative to

implement.

3. Elevate structures Goal: Minimize losses to

existing and future structures

within hazard areas. Objective: Reduce damages to

the manufactured home park in

the floodplain.

Hazardville Dept. of

Public Works

Suitable for structures in good condition. Cost of elevation may outweigh the

expected losses to the home. Elevated

structures can be more vulnerable to

earthquakes, unless more bracing is used.

Don't know what effect the action will

have on older, less sturdy structures.

Would need to determine structural

integrity of older homes. Further study

may be necessary.

4. Build a berm

around park

Goal: Minimize losses to

existing and future structures

within hazard areas.

Objective: Reduce damages to

the manufactured home park in

the floodplain.

Hazardville Dept. of

Public Works

This option would only work in areas

where flooding is less than 2 feet deep, according to our risk assessment. Best

used for units that have not been

purchased or elevated.
2-30 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

Summary

Once you have finished with this step, you will have a list of socially

acceptable, prioritized actions that address the problems identified

in your community or state. They will be technically and administratively feasible, politically acceptable, legal, economically sound,

and not harmful to the environment. You will have consulted a variety of sources, and obtained input from the public, community

planners, subject matter experts from appropriate government

agencies, and relevant business and trade associations. The

worksheets that the planning team used to develop and rank the

actions can serve as documentation when you write up your mitigation strategy in Step 3, and in the final step, when you document

the mitigation planning process.
Version 1.0 April 2003 2-31

identify and prioritize mitigation actions 2

The Hazardville Post

Vol. CXII No. 297 Thursday, October 24, 2002

THORR Identifies Mitigation Actions

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

[Hazardville, EM] The Town of

Hazardville Organization for Risk

Reduction (THORR) has identified

several mitigation actions to get

Hazardville on the road to being

disaster resistant. The mitigation

actions were developed by five different workgroups consisting of a

diverse group of citizens from all

sections of town. Each workgroup

was given one of the goals developed

on February 4, 2002, and the accompanying objectives to help them develop mitigation strategies. The

workgroups then researched each

problem over the course of one

month and developed a list of alternatives to solve the problem. In order to come up with viable

alternative mitigation actions, each

group gathered to discuss the goals

and associated objectives, brainstorming to create a list of all possible mitigation actions to address

the problems. Each idea was thoroughly discussed and debated

within the group.

In the end, all of the alternative

mitigation actions were evaluated

based on the following criteria,

known as STAPLEE:

1. Social: Is the action socially acceptable (is it compatible with

present and future community

values)?

2. Technical: Is the measure technically feasible?

3. Administrative: Does the community have the capability to

implement and maintain the action?

4. Political: Is there public support

both to implement and maintain

the action?

5. Legal: Does the community have

the authority to implement the

proposed action?

6. Economic: Is the action cost-effective?

7. Environmental: Does this action

affect the environment (land/

water/endangered species)?

Based on concerns expressed by

community members and a vote

taken by THORR, it was decided

that projects that would help solve

the biggest and most recurring

problems in the town should be addressed first. For example, since

Hazardville is most likely to be affected by flooding, the first objective

identified was to reduce damages to

the manufactured home park in the

floodplain. The town has now made

it a priority to buy houses that repetitively flood and to demolish

them, leaving the land as open

space. Mayor McDonald has proposed turning this open space into

a greenway that the entire community can use, and would include a

bike path and jogging trail running

along the Raging River.

Some of the other actions discussed are, by order of priority:

 Establish a wildfire public education and outreach project;

 Elevate structures in the manufactured home park that are not

purchased;

 Construct a berm around the

manufactured home park to protect units subject to shallowest

flooding;

 Reinforce the boardwalk to withstand storm surge damage;

 Eliminate potential fuels for

wildfires;

 Retrofit older masonry buildings

to withstand earthquakes; and

 Build retaining walls to limit

landslides.

These actions are still important,

but they have a lower priority than

the floodplain property buyouts.
step
Version 1.0 April 2003 3-1

3

prepare an

implementation

Overview strategy

I

n this step, the planning team will prepare a strategy for implementing the mitigation actions decided upon in Step 2. The

implementation strategy identifies who is responsible for which

actions, what funding mechanisms (e.g., grant funds, capital budget, or in-kind donations) and other resources are available or will

be pursued, and when the actions are to be completed. It describes

the way the community will use its resources to achieve its goals of

reducing losses from future hazard events. It also focuses on coordination between the various individuals and agencies involved in

the implementation to avoid duplicating or conflicting efforts.

Bringing the Plan to Life: Implementing the Hazard Mitigation Plan

(FEMA 386-4) provides more information on implementing the

hazard mitigation strategy.

Procedures & Techniques

Task A. Identify how the mitigation actions will be

implemented.

In this task, the planning team will identify the responsible party or

parties, funding resources, and a time frame for implementing the

actions selected in Step 2. Table 3-1: Preparing an Implementation

Strategy, on the following page, summarizes the subtasks involved

and the process for obtaining the end results to include in the

implementation strategy. The planning team should apply this process to all of the selected actions.

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

The capability assessment will be very helpful in completing this

subtask. The planning team should review the list of agencies and

organizations identified in the assessment and how they function

so that the team can match the appropriate department or agency

with the actions called for in the implementation strategy. For example, if your community decided that enacting a more stringent

floodplain ordinance is a top priority, and you know that the

Now that projects

have been identified, this is a good time to

examine partnerships and

search for organizations

that could contribute or support the

implementation process. (See Getting

Started, FEMA 386-1, for information

on building partnerships.)

Funding Your

Actions

 Some actions, such as developing policies or initiating

public information activities, will require

little or no new funds to implement, as

these may be integrated into the dayto-day operations of appropriate agencies. Other actions, such as building

houses for low-income residents

through Habitat for Humanity, may rely

on donated time or materials from local

individuals, organizations, or businesses. Many of the actions, such as

structural retrofits of critical facilities,

may involve identifying new sources of

funding or programming the expenses

into the next capital improvement budget. The planning team may designate

one member or create a subcommittee

to be responsible for identifying sources

of financial and technical assistance.
3-2 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

Environmental Protection Department is listed as administering

this ordinance, then you would list this department as the lead

agency.

It is also important to review the capability assessment findings to

better understand the administrative process necessary to see an

action through to completion. For example, after the Environmental Protection Department prepares an amendment to the floodplain ordinance to make it more effective, the city council would

be requested to review and adopt the regulations, triggering a public hearing and possibly a public comment period before the council can vote on the amendment. Knowing the process will assist the

planning team in developing a more realistic time frame to accomplish the action.

This is a good time for team members to contact or meet with the

community manager and lead and support agency heads who will

play a role in implementing the actions. This will provide an opportunity to confirm their commitment and cooperation. This is also a

good time for these partners to provide input on the steps necessary to carry out the actions, allowing the planning team to fineTable 3-1: Preparing an Implementation Strategy

Task A 1 Task A 2 Task A 3

Identify parties and

define responsibilities

Confirm partners

(technical or financial)

Identify resources

(local, state, and

federal governments;

foundations; business

partners; non-profits)

to implement the

action

List materials needed

(equipment, supplies,

and vehicles)

Define the time frame

for implementing the

actions

Process Process Process Process Process

Define the roles of the

lead and support

agencies and/or

organizations (work

with the community

manager and agency

heads to determine

lead and support

agencies)

Contact technical and

financial partners

necessary for

implementation

Prepare a budget and

consult various

resources to identify

funding and technical

assistance

Develop a list of all

materials necessary

for implementation

Discuss the time

frame for carrying out

each action

Result Result Result Result Result

Identification of lead

and support agencies

and organizations, and

a listing of their roles

and responsibilities

Confirmed

commitments from

agencies and

organizations that will

perform specific tasks

Development of a

budget, broken out by

task, to implement the

action and a listing of

funding and technical

assistance sources

A listing of necessary

materials that are

available and those

that must be

purchased to

implement the action

An agreed upon time

frame for carrying out

the actions

Adapted from Integrated Hazard Assessment for the Island of Puerto Rico, Final Report, 2002
Version 1.0 April 2003 3-3

prepare an implementation strategy 3

tune the proposed schedules. Department or agency heads should

make sure the person(s) responsible for each task under each action has the time and ability to follow through; otherwise, implementation may be delayed.

2. Identify resources to implement the actions.

Resources include funding, technical assistance, and materials. The

team should prepare a preliminary cost estimate or budget, broken

out by task, for each of the actions. Knowing the cost will help the

planning team target a variety of sources to fund the action. The

planning team should also prepare a list of materials (equipment,

vehicles, and supplies) that would be required to effectively implement the action. Oftentimes, these items are overlooked. When

preparing the list, note which items you have and which you would

need to purchase and include these costs in the budget. Additionally, long-term maintenance may be required for projects such as

acquisitions. Be certain to factor the necessary maintenance funding into cost estimates and assign responsibility for the maintenance to the proper party. The team will probably need to seek

help in preparing these budgets. To back up these estimates, the

team should work with the agency or organization that will be responsible for the action.

