Multi-Jurisdictional 

Mitigation Planning 

State and Local Mitigation Planning 

How-To Guide Number Eight 

FEMA 386-8 August 2006 

 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

 500 C Street, SW 

 Washington, DC 20472 
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

FOREWORD ........................................................................................................ii

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

What is a Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan?......................................1

Why Conduct Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Planning?.........................1

How Do You Organize a Multi-Jurisdictional Plan? ...........................................2

About This Document........................................................................................3

PLAN ADOPTION ................................................................................................4

Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption......................................................................4

PLAN PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................8

Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation .........................................................8

Direct Representation Model.............................................................................9

Authorized Representation Model ...................................................................10

Combination Model .........................................................................................12

PLANNING PROCESS.......................................................................................17

Documentation of the Planning Process .........................................................17

RISK ASSESSMENT..........................................................................................21

Identifying Hazards..........................................................................................21

Profiling Hazards.............................................................................................23

Assessing Vulnerability: Overview...................................................................25

Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures................................................26

Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses......................................27

Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends................................28

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment ..............................................................29

MITIGATION STRATEGY ..................................................................................30

Local Hazard Mitigation Goals.........................................................................30

Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions..............................................31

Implementation of Mitigation Actions (Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions) .32

PLAN MAINTENANCE.......................................................................................35

Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan ...............................................35

Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms ...........................................36

Continued Public Involvement.........................................................................38

APPENDIX – EXHIBITS .....................................................................................39

FIGURES 

Figure 1. Conceptual Organization of a Multi-Jurisdictional Plan..........................2

Figure 2. Direct Representation Model .................................................................9

Figure 3. Authorized Representation Model........................................................10

Figure 4. Combination Model..............................................................................13 
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

ii 

FOREWORD 

The Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) has developed a series of “how-to” guides for the purpose of 

assisting Tribes, States, and local governments in developing effective hazard 

mitigation planning processes. The material presented in these guides is 

intended to address the needs of both large and small communities with varying 

degrees of technical expertise and financial resources. 

The topic area for this guide is “Multi-Jurisdictional Approaches to Hazard 

Mitigation Planning” (FEMA 386-8). This guide provides suggestions to local 

governments in preparing multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plans that meet 

the DMA 2000 planning requirements. Other guides that have been developed by 

FEMA as part of the “how-to” series include: 

 Getting started with the mitigation planning process, including important 

considerations for how you can organize your efforts to develop an 

effective mitigation plan (FEMA 386-1); 

 Identifying hazards and assessing losses to your community, State, or 

Tribe (FEMA 386-2); 

 Setting mitigation priorities and goals for your community, State, or Tribe 

and writing the plan (FEMA 386-3); 

 Implementing the mitigation plan, including project funding and 

maintaining a dynamic plan that changes to meet new developments 

(FEMA 386-4); 

 Evaluating potential mitigation actions through the use of benefit-cost 

review (FEMA 386-5) (to be published); 

 Incorporating special considerations into hazard mitigation planning for 

historic properties and cultural resources, the topic of this how-to guide 

(FEMA 386-6); 

 Incorporating mitigation considerations for manmade hazards into hazard 

mitigation planning (FEMA 386-7); and 

 Finding and securing technical and financial resources for mitigation 

planning (FEMA 386-9) (to be published). 

The first four guides are commonly referred to as the “core four” as they provide 

a broad overview of the core elements associated with hazard mitigation 

planning. This and the other guides are supplementary “how-to” guides that are 

to be used in conjunction with the “core four.” The how-to guides can be ordered 

(free of charge) by calling 1-800-480-2520, or they can be downloaded from the 

FEMA site at http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/planning_resources.shtm. 

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000)

DMA 2000 provides an opportunity for States, Tribal Governments, and local 

jurisdictions to significantly reduce their vulnerability to natural hazards. It also 

allows them to streamline their access to and use of Federal disaster assistance, 
FOREWORD 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

iii 

through pre-disaster hazard mitigation planning. DMA 2000 places new 

emphasis on State, Tribal, and local mitigation planning by requiring these 

entities to develop and submit mitigation plans as a condition of receiving various 

types of pre- and post-disaster assistance (such as the Pre-Disaster Mitigation 

Program [PDM] and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program [HMGP]) under the 

Stafford Act. 

On February 26, 2002, FEMA published under Title 44 Part 201 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) an Interim Rule (the Rule) to implement the 

mitigation planning requirements of DMA 2000. The Rule outlines the 

requirements for both State and local mitigation plans. FEMA has prepared a 

document, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance under the Disaster 

Mitigation Act of 2000, that explains the requirements of the Rule with the help 

of sample plan excerpts and discussion. It can be downloaded from 

http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/guidance.shtm, or can be obtained from 

FEMA regional offices. 
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

1 

INTRODUCTION 

What is a Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan? 

A multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan is a plan jointly prepared by more 

than one jurisdiction. The term “jurisdiction” in this guide means “local 

government.” Title 44 Part 201 Mitigation Planning in the CFR defines a “local 

government” as “any county, municipality, city, town, township, public authority, 

school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments 

(regardless of whether the council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit 

corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency 

or instrumentality of a local government; any Indian tribe or authorized tribal 

organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and any rural community, 

unincorporated town or village, or other public entity.” 

Why Conduct Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Planning? 

Local jurisdictions have the option of preparing a multi-jurisdictional hazard 

mitigation plan under DMA 2000. Jurisdictions can benefit in several ways when 

they choose to participate in a multi-jurisdictional planning process. Among such 

benefits, this process: 

 enables comprehensive approaches to mitigation of hazards that affect 

multiple jurisdictions; 

 allows economies of scale by: 

- leveraging individual capabilities; and 

- sharing costs and resources;

 avoids duplication of efforts; and 

 imposes an external discipline on the process. 

A multi-jurisdictional planning approach may have certain complications that 

jurisdictions should consider before joining a collective planning effort. Some 

potential challenges include: 

 having less individual control over the process; 

 needing strong, centralized leadership and organizational skills; 

 dealing with conflict that may arise among participants; and, 

 requiring consistent participation by each jurisdiction throughout the 

planning process so that the plan stays on schedule. 

Each jurisdiction should consider whether the advantages in participating in a 

joint planning effort outweigh the disadvantages for its particular situation. 

Jurisdictions must understand that when opting to participate in a multijurisdictional plan, they still must meet all planning requirements in the Rule, 

including formal adoption of the plan. Failure of any of the participating 

jurisdictions to meet the requirements will not prevent the compliant jurisdictions 

from adopting the plan, getting it approved by FEMA, and consequently being 

eligible for project grants. 
INTRODUCTION 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

2 

FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program 

The FMA program has specific, flood-related planning. When preparing a multijurisdictional mitigation plan, the Planning Team must address the following FMA 

planning requirements if the community intends to apply for FMA project grants: 

1. In the risk assessment section, under Assessing Vulnerability – Identifying 

Structures, §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A), the plan must include a section that identifies 

the number and describes the type (residential or commercial