The planning team should look at the state and local capability

assessments to identify resources to implement the identified mitigation actions. The team should examine resources from all levels

of government, private sector organizations, and universities to explore all possible sources of assistance. More information on resources is presented in Securing Resources for Mitigation Planning

(FEMA 386-9).

a. Local and state governments are granted the authority under

their police power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of

citizens. This includes enacting and enforcing building codes

and zoning ordinances, and developing public education programs to alert residents to risks and how they can reduce hazard losses. If the local government is the party responsible for

enacting one or more of the mitigation actions, it will need to

earmark resources for implementing these actions. A primary

funding source for state and local emergency management

activities is the Emergency Management Performance Grant.

This annual grant is provided by FEMA.

b. Sources of local revenue often used to fund emergency management activities include general taxes, property taxes, exac-
3-4 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

tions, connection fees, impact fees (usually paid by private

developers), and special assessment districts. An example of a

special fee is a stormwater management fee used to maintain

streams, culverts, and other flood control systems. In some

cases, local governments use the proceeds to acquire structures in the floodplain.

The planning team should take appropriate action to ensure

that funding for mitigation projects is incorporated into state

or local budgets. These include:

 Capital improvement budgets can incorporate mitigation costs

into capital improvement project budgets (e.g., including

costs to retrofit a municipal building to current seismic or

high wind standards). A key goal of the mitigation planning

process is for mitigation to be considered in all capital improvement projects vulnerable to hazards or located within

hazard areas.

 Operating budgets of specific departments such as public

works, planning, building, or environment can include costs

for consultants, supplies, and salaries to complete mitigation

actions.

 Special funds can be established to deal with post-disaster

funding needs. Many states have initiated “rainy day funds” to

help provide the local match required for most federal grant

programs.

 Staff time can be very cost-beneficial to use in hazard mitigation projects. Most planning, policy, and regulatory actions

require only staff time and political commitment. Staff time

can be used as an in-kind match to most federal grants. In a

post-disaster setting, employees can coordinate projects and

volunteers, assist in the clean-up effort, or help with other activities that can reduce losses and business interruption. It is

critical to obtain city or county manager support for mitigation early on in order to have departments commit to

significant staff time.

Year-end money may become available toward the end of the municipal, state, or federal fiscal year. To capitalize on this situation,

the planning team should:

 Make priority projects known to the appropriate local, state,

or federal agencies. Regional or district offices of federal
Version 1.0 April 2003 3-5

prepare an implementation strategy 3

agencies are usually responsible for maintaining an understanding of local needs. If state and federal representatives

have been included in the planning process all along, your

jurisdiction may be well positioned to hear about these opportunities and successfully apply for funding.

 Assign a team member to track information on new federal,

state, and regional grant programs.

 Examine how a project could be broken into parts or phases

that could be quickly completed when funding becomes available.

In addition to funding, the planning team should keep in mind

that states have experts available to assist local jurisdictions. Many

of these experts were probably consulted when the team profiled

the hazards during Phase 2 of the planning process. Most states

have one or more of the following staff and/or technical capabilities:

 State Hazard Mitigation Officer

 State Geologist

 State Floodplain Manager

 State Climatologist

 State Forester

 Geographic Information System Specialist

c. The federal government is a good source of many grant programs and technical assistance for mitigation. In addition to

FEMA, which is the lead federal agency in providing pre-and

post disaster mitigation assistance to states, tribes, and communities, several other key departments or agencies are involved in mitigation assistance. These include the U.S.

Department of Agriculture for watershed planning, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and its Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG), and the

Small Business Administration with pre- and post-disaster

loans. Keep in mind, however, that most FEMA funding is distributed by states to the local level. Having an approved mitigation plan in place is required in most cases to receive these

federal funds. The library in Appendix B contains more information on federal resources. Following is a sampling of relevant Web sites:
3-6 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

d.Private sector organizations and businesses have a lot to gain

by engaging in activities to reduce risks in the community.

Businesses and other private interests may be willing to contribute time, labor, materials, space, and other support as part

of their commitment to community improvement.

The planning team should also consider securing private

grant funds that are available for environmental and natural

resource protection, and for sustainable community development and redevelopment. The link between hazard mitigation

and sustainability may not be as clear to some private funding

sources and they may not list mitigation goals in their requests

for proposals. In this case, the planning team may decide to

submit a grant application to fund that portion of the project

that most closely matches the sustainability grant requirements. See Planning for a Sustainable Future (FEMA 364) for

more information on the links between sustainability and mitigation.

e. Academic Institutions can provide valuable resources in the

form of technical expertise and low-cost staff (students), meeting facilities, the latest data related to your state or community, and training resources for planning and related tools

such as HAZUS.

Home- or businessowners carrying

flood insurance automatically have Increased

Cost of Compliance (ICC) coverage.

ICC provides benefits for bringing buildings up to code if they have been substantially damaged. This is important

information to have when costs for retrofitting structures after a flood are estimated.

Benefits of the

Hazard Mitigation

Plan

After November 1, 2004,

only communities, tribes, and states

with a FEMA-approved mitigation plan

will become eligible to receive mitigation funds following a presidentially declared disaster. Having an approved

plan in place will be required in order to

receive HMGP funds. Furthermore, after November 1, 2003, plans will be required in order to receive funding for

“brick and mortar” projects under

FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program.

Relevant Web Sites

Army Corps of Engineers http://www.usace.army.mil/

Department of Agriculture http://www.usda.gov/da/disaster/nda.htm

Dept of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/RID/RID.html

Department of Housing and Urban Development http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/

programs/dri/driquickfacts.cfm

Department of Transportation http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/erelief.html

FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Program http://www.fema.gov/fima/mtap/shtm

FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program http://www.fema.gov/fima/hmgp/

FEMA Individual Assistance Program http://www.fema.gov/rrr/inassist.shtm

FEMA National Dam Safety Program http://www.fema.gov/fima/damsafe

FEMA National Earthquake Program http://www.fema.gov//hazards/earthquakes/

FEMA National Flood Insurance Program http://www.fema.gov/nfip

FEMA National Hurricane Program http://www.fema.gov/hazards/hurricanes/

FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program http://www.fema.gov/fima/pdm.shtm

FEMA Public Assistance Program http://www.fema.gov/rrr/pa

Small Business Administration http://www.sba.gov/disaster
prepare an implementation strategy 3

Version 1.0 April 2003 3-7

Private Sector Funding at Work

Tulsa Child Care Center Retrofit, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

In June 2000, the City of Tulsa, its insurance committee led by State

Farm Insurance, and Sunglow, Inc. conducted a Tulsa area childcare

center retrofit, a non-structural approach to making buildings stronger during

storms and tornadoes. Crosstown Learning Center, located in the Second Presbyterian Church in Tulsa, was retrofitted by covering all windows with impactresistant film to prevent shattering during tornadoes (the labor was supplied by

Sunglow, Inc. and protective film by Madico); two vending machines were anchored to the wall; and plastic sleeves were added to fluorescent light bulbs to

prevent injuries from shattered bulbs. The City of Tulsa also helped the childcare

center obtain a programmable weather radio to warn caregivers of severe storms

approaching Tulsa County and assisted in the designation of the basement as a

safe place during emergencies.

Miami-Dade County Residential Shuttering Program, Miami-Dade County,

Florida

The Miami-Dade County Residential Shuttering Program offers free hurricane

shutters and installation to elderly low-income residents who qualify for the program. Applications are entered into a database maintained by the American Red

Cross Miami and the Keys Chapter, with assistance from Friend, Inc., a coalition

of local religious organizations. Eligible applicants are then placed into a lottery

and chosen randomly. The program’s goal is to shutter approximately 1,300 homes

in eligible areas.

If residents cannot put up the shutters themselves, they can apply for this assistance from Friend, Inc. and the Miami-Dade County Community Emergency Response Team (CERT).

“FireFree! Get In the Zone” Program, Deschutes County, Oregon

In an effort to address wildfire danger in the Bend, Oregon, area, four local agencies and a Fortune 500 corporation joined together in 1997 to create “FireFree!

Get in the Zone,” a public education campaign designed to reduce the risk of

damage by wildfires in Deschutes County and beyond. The campaign aims to

educate the public about wildfire safety and promote behaviors and attitudes that

translate into creating defensible space around homes and businesses. Initiated

by SAFECO Corporation, the partnership originally included the Bend Fire Department, Deschutes County Fire Agencies, City of Bend Development Services,

and The Deschutes National Forest. The Oregon Department of Forestry,

Deschutes County, and a number of local government organizations and private

businesses joined the program shortly thereafter. The campaign uses a combination of mass media advertising, public relations efforts, and educational materials, and engages in cooperative programs with other local organizations.

IBM Global Crisis Response Team Preparedness Assessments for

Businesses, City of Sparks, Nevada

In 2000, on-site preparedness assessments were conducted on more than 40

businesses through a partnership between the City of Sparks, Nevada, and disaster specialists from the IBM Global Crisis Response Team. Business owners

were given a Disaster Readiness Questionnaire to help them take notes for making

improvements, correcting exposures, or implementing recommendations made

during the on-site walk-through portion of the assessment. The evaluations covered mitigation issues, such as non-structural earthquake bracing, storage practices, utility shut-offs, data storage backups, the impact of business interruptions,

and how to obtain and properly use sandbags to protect against flooding. The

on-site business reviews provided practical recommendations on how to protect

businesses from the adverse effects of disasters, such as floods, earthquakes,

and fires, and provided tips on how to minimize downtime after a disaster. Businesses were also given information on the National Flood Insurance Program,

what to do in the event of a disaster, and a suggested list of on-hand supplies to

include in their Corporate Office Survival Kits.
3-8 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

3. Define the time frame for implementing the actions.

The planning team and responsible agencies should develop a specific time frame for implementing each mitigation action that your

community has decided to pursue. Determining the time frame

with staff members from the departments or agencies that are responsible for the mitigation action will greatly enhance the chance

of your mitigation plan succeeding. The time frame should detail

when the action will be started, when interim steps will be completed, and when the action should be fully implemented.

When identifying start dates, keep in mind any special scheduling

needs, such as seasonal climate conditions, funding cycles, agency

work plans, and budgets. Funding cycles will affect when you can

begin implementing an action.

After you have identified the start dates, you may want to review

the priority you initially gave to the actions to ensure that you address the issues in that order, whenever possible. If the order of

priorities has changed, the planning team should make sure to

document the reasons why. Once implementation begins, the planning team should periodically revisit the plan and actions to make

sure they fit the changing needs of your community. These issues

are discussed in more detail in Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA

386-4).

Task B. Document the implementation strategy.

After completing the process summarized in Table 3-1 for each

action, you are now ready to document your results. Determine the

format for presenting your implementation strategy. This, along

with discussions of goals and objectives, and identification and

prioritization of actions, will comprise your overall mitigation

strategy.

There are many ways to present the implementation strategy. A format that the planning team can use is listed in the adjacent sidebar.

If an action is currently being implemented, indicate it as ongoing

under the time frame and indicate an end date, when applicable.

Be sure to indicate long-term maintenance activities as ongoing. If

you choose short-term and long-term time frames, make sure you

define, at the beginning of the implementation strategy, the time

period you consider to be short and long term (e.g., short-term

actions are usually considered to be those that can be accomplished within one year of plan adoption).

For projects or activities with longer

time frames, it would

be advantageous to establish milestones or benchmarks, so that incremental progress can

be monitored and interim successes

documented.

Example

Implementation

Strategy Format

Action: (From your list of

selected actions)

Goal(s) and Objective(s) Addressed:

(Sometimes the action will address

more than one goal and objective)

Lead Agency: (Provide the name and

a brief description of the agency)

Support Agency or Agencies: (Provide the name and a brief description

of each support agency)

Budget: (Provide the dollar amount or

an estimate, if known; put TBD—to be

determined, if not known; and/or indicate staff time if staff will be used)

Funding Source(s): (List the funding

sources—e.g., operating budget, capital improvement budget, XYZ grant,

XYZ foundation, etc.)

Start and End Date: (Indicate start and

end dates; short-term, long-term, or ongoing; and milestones for longer term

projects)
Version 1.0 April 2003 3-9

prepare an implementation strategy 3

Task C. Obtain the consensus of the planning team.

The planning team should review the resulting strategy and come

to a consensus on the timing of the mitigation actions and on the

agencies or other parties responsible. When the team confirms that

the timeline and use of resources are realistic, and the appropriate

agencies or individuals are designated the appropriate responsibilities, it confirms that the strategy is headed in the right direction.

Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and

Reconstruction

Although no community wants to be faced with the daunting task of

disaster recovery, the fact remains that many disasters are followed

by the largest infusion of federal and state development capital that most communities will ever see at one time. Communities that have paid careful attention

to hazard mitigation actions that could be implemented in that “Window of Opportunity” following a disaster, can quickly articulate their needs to state and

federal officials. Time is a compelling factor in determining local recovery decisions and outcomes. By addressing these issues before a disaster strikes, communities can rally around a recovery strategy that considers long-term sustainable

development objectives rather than rebuilding back to pre-disaster conditions.

These communities will have a competitive edge when post-disaster funding

and technical assistance become available.

Communities are encouraged to incorporate a post-disaster recovery component into the overall implementation strategy by addressing a set of priorities and

policies that will help guide the recovery and reconstruction process. At a minimum, communities should consider a set of hazard mitigation actions that may

not be economically or politically feasible in the near term but may become a

realistic opportunity following a disaster event. These “on the shelf” mitigation

actions could be evaluated against the actual disaster damages and, if appropriate, incorporated into a recovery strategy following a disaster event. Some communities, such as Hilton Head, South Carolina, are expanding this concept by

developing a pre-event plan and establishing a recovery organization. This is an

emerging area of disaster management practice that crosses over into city planning, redevelopment, and urban design. The recovery organization builds upon

the existing framework of local government and often includes a Recovery Task

Force with representation from the public and private sectors. The pre-event plan

describes the policies, plans, implementation actions, and designated responsibilities related to a rapid and orderly post-disaster recovery process that would

be activated following a natural disaster. The recovery organization differs from

immediate emergency response functions in that they extend over a much longer

period of time, involve a broader range of local land development powers, and

operate in a parallel fashion to traditional emergency response activities.

Adopting a recovery and reconstruction ordinance may not be an appropriate

course of action for many communities, particularly those located in less hazardprone regions of the nation. However, considering policies that would efficiently

and wisely guide post-disaster reconstruction in the implementation strategy would

be a wise investment of resources for any community developing a hazard mitigation plan. The FEMA booklet Planning for a Sustainable Future (Publication

364) and the FEMA/APA Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction (FEMA 421) provide additional information on this topic. Both publications

can be ordered through the FEMA publications warehouse at 1-800-480-2520.
3-10 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

Before finalizing the strategy, the team should take another look at

all of the mitigation actions to ensure that the projects, taken together, reflect the goals, objectives, and priorities of the community and the team. It would also ensure that the timelines of the

actions show project completions spanning from a short time after

plan adoption through longer time frames. A consensus on the

implementation strategy, followed by the adoption of the plan, has

the essential ingredients of a functional plan that can truly help a

community mitigate its losses from hazards.

Summary

The implementation strategy you completed in this step will serve

as the roadmap for making your state, tribe, or community more

disaster resistant. The strategy clearly lays out who will be responsible for undertaking the identified actions, what funding sources

are available, and the time frame for completing these actions. You

and the planning team now have all the essential elements for your

plan and are ready to complete Step 4: Document the Mitigation

Planning Process.
prepare an implementation strategy 3

Version 1.0 April 2003 3-11

The Hazardville Post

Vol. CXII No. 332 Thursday, November 28, 2002

The Implementation Strategy

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

[Hazardville, EM] Planning Department Director Joe Norris, lead

planner of the Town of Hazardville

Organization for Risk Reduction

(THORR), reported that the implementation strategy for the first

draft of the Hazardville Hazard

Mitigation Plan was complete and

available for public review. Council

Members, Town Department

Heads, and community members

have 30 days to submit their comments to Norris. THORR developed

the implementation strategy with

the help of all of the Town of

Hazardville Department Heads. At

the direction of the Town Manager,

each Department Head has agreed

to allow a portion of staff time to be

used to help secure funding and

eventually monitor the mitigation

actions. Below is an excerpt of the

implementation strategy. A complete copy of the draft plan is available at the Hazardville Library.

The State Office of Planning and

the Office of Emergency Preparedness helped THORR by providing

guidance on coordinating the planning process and providing feedback

on the development of mitigation

strategies. The state also provided

THORR with information on the

types of mitigation projects likely to

receive outside funding and how to

look for existing sources of funding

not typically used for hazard mitigation or emergency management

activities. THORR found that the

Hazardville Housing Acquisition

Fund, normally used to purchase

and demolish substandard housing,

could be used for purchasing floodprone houses. The relationship was

beneficial to both parties—THORR

received invaluable feedback and

assistance, and the state helped one

of its local communities protect itself from hazards.

When asked about the next step

for Hazardville, Norris replied,

“Now that the draft implementation strategy is complete, we have

identified where our biggest losses

would be and have agreed on what

we should do about them. It is time

to roll up our sleeves, get to work,

and put our money where our

mouth is. We still have a very important document to write, which

will show how we developed this

plan and the process we went

through to help protect Hazardville

from future hazards.”

THORR completed the

Hazardville Risk Assessment last

November and has applied for

grants to undertake its most important mitigation project, the purchase and demolition of houses in

the floodplain. “Mitigation is the

only hope for Hazardville to remain

a viable, sustainable community

long into the future. I am dedicated

to ensuring that Hazardville and its

citizens are safe from the effects of

future hazards,” vowed Mayor

McDonald.

Action: Acquire and demolish five houses identified as repetitive loss structures located in the floodplain.

Goal(s) and Objective(s) Addressed:

Goal 1: Minimize losses to existing and future structures within hazard areas.

Objective 1.1: Reduce damages to the manufactured home park in the floodplain.

Lead Agency: Department of Planning: Responsible for land-use planning, permitting, and economic

development.

Support Agency: Department of Housing: Responsible for increasing and improving the housing stock,

managing the Section 8 Program, and demolishing dilapidated or unsafe residential structures.

Budget: $30,000 per house

Funding Source(s): Hazardville Housing Acquisition Fund (yearly appropriation and grants)

Start and End Date: July 2003 – August 2006
step
Version 1.0 April 2003 4-1

4

document

the

mitigation

planning

process

Overview

One of the most important reasons for having a hazard mitigation plan is to help the community make decisions that will

reduce its vulnerability to hazards. Activities that local governments

do every day, such as issuing building permits, approving development plans, and repairing roads and bridges, should reflect the

community’s mitigation vision and goals, whether it’s using the

most up to date building code, restricting growth in hazard-prone

areas, or making infrastructure decisions based on the latest risk

assessment findings. The hazard mitigation plan is a guide to keep

you on track and serves as documentation of the thoughts and considerations that were the foundation of the planning process. As

community leadership changes, and during intense decision-making situations (such as the post-disaster setting and when undertaking major land development decisions), the plan will serve as the

representation of the community’s principles for hazard loss reduction.

When it is time to put pen to paper, communities and states just

initiating or beginning to upgrade existing mitigation plans will

not necessarily have the ability to complete all the details of the

planning process because of a lack of resources. In these cases, consideration and approval of the plans may be based on the level of

documentation provided by the jurisdictions. For example, a community may not be able to complete a risk assessment for all parts

of the community, but it may have dealt with the most populated

areas first. Documenting in the plan the decision made to undertake this approach is just as important as providing a proposed

schedule for completing the risk assessment.

Writing the mitigation plan document should have already begun

in the previous steps of the planning process. Now it is time to finalize the plan.
4-2 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

Procedures & Techniques

Task A. Make decisions about the style of the document.

1. Decide how to make the document readable.

a. Length. Sometimes the length of the document can be intimidating to readers. There is no “one size fits all” for state or

local mitigation plans. Generally, the plan should be long

enough to address all of the required elements in the DMA

2000 regulations; however, it should still be functional and

easy to read.

b. Format/Sections. There is no required plan format under

DMA 2000 regulations. However, the information required in

the regulations lends itself to organizing the plan in the following manner: planning process, risk assessment, mitigation

strategy, and plan maintenance. Detailed technical information should be contained in appendices, along with detailed

maps or financial information.

c. Language level. The language of the plan should not be overly

technical or complex, nor overly simplified.

2. Determine how detailed the planning document should be.

Determine how much information should be included in the planning document, and if there is any information that should be

included in an appendix. For example, should the entire risk assessment be included in the main text of the mitigation plan, or

should it be referenced as an attachment or appendix? A detailed

risk assessment is usually put in an appendix to ensure that the

mitigation plan is easy to follow and review; a description of the

approach and summary findings, however, should be included in

the text.

3. Establish the schedule for writing the plan.

A schedule for completing your planning process was set earlier in

the process. Your schedule should allow time for drafting and reviewing the plan. The planning team, affected or interested agencies, the public, the state, and FEMA regional staff should review

the plan before it goes to your local governing body for approval. If

you have not done so already, assemble a list of agencies to receive

the draft plan. You should also schedule a public forum to give the

public a chance to comment on the plan.

Review existing

mitigation plans,

such as those from other

communities or from your

state, for ideas on how to

structure your plan.

The state may wish

to suggest a common

format and style for all of its

community plans.

For multi-jurisdictional plans, DMA

2000 criteria require that

hazard and vulnerability

data and projects unique to

each jurisdiction be included in the plan

[44CFR §201.6(c)(3)]. Refer to Multi-Jurisdictional Approaches to Mitigation

Planning (FEMA 386-8) for more information on multi-jurisdictional plans.
Version 1.0 April 2003 4-3

document the mitigation planning process 4

Keep in mind that DMA 2000 requires state plans to be updated

every three years and local plans every five years.

4. Determine who should write the plan.

You probably identified someone early in the planning process to

write the plan. This person is not necessarily the same person who

recorded the meetings. The person selected, however, should be

someone who has been involved from the beginning. Possibilities

include someone on the planning team, a consultant, intern, or

agency staff. Keep in mind that this person has to have good writing and editing skills. If more than one person writes different sections, it is recommended that one person be responsible for final

editing.

Task B. Write the plan.

1. Assemble information and write-ups from previous phases of the process.

This includes:

 Meeting notes that document the planning process;

 Risk assessment and capability assessment findings and results;

 Your mitigation strategy; and

 Other existing plans, models, and state and program requirements to provide an organizational framework.

2. Write the plan in conformance with FEMA program requirements.

By using this how-to series, you are undertaking a planning process

that conforms to several FEMA mitigation programs. FEMA’s DMA

2000 requirements are written to fulfill the mitigation planning

elements of all FEMA programs; however, refer to program guidance for the specific program to which you are applying, as reflected in Table 1: Hazard Mitigation Planning Process – Local

Planning Requirements by Program (found in the Introduction

section), for suggestions on how to organize your plan.

To meet DMA 2000 requirements, the plan should include:

a. Description of the planning process [44CFR §201.6(c)(1)].

This section outlines the process you used to create the plan,

as well as a definition of the planning area. Identify who was

involved in the process, how they were involved, and the

methods of public participation that were employed, as well as

a detailed description of the decision-making and

prioritization processes.

The hazard mitigation plan should be:

Complete. Does it list all of

the action steps to be implemented in all relevant parts of the

community? Does it document all the

activities of the state, tribe, or community?

Clear. Is it apparent who will do what

by when? Are there easily identifiable inter-relationships between the

loss estimation, problem statements,

goals and objectives, the capability

assessment, and the list of actions?

Current. Does the plan reflect the current work that is being accomplished? Does it anticipate newly

emerging opportunities or challenges such as pending state legislation?

The DMA 2000 State

and Local Plan Interim Criteria (G-318)

guidance document explains what a mitigation plan

should include to meet DMA 2000 requirements. The CD ROM can be ordered through the FEMA publications

warehouse at 1-800-480-2520.
4-4 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

b. Risk assessment [44CFR §201.6(c)(2)]. Include your analysis

of the hazards and risks facing your community, tribe, or state,

including a discussion of your community’s hazards and hazard history. Summarize the key elements of the risk assessment

in the plan. You can use the hazard profile, maps, and loss

estimation summary chart, or you can refer to your risk assessment included as an appendix (See Understanding Your Risks,

FEMA 386-2, for more details.)

c. Mitigation strategy [44CFR §201.6(c)(3)]. Describe how the

community and/or state intends to reduce losses identified in

the risk assessment, including:

 Goals and objectives to guide the selection of activities to

mitigate and reduce potential losses;

 A discussion of pre- and post-disaster hazard management

policies and programs to mitigate hazards, including a

capability assessment;

 Identification of mitigation actions that were considered

in both pre- and post- disaster environments;

 A prioritized list of cost-effective, environmentally sound,

and technically feasible mitigation actions; and

 Current and potential sources of federal, state, tribal,

local, or private funding and other resources to implement the mitigation actions.

d.A plan maintenance process section [44CFR §201.6(c)(4)].

This section describes how you plan to:

 Monitor, evaluate, and update the mitigation plan;

 Incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into

other planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive or

capital improvement plans; and

 Review progress on achieving goals and activities identified in the mitigation strategy.

Although maps are

not required as part of

the hazard profiles, it is a

good idea to include them

in the plan. Graphics help

the reader visualize the geographic relationships between the loss estimation

and the mitigation activity chosen. Note

that the Community Rating System requires a floodplain map to obtain credits under this program.

See Bringing the

Plan to Life (FEMA

386-4) for more information

on how to adopt the plan

and monitor its progress.

FEMA is currently

developing a guide

on how to use HAZUS to

meet DMA 2000 risk assessment requirements.

This guide will be based in part on the

results of pilot risk assessments being

completed in Warren County, Kentucky;

Marion County, Indiana; Austin, Texas;

the state of Wyoming; Scottsdale, Arizona; and Portland, Oregon.
Version 1.0 April 2003 4-5

document the mitigation planning process 4

Task C. Review the plan.

1. Planning Team Review.

The planning team should have an opportunity to review the plan

and provide comments.

2. Agency Review.

Agencies involved in plan implementation should receive a draft

copy for review.

3. Public Review.

Whether a public forum to review the plan is held following the

receipt of agency comments, or concurrently as agencies review the

draft, the public should have an opportunity to review the draft

plan before it is presented for formal adoption. Provide a draft

copy to your State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) for review

prior to formal local adoption to see if the plan meets state and

federal requirements. FEMA mitigation staff should review the

document prior to formal local adoption to ensure that the governing body is acting on a document that meets federal requirements.

Now that you are organized and have all the appropriate

information, you can begin writing the plan. Here are a few things to

keep in mind:

Technical jargon should be avoided whenever possible. The plan

should clearly and effectively communicate risks and hazards to

all community members, including laypersons.

Include definitions of all technical terms. People writing the plan are probably

familiar with such terms as retrofitting, flood-proofing, and special use overlay

district, but most people are not. Make sure a definition is included, either in

the text or a glossary.

Avoid the use of acronyms. While HMGP and NFIP make sense to mitigation

planners, most people do not know what they mean. Sometimes, the use of

acronyms is unavoidable, but make sure the term is explained the first time it

is used in the document. Acronyms can also be included in a glossary.

Technical or lengthy analyses should be included as appendices. Such information is good to include as background or as justification for certain parts of

the plan, but it should not be included in the text portion of the document.

Give the plan to someone

who has not been involved

in the planning process to

review. If it is clear to that reviewer, you are well on your

way to having an understandable draft.

Under the Community Rating System,

a public meeting must be

held at least two weeks before the plan is voted on by

the governing board, and the meeting

must be properly publicized.
4-6 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

4. Final Draft.

After comments have been received, revise the plan and prepare a

final draft. Once comments from all relevant parties have been incorporated, you are ready for the next step: Presenting the plan to

your local government body for adoption. This step is covered in a

subsequent guide, Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4).

Summary

The mitigation plan document is the culmination of everything

you have gathered and produced up to this point, but it is also your

key to implementing the policies and projects that have been identified. It is a record of the process you used to develop your goals,

objectives, and mitigation actions. The plan is a tool to be used to

help identify and obtain funding, and your community, tribe, or

state will use it to measure progress, including the success of

adopted mitigation actions. The plan guides your entire decisionmaking process by assigning priorities to the mitigation actions.

Communities

should check with

their State Hazard

Mitigation Officer

(SHMO) to determine the

state’s requirements for reviewing the

plan. The SHMO must review the draft

plan to get feedback on how well the

plan addresses program requirements.

The plan should meet all DMA 2000 requirements before it is presented to the

local governing body for adoption. If the

governing board has to approve multiple versions of the plan, it will probably lose some of its credibility.

States should check

with their FEMA Regional Office to determine the procedures

established for reviewing

draft plans.
Version 1.0 April 2003 4-7

document the mitigation planning process 4

The Hazardville Post

Vol. CXIII No. 16 Thursday, January 16, 2003

The Hazardville Mitigation Plan

(Part 4 of a 4-Part Series on the Mitigation Strategy Process)

[Hazardville, EM] The members

of the Town Council were presented

with a draft copy of the Hazardville

Hazard Mitigation Plan at last

night’s public meeting. According to

Planning Department Director Joe

Norris, lead planner of the Town of

Hazardville Organization for Risk

Reduction (THORR), the feedback

received from the Town Department Heads and community members was very helpful, and he

confirmed that all of the comments

would be taken into consideration

in the final draft version of the plan.

“Overall,” Norris stated, “the comments we’ve received have been

positive and supportive, indicating

our plan is in line with the

community’s needs and interests.

We plan to incorporate the citizen

feedback we received last night to

ensure that we haven’t missed the

boat on any issue that is important

to our community.”

Norris said, “The mitigation plan

was written by a graduate student

intern from the Emergency State

University’s Planning Department,

with oversight and assistance from

all of the THORR members.” In

order to document the planning process, the student attended THORR

meetings and took notes on the process, discussions, and decisions of

the group. Norris pointed out to the

Town Council that the plan itself is

very straightforward, with many of

the details presented in separate appendices. “We wanted this plan to

be easy to read and to understand

so we organized it clearly and included an annotated outline in the

introduction.” Norris added that

THORR would submit a draft plan

to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer and the FEMA Regional Office

for review to ensure all requirements have been properly addressed under the Disaster

Mitigation Act of 2000, prior to submitting the final plan for approval.

According to Norris, the final plan

and overall strategy will be presented to the Town Council for approval on February 13, 2003, and

will then be forwarded to the State

for final review. The State will review the final plan and send it to

the FEMA Regional Office for approval.
afterword
Version 1.0 April 2003 afterword

afterword

You have a mitigation plan. Now what?

A common failure of some mitigation plans is that they are

never implemented. Therefore, in the next phase of the mitigation planning process you will learn how to present the mitigation plan to your governing authority for adoption, formally

authorizing the responsible bodies to implement the plan. DMA

2000 requires adoption of the plan by the local government to be

eligible for consideration of approval by FEMA. Additionally, multijurisdictional plans must be adopted by all of the communities included in the plan in order for each jurisdiction to be eligible.

Refer to Multi-Jurisdictional Approaches to Mitigation Planning (FEMA

386-8) for more information. If you followed the suggestions in this

guide and kept everyone informed of your progress, and you solicited public input and addressed all of your important hazard related goals, your community should be well positioned for the final

phase of the planning process—Implement the Plan and Monitor

Progress.

As detailed in the Foreword,

the hazard mitigation planning process

consists of four basic phases.

The next how-to in the series, Bringing

the Plan to Life, will assist you in maintaining an up-to-date, relevant plan.
appendices
Version 1.0 April 2003 a-1

appendix a

glossary

Acquisition of hazard-prone

structures

Base Flood Elevation (BFE)

Benefit-cost analysis (BCA)

Best Management Practices

(BMPs)

Bond

Building

Building codes

Capability assessment

Channel maintenance

Coastal zone

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.

Benefit-cost analysis is 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.

Appropriate, site-specific management techniques that maximize the

benefits of land and natural resource management actions, while minimizing impacts.

A debt obligation issued by states, cities, counties, and other governmental

entities to raise money to pay for public projects, such as government

facilities and infrastructure.

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.

Regulations that set forth standards and requirements for the construction,

maintenance, operation, occupancy, use, or appearance of buildings,

premises, and dwelling units. Building codes can include standards for

structures to withstand natural hazards.

An assessment that provides an inventory 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.

Ensuring that flood channels, storm sewers, retaining ponds, etc. do not

become blocked by debris, sedimentation, overgrowth, or structural failure.

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.
a-2 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

Regulations enacted to control growth and protect natural resources along

coastlines. Under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

enacted in 1972, states and local governments adopt coastal zone management regulations designed to preserve, protect, and, where possible, restore

or enhance valuable natural coastal resources such as wetlands, floodplains,

estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral reefs, as well as the

wildlife dependent on those habitats.

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 the policyholders in those communities are reduced.

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.

Protective structures, such as berms and retaining walls, created by grading

or filling areas with soil meant to keep flood waters from reaching

buildings.

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.

Dams are artificial barriers which impound water, wastewater, or any liquidborne material for the purpose of storage or control of water. For a more

detailed definition, see the National Dam Safety Program Act (as amended

through P.L. 106-580, December 29, 2000).

The scattered remains of assets broken or destroyed in a hazard event.

Debris caused by a wind or water hazard event can cause additional damage

to other assets.

Regulations that manage growth by limiting the density of development,

often expressed in terms of the number of dwelling units per acre. Density

controls allow the community to plan in an orderly way for infrastructure.

Guidelines enacted by local governments requiring new development to

meet certain appearance and aesthetic standards and establishing a process

by which local officials can examine site plans or structure blueprints to

assess compliance with those standards. Design review standards can help

ensure new development blends with existing buildings and the landscape

or meet other priorities, including hazard loss reduction.

A set of guidelines pertaining to the appearance and aesthetics of buildings

or improvements that governs construction, alteration, demolition, or

relocation of a building or improvement of land.

Coastal zone management

regulations

Community Rating System (CRS)

Comprehensive plan

Construction of barriers

around structures

Critical facilities

Dams

Debris

Density controls

Design review standards

Design standards
appendix a – glossary

Version 1.0 April 2003 a-3

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000

(DMA 2000)

Dune and beach restoration

Earthquake

Easements

Elevation of structures

Emergency response services

Eminent domain

Environmental review standards

Erosion

Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA)

Fire-proofing

Flood Mitigation Assistance

(FMA) Program

Floodplain development

regulations

DMA 2000 (Public Law 106-390) is the latest legislation to improve the

planning process. It was signed into law on October 30, 2000. This new

legislation reinforces the importance of mitigation planning and emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur.

Actions taken to re-establish dunes and beaches that serve as natural

protection against coastal flooding and storm surge. Dune and beach

restoration activities consist of replenishing sand, re-planting protective

vegetation, controlling or restricting foot and vehicles traffic, and constructing sand traps or wind barriers.

A sudden motion or trembling that is caused by a release of strain accumulated within or along the edge of earth's tectonic plates.

Grant a right to use property, or restrict the landowner's right to use the

property in a certain way.

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.

The right of a government to appropriate private property for public use,

with adequate compensation to the owner.

Guidelines established to ensure new development adheres to certain

construction and site design standards to minimize the impact on the

environment.

Wearing away of the land surface by detachment and movement of soil and

rock fragments during a flood or storm over a period of years, through the

action of wind, water, or other geologic processes.

Independent 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.

Actions taken on and around buildings to prevent the spread of fires.

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.

Regulations requiring flood insurance and mandating certain design

aspects of new or substantially improved structures that lie within regulated

flood-prone areas. Current federal regulations through the National Flood

Insurance Program require that, at a minimum, new residential buildings in

the Special Flood Hazard Area have their lowest floor at or above the base

flood elevation.
a-4 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

Zoning regulations that prescribe special uses for and serve to minimize

development in floodplain areas.

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.

The management of forests and vegetation so they are resilient to landslides, high-winds, and other storm-related hazards.

Minimizing fuel loads in forested areas by clearing excess ground cover and

thinning diseased or damaged woodland to create healthier forests and to

decrease the vulnerability to the devastation of forest fire.

A bond secured by the taxing and borrowing power of the municipality

issuing it.

General guidelines that explain what you want to achieve. They are usually

broad policy statements, long-term in nature.

A source of potential danger or adverse condition.

Information booths, publication kiosks, exhibits, etc. that display 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 natural 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.

The process of identifying possible hazards and estimating potential

consequences.

Systems or equipment such as community sirens and National Oceanic

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather radios designed to provide

advanced warning of an impending hazard. Warning systems allow communities to take protective actions before a hazard event occurs, including

taking cover, finding shelter, or moving furniture, cars, and people out of

harm's way.

Floodplain zoning

Flood-proofing

Forest and vegetation

management

Forest fire fuel reduction

General obligation bond

Goals

Hazard

Hazard information center

Hazard mitigation

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

(HMGP)

Hazard profile

Hazard threat recognition

Hazard warning systems
appendix a – glossary

Version 1.0 April 2003 a-5

HAZUS, HAZUS-MH

Health and safety maintenance

Hillside development regulations

Levees and floodwalls

Loss estimation

Mitigation actions

National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP)

Objectives

Open space preservation

Ordinance

Performance standards

Planning team

Policy

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.

Sections of emergency response/operations plans that provide for the

security of affected areas, including clean up and special precautions for

each type of hazard (e.g., draining standing water after a flood, cautioning

about aftershocks after an earthquake or successive tsunami waves, etc.).

Site design and engineering techniques prescribed through regulations

such as selective grading, drainage improvements, and vegetation clearance

to eliminate, minimize, or control development on hillsides, thereby

protecting the natural features of hillsides and reducing the likelihood of

property damage from landslides.

Flood barriers constructed of compacted soil or reinforced concrete walls.

Forecasts of human and economic impacts and property damage from

future hazard events, based on current scientific and engineering knowledge.

Activities, measures, or projects that help achieve the goals and objectives of

a mitigation plan.

Federal program created by Congress in 1968 that makes flood insurance

available in communities that enact minimum floodplain management

regulations as indicated in 44 CFR §60.3.

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.

Standards setting the allowable effects or levels of impact of development.

Often used in conjunction with traditional zoning, the standards typically

address specific environmental conditions, traffic, or stormwater runoff.

Can also be imposed on structures in hazard areas to ensure they withstand

the effect of hazards.

A group composed of government, private sector, and individuals with a

variety of skills and areas of expertise, usually appointed by a city or town

manager, or chief elected official. The group finds solutions to community

mitigation needs and seeks community acceptance of those solutions.

A course of action or specific rule of conduct to be followed in achieving

goals and objectives.
a-6 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

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.

A bond whose interest may or may not be federally taxable. Under the

Internal Revenue Code, private activity bonds are described generally as any

bond: (1) of which more than 10% of the proceeds is to be used in a trade

or business of any person or persons other than a governmental unit, and

which is to be directly or indirectly repaid, or secured by revenues from, a

private trade or business; and (2) in which an amount exceeding the lesser

of 5% or $5 million of the proceeds is to be used for loans to any person or

persons other than a governmental unit. Certain private activity bonds are

tax exempt when used to finance private water, wastewater, and multifamily

housing projects.

Any campaign to make the public more aware of hazard mitigation and

mitigation programs, including hazard information centers, mailings,

public meetings, etc.

Laws requiring the buyer and lender to be notified if a property is located in

a hazard-prone area.

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.

A mitigation technique that features the process of demolishing or moving

a building to a new location outside the hazard area.

Large water storage facilities that can be used to hold water during peak

runoff periods for controlled release during off-peak periods.

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.

See definition for structural retrofitting.

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.

Post-disaster mitigation

Post-disaster recovery ordinance

Post-disaster recovery planning

Private activity bond

Public education and

outreach programs

Real estate disclosure

Regulation

Relocation out of hazard areas

Reservoirs

Resources

Retrofitting

Risk
appendix a – glossary

Version 1.0 April 2003 a-7

A small interior room constructed above grade and used to provide protection from tornadoes and other severe storm events. Bathrooms and large

closets often double as safe rooms.

Vertical coastal walls that are built and designed to protect buildings against

shoreline erosion. May also protect against storm surge.

Regulations that stipulate the amount of sediment and erosion that is

acceptable for land undergoing development.

Regulations that establish a minimum distance between the existing

shoreline and buildable areas.

A bond secured by the pledge of a specific special tax.

Permits granted by local governments for land uses that have the potential

for creating conflicts with uses on adjacent properties.

Individual or group that will be affected in any way by an action or policy.

Stakeholders include businesses, private organizations, and citizens.

The representative of state government 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.

Regulations governing the maintenance and improvement of urban storm

water systems and the implementation of land treatment actions to minimize the effects of surface water runoff. Land treatment actions include

maintenance of vegetative cover, terracing, and slope stabilization.

Collection of actions to achieve goals and objectives.

The restoration of the areas bordering creeks, including the stream bank

and vegetation.

Regulations prohibiting dumping in the community's drainage system,

thereby maintaining stream carrying capacities and reducing the possibility

of localized flooding.

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.

Safe room/shelter

Seawalls/bulkheads

Sediment and erosion control

regulations

Shoreline setback regulations

Special tax bond

Special use permits

 Stakeholder

State Hazard Mitigation Officer

(SHMO)

Storm water management

regulations

Strategy

Stream corridor restoration

Stream dumping regulations

Structural retrofitting

Subdivision

Subdivision and development

regulations
a-8 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

Taxation

Transfer of development rights

(TDR)

Urban forestry and landscape

management

Vulnerability

Wetlands development

regulations

Wind-proofing

Zoning

Zoning or land use map

Zoning ordinance

Taxes and special assessments can be an important source of revenue for

governments to help pay for mitigation activities. The power of taxation can

also have a profound impact on the pattern of development in local

communities. Special tax districts, for example, can be used to discourage

intensive development in hazard-prone areas.

A growth management technique through which development rights are

transferred from a designated "sending" area to a designated "receiving"

area. The sending area is generally prohibited from development and the

receiving area is a targeted development area that can be built at a higher

density.

Forestry management techniques that promote the conservation of forests

and related natural resources in urbanized areas, with a focus on obtaining

the highest social, environmental, and economic benefits.

Describes how exposed or susceptible to damage an asset is. Vulnerability

depends on an asset's construction, contents, and the economic value of its

functions.

Regulations designed to preserve and/or minimize the impact of development on wetlands.

Modification of design and construction of buildings to withstand wind

damage.

The division of land within a local jurisdiction by local legislative regulation

into zones of allowable types and intensities of land uses.

A map that identifies the various zoning district boundaries and the uses

permitted by a zoning ordinance within those boundaries.

Designation of allowable land use and intensities for a local jurisdiction.

Zoning ordinances consist of two components: a zoning text and a zoning

map.
Version 1.0 April 2003 b-1

appendix b

library

Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)

FEMA Publications Warehouse

FEMA Mitigation Publications Library

American Planning Association

Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Programs

Community Rating System

FEMA Individual Assistance Program

FEMA Mitigation Planning

FEMA Public Assistance Program

Flood Hazard Mitigation

Flood Mitigation Assistance Program

Habitat for Humanity

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

HAZUS and HAZUS–MH

Home Rule and Dillon Rule

Institute for Business and Home Safety

Institute for Local Self Government

Landslide Hazard Mitigation

Maxwell Campbell Public Affairs Institute:

City and County Report Cards

General Contact Information

http://www.fema.gov

FEMA Headquarters

500 C Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20472

Phone: 202-646-4600

800-480-2520

http://www.fema.gov/library/prepandprev.shtm

Web Sites

http://www.planning.org

http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda

http://www.fema.gov/nfip/crs.htm

http://www.fema.gov/rrr/inassist.shtm

http://www.fema.gov/fima/planning

http://www.fema.gov/rrr/pa

http://www.fema.gov/hazards/floods

http://www.fema.gov/fima/mtap.shtm

http://www.habitat.org/

http://www.fema.gov/fima/hmgp/

http://www.fema.gov/hazus/index.shtm

http://www.naco.org/pubs/research/briefs/dillon.cfm

http://www.ibhs.org/

http://www.ilsg.org/

http://www.fema.gov/hazards/landslides

http://www.governing.com/gpp/2000/gp0intro.htm and

http://www.governing.com/gpp/2002/gp2intro.htm
b-2 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

http://www.fema.gov/fima/success.shtm

http://www.hazardmaps.gov

http://www.narc.org

http://www.fema.gov/fima/damsafe/

http://www.fema.gov/hazards/earthquakes/eqmit.shtm

http://www.fema.gov/nfip

http://www.fema.gov/hazards/hurricanes/nhp.shtm

http://www.nlc.org

http://nativeedge.hud.gov

http://www.fema.gov/fima/pdm

http://www.fema.gov/hazards/tornadoes/presskit3.shtm

http://www.fema.gov/fima/how2001

http://www.fema.gov/fima/how2002.shtm

http://www.fema.gov/fima/how2018.shtm

http://www.fema.gov/mit/saferoom

http://www.sba.gov/disaster

http://www.tgci.com/resources/foundations/searchGeoLoc.asp

http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/21indian/index.html

http://www.usace.army.mil

http://www.usda.gov/da/disaster/nda.htm

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/

programs/dri/driquickfacts.cfm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/erelief.html

http://www.epa.gov/

Mitigation Success Stories

Multi-hazard Mapping Initiative

National Association of Regional Councils

National Dam Safety Program

National Earthquake Hazard

Reduction Program

National Flood Insurance Program

National Hurricane Program

National League of Cities

Native eDGE

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program

Protecting Your Home

Protecting Your Property from Fire: Dealing

with Vegetation and Combustible Materials

Protecting Your Property from Fire: Roofing

Protecting Your Property from Wind

Protecting Yourself from Tornadoes:

Safe Rooms

Small Business Administration

The Grantsmanship Center:

Community Foundations

Tribal Governments: Laws, Legislation,

and Related Topics

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural

Resources Conservation Service

U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development

U.S. Department of Transportation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
appendix b – library

Version 1.0 April 2003 b-3

U.S. State and Local Government Gateway

Wildfire Hazard Mitigation

Burns, James MacGregor et al., 2001

Schwab, Jim et al., 1998

Schwab, Jim and IBHS, 2002

FEMA

http://www.firstgov.gov/Government/State_Local.shtml

http://www.fema.gov/hazards/fires

NOTE: The World Wide Web is an ever-changing source of information and web addresses and the information they contain

can change over time.

Publications

State and Local Politics. Available at http://cwx.prenhall.com/

bookbind/pubbooks/burns6/.

Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction (FEMA

421) and APA Planning Advisory Service Report 483/484.

Summary of State Land Use Planning Laws. Available at http://

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

A Guide to Using HAZUS for Mitigation, April 2002.

Answers to Questions about Substantially Damaged Buildings

(FEMA 213).

Bringing the Plan to Life: Implementing the Hazard Mitigation

Plan (FEMA 386-4).

Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA 55), Third Edition, 2000.

Comprehensive Earthquake Preparedness Planning Guidelines

(FEMA 71).

Example Plans. National Flood Insurance Program, Community

Rating System, November 10, 2002 (Draft).

Flood Proofing Non-Residential Structures (FEMA 102).

Getting Started: Building Support for Mitigation Planning

(FEMA 386-1), 2002.

HAZUS Video, HAZUS: What Could Happen? (FEMA 410), May

2002.

Homeowner's Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your

House from Flooding (FEMA 312), 1998. Available at http://

www.fema.gov/mit/tsd/dl_rfit.

How to Create a HAZUS User Group (FEMA 404), April 2002.

Mitigation Resources for Success (FEMA 372).

Multi-Jurisdictional Approaches to Mitigation Planning (FEMA

386-8).

Planning for a Sustainable Future (FEMA 364).
b-4 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

Institute for Business and Home Safety

Metropolitan University and URS

North Carolina Division of

Emergency Management

Oregon Department of Land Conservation

and Development (DLCD)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Department of Commerce,

Economic Development Agency

Village of Gurnee, Illinois

Protecting Building Utilities From Flood Damage (FEMA-348),

2000. Available at http://www.fema.gov/hazards/floods/

lib06b.shtm.

Reducing Flood Losses through the International Code Series,

2000. Available at http://www.fema.gov/hazards/floods/

fldlosses.shtm.

Securing Resources for Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-9).

State and Local Plan Interim Criteria under the Disaster

Mitigation Act of 2000, July 11, 2002, FEMA Publication G-318.

Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating

Losses (FEMA 386-2), 2001.

Community Land Use Evaluation for Natural Hazards

Questionnaire. Available at http://www.ibhs.org/land_use_

planning/.

Summary of State Mandated Codes, 1999. Available at http://

www.ibhs.org/dg.lts/id.112/research_library.view.htm.

Integrated Hazard Assessment for the Island of Puerto Rico,

Final Report, 2002 (HMGP).

Hazard Mitigation in North Carolina: Measuring Success (Vol.

II) February 2000. Available at http://www.dem.dcc.state.nc.us/

mitigation/planning_publications.htm.

State Mitigation Plan, August 2001. Available at http://

www.dem.dcc.state.nc.us/mitigation/document_index.htm.

Tools and Techniques for Mitigating the Effects of Natural

Hazards, 1998. Available at http://www.dem.dcc.state.nc.us/

mitigation/Library/Full_Tools_and_Tech.pdf.

Planning for Natural Hazards: Oregon Technical Resource

Guide. Available at http://www.lcd.state.or.us/hazhtml/

Guidehome.htm.

Partners for Disaster Resistance: Oregon Showcase State

Program: Household Natural Hazards Preparedness

Questionnaire, January 2003.

Flood Proofing Performance: Successes & Failures, 1998.

Available at http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/

cecwp/NFPC/nfpc.htm.

Flood Proofing: How to Evaluate Your Options, July 1993.

Job Creation and Job Skills Development in Indian Country.

Available at http://www.osec.doc.gov/eda/html/

1g3_researchrpts.htm.

Local Mitigation Plan, November 2001.
Version 1.0 April 2003 c-1

appendix c

worksheets

Worksheet #1 Identify Alternative Mitigation Actions

Worksheet #2 State Mitigation Capability Assessment

Worksheet #3 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment

Worksheet #4 Evaluate Alternative Mitigation Actions

Worksheet #5 Prioritized Alternative Mitigation Actions
Worksheet #1 Identify Alternative Mitigation Actions step 

Fill in the goal and its corresponding objective developed in Step One. Use a separate worksheet for each objective.

Make sure you note the sources of information. Use Worksheet Job Aid #1 in Appendix D as a starting point for

identifying potential mitigation actions.

Goal: _______________________________________________________________________

Objective: ____________________________________________________________________

Have you considered alternative mitigation actions from other mitigation action categories?

Check off ones that apply to this objective.

 Prevention

 Property Protection

 Public Education and Awareness

 Natural Resource Protection

 Emergency Services

 Structural Projects

Alternative Actions

Sources of Information

(Include sources you consulted for

future reference and

documentation.)

Comments

(Note any initial issues you may want to discuss or

research further.)
Worksheet #2 State Mitigation Capability Assessment step 

List the name of the agency and its mission and function in the first column. By identifying the missions and

functions, as well as programs, plans, policies, regulations, funding, and other practices administered by agencies, states create an inventory of resources that can be brought to bear on mitigation efforts within the state.

List any programs, plans, policies, etc., this agency has in the second column. It is important to include

within this column any legal authorities (which will be found within state regulations) that govern how land

would be developed within hazard areas. Typically, these types of regulations are found in state codes under

emergency management or public safety codes, building and construction codes, or planning codes. You should

also take the opportunity to include any resources that this organization has developed for either state or local

use as part of each respective program. Include any appropriate legal citations or source references for programs,

regulations, policies, etc.

If you know a point of contact, list it in the third column.

Check off what type of effect the programs, plans, policies, etc., have on loss reduction. States should now

evaluate the effects or implications of these activities on efforts to reduce losses within the state (fourth column).

This evaluation should address the implications for both the state and local levels. The essential questions to be

answered are: Does/would this program/plan/policy etc., support or facilitate mitigation efforts, or does/would

it hinder these efforts? How or why? Put these reasons in the Comments column. At this point, you will not yet

try to resolve any issues (such as if a particular program or policy could negatively affect proposed mitigation

efforts). However, the planning team will carry forward this information as input into the evaluation of specific

actions in Task C.

Finally, add any other comments you may have about the agency or its activities in the last column.
*Definitions:

Support: Programs, plans, policies, regulations, funding, or practices that help the implementation of mitigation actions.

Facilitate: Programs, plans, policies, etc., that make implementing mitigation actions easier.

Hinder: Programs, plans, policies, etc., that pose obstacles to implementation of mitigation actions.

Agency Name

(Mission/Function)

Programs,

Plans, Policies,

Regulations,

Funding, or

Practices

Point of Contact

Name, Address,

Phone, Email

Effect

o ( n Loss Reduction* )

Comments

Support Facilitate Hinder
Worksheet #3 Local Mitigation Capability Assessment step 

List the name of the agency and its mission in the first column. By identifying the missions and functions, as

well as programs, plans, policies, regulations, funding, and other practices administered by that agency, local

and tribal jurisdictions create an inventory of resources that can be brought to bear on mitigation efforts within

the community or tribe. Use Worksheet #2: State Mitigation Capability Assessment and Worksheet Job Aid #2 in

Appendix D to complete this worksheet.

List any programs, plans, policies, etc., this agency has in the second column. It is important to include

within this column any legal authorities (which can be found by reviewing the state capability assessment) that

govern how land would be developed within hazard areas. Typically, these types of regulations are found in local zoning, building, subdivision, and other special land development codes (such as floodplain management

ordinances, hillside ordinances, etc.). You should also take the opportunity to include any resources that this

organization has developed for local use as part of each respective program. Include any appropriate legal citations or source references for programs, regulations, policies, etc.

If you know a point of contact, list it in the third column.

Check off whether the programs, plans, policies, etc., have an effect on loss reduction. Communities and

tribes should now evaluate the effects or implications of these activities on efforts to reduce losses within the jurisdiction (fourth column). The essential questions to be answered are: Does/would this program/plan/policy

etc., support or facilitate mitigation efforts, or does/would it hinder these efforts? How or why? Put these reasons in the Comments column. At this point, you will not try to resolve any issues (such as if a particular program or policy could negatively affect proposed mitigation efforts), but the planning team will carry this

information forward as input into the evaluation of specific actions in Task C.

Finally, add any other comments you may have about the agency or its activities in the last column.
Agency Name

(Mission/Function)

Programs,

Plans, Policies,

Regulations,

Funding, or

Practices

Point of Contact

Name, Address,

Phone, Email

Effect

o ( n Loss Reduction* )

Comments

Support Facilitate Hinder

*Definitions:

Support: Programs, plans, policies, regulations, funding, or practices that help the implementation of mitigation actions.

Facilitate: Programs, plans, policies, etc., that make implementing mitigation actions easier.

Hinder: Programs, plans, policies, etc., that pose obstacles to implementation of mitigation actions.
Worksheet #4 Evaluate Alternative Mitigation Actions step 

1. Fill in the goal and its corresponding objective. Use a separate worksheet for each objective. The considerations

under each criterion are suggested ones to use; you can revise these to reflect your own considerations (see

Table 2-1).

2. Fill in the alternative actions that address the specific objectives the planning team identified in Worksheet #1.

3. Scoring: For each consideration, indicate a plus (+) for favorable, and a negative (-) for less favorable.

When you complete the scoring, negatives will indicate gaps or shortcomings in the particular action, which can

be noted in the Comments section. For considerations that do not apply, fill in N/A for not applicable. Only leave

a blank if you do not know an answer. In this case, make a note in the Comments section of the “expert” or source

to consult to help you evaluate the criterion.

Goal: _______________________________________________________________________

Objective: ____________________________________________________________________

STAPLEE Criteria

S

(Social)

T

(Technical)

A

(Administrative)

P

(Political)

L

(Legal)

E

(Economic)

E

(Environmental)

Considerations

for

Alternative

Actions

CommunityAcceptance

Effect on Segmentof Population

Technical Feasibility

Long-term Solution

Secondary ImpactsStaffingFunding AllocatedMaintenance/OperationsPolitical SupportLocal ChampionPublic SupportState AuthorityExisting LocalAuthorityPotential LegalChallengeBenefit of ActionCost of Action

Contributes toEconomic Goals

Outside FundingRequiredEffect on Land/Water

Effect on EndangeredSpecies

Effect on HAZMAT/Waste Sites

Consistent withCommunityEnvironmental Goals

Consistent withFederal Laws
A

lternative

Actions

Comments
Worksheet #5 Prioritized Alternative Mitigation Actions step 

List the Alternative Mitigation Actions, in order of priority. Identify the goal(s) and corresponding objective(s)

each action addresses, and note the sources of information for easy reference and any comments or issues to keep

in mind when implementing the action.

Alternative Actions

(In Order of Priority)

Goal(s) and

Objective(s)

(From Worksheet #1)

Source(s) of

Information

(From Worksheet #1)

Comments

(From Worksheets #1 and #4)
Version 1.0 April 2003 d-1

appendix d

worksheet

job aids

Worksheet Job Aid #1:

Alternative Mitigation Actions by Hazard

You can use this job aid when filling out Worksheet #1. This job aid

shows you at a quick glance the type of actions that can address the

selected seven hazards. A description of each action is included in

the glossary in Appendix A.

Alternative

Mitigation

Actions

Prevention

Floods               

Earthquakes           

Tsunamis           

Tornadoes     

Coastal Storms              

Landslides             

Wildfires             Building codes Coastal zone management regulations Density controls Design review standards Easements Environmental review standards Floodplain development regulations Floodplain zoning Forest fire fuel reduction Hillside development regulations Open space preservation Performance standards Shoreline setback regulations Special use permits Stormwater management regulations Subdivision and development regulations Transfer of development rights
d-2 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

Alternative

Mitigation

Actions

Property Protection Public Education & Awareness

Floods        

Earthquakes      

Tsunamis        

Tornadoes    

Coastal Storms        

Landslides     

Wildfires      Acquisition of hazard- prone structures Construction of barriers around structures Elevation of structures Relocation out of hazard areas Structural retrofits (e.g., reinforcement, flood- proofing, storm shutters, bracing, etc.) Hazard information centers Public education and outreach programs Real estate disclosure

Alternative

Mitigation

Actions

Natural Resource Protection

Floods       

Earthquakes 

Tsunamis  

Tornadoes

Coastal Storms    

Landslides      

Wildfires     Best Management Practices (BMPs) Dune and beach restoration Forest and vegetation management Sediment and erosion control regulations Stream corridor restoration Stream dumping regulations Urban forestry and landscape management Wetlands development regulations
appendix d – worksheet job aids

Version 1.0 April 2003 d-3

Alternative

Mitigation

Actions

Emergency Services Structural Projects

Floods         

Earthquakes      

Tsunamis        

Tornadoes       

Coastal Storms          

Landslides      

Wildfires       Critical facilities protection Emergency response services Hazard threat recognition Hazard warning systems (community sirens, NOAA weather radio) Health and safety maintenance Post-disaster mitigation

Channel maintenanceDams/reservoirsLevees and floodwallsSafe room/shelterSeawalls/bulkheads
d-4 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

Worksheet Job Aid #2:

Local Hazard Mitigation Capabilities

This job aid will assist the planning team in identifying the various

capabilities and capacities in your jurisdiction when completing

Worksheet #3. Many of the terms below are defined in Appendix A.

Legal authority and administrative, technical, and fiscal capabilities

and capacities in states and local jurisdictions vary greatly throughout the country. You should first use the results of your evaluation

of state capabilities to identify any financial or technical assistance

the state may be able to provide to local jurisdictions for mitigation

purposes. Some states have tasked regional planning agencies with

supporting local hazard mitigation planning initiatives. Discuss

state and local capabilities with your State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) to identify outside resources that may be able to assist in plan implementation.

Section 1: Legal and Regulatory Capability

The following section encourages the planning team to think

about the legal authorities available to your community and/or

enabling legislation at the state level affecting all types of planning

and land management tools that can support local hazard mitigation planning efforts in your community.

The following planning and land management tools are typically

used by states and local and tribal jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities. Which of the following does your jurisdiction have? If the jurisdiction does not have this capability or

authority, does another entity/jurisdiction have this authority at a

higher level of government (county, parish, or regional political

entity), or does the state prohibit the local jurisdictions from having this authority? You should include this information in the second column on Worksheet #3.
appendix d – worksheet job aids

Version 1.0 April 2003 d-5

Regulatory Tools

(ordinances, codes, plans) Comments

a. Building code

b. Zoning ordinance

c. Subdivision ordinance or regulations

d. Special purpose ordinances (floodplain

management, stormwater management,

hillside or steep slope ordinances, wildfire

ordinances, hazard setback requirements)

e. Growth management ordinances (also

called "smart growth" or anti-sprawl

programs)

f. Site plan review requirements

g. General or comprehensive plan

h. A capital improvements plan

i. An economic development plan

j. An emergency response plan

k. A post-disaster recovery plan

l. A post-disaster recovery ordinance

m. Real estate disclosure requirements

n. Other

Local Authority(Y/N)Does StateProhibit? (Y/N)Higher LevelJurisdictionAuthority (Y/N)
d-6 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

Section 2: Administrative and Technical Capacity

The following section encourages the planning team to inventory

existing personnel and technical resources that can be used for

mitigation planning and implementation of specific mitigation actions. Think about the types of personnel employed by your jurisdiction and the public and private sector resources that may be

accessed to implement hazard mitigation activities in your community.

For smaller jurisdictions with limited capacities, no local staff resources may be available for many of the categories noted below. If

so, the planning team should identify public resources at the next

higher level of government that may be able to provide technical

assistance to the community. For example, a small town may be

able to turn to county planners or engineers to support its mitigation planning efforts or a regional planning agency may be able to

provide assistance. For some hazard mitigation actions, consider

federal agencies that provide technical assistance, such as the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Cooperative Extension Service,

which has offices in most counties. The planning team in rural

communities must be creative in identifying outside resources to

augment limited local capabilities. For larger or more urban jurisdictions, this inventory task may involve targeting specific staff in

various departments that have the expertise and may be used to

support hazard mitigation initiatives.

You will need this information when completing Worksheet #4:

Evaluate Alternative Mitigation Actions and when preparing your

mitigation strategy in Step 3.
appendix d – worksheet job aids

Version 1.0 April 2003 d-7

Staff/Personnel Resources Department/Agency and Position

a. Planner(s) or engineer(s) with knowledge

of land development and land

management practices

b. Engineer(s) or professional(s) trained in

construction practices related to buildings

and/or infrastructure

c. Planners or engineer(s) with an

understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

d. Floodplain manager

e. Surveyors

f. Staff with education or expertise to

assess the community's vulnerability to

hazards

g. Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS

h. Scientists familiar with the hazards of the

community

i. Emergency manager

j. Grant writers

Identify the personnel resources responsible for activities related to

hazard mitigation/loss prevention within your jurisdiction. Does

your jurisdiction have:
d-8 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan

Section 3. Fiscal Capability

Identify whether your jurisdiction has access to or is eligible to use

the following financial resources for hazard mitigation. Use this

information to fill in the second column on Worksheet #3 and

when preparing your mitigation strategy in Step 3.

Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don't Know)

a. Community Development Block Grants

(CDBG)

b. Capital improvements project funding

c. Authority to levy taxes for specific

purposes

d. Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric

service

e. Impact fees for homebuyers or developers

for new developments/homes

f. Incur debt through general obligation

bonds

g. Incur debt through special tax bonds

h. Incur debt through private activity bonds

i. Withhold spending in hazard-prone areas

j. Other
Version 1.0 April 2003 e-1

appendix e

example

questionnaire
e-2 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan
appendix e – example questionnaire

Version 1.0 April 2003 e-3
e-4 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan
appendix e – example questionnaire

Version 1.0 April 2003 e-5
e-6 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan
appendix e – example questionnaire

Version 1.0 April 2003 e-7
e-8 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan
appendix e – example questionnaire

Version 1.0 April 2003 e-9
e-10 STATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING how-to guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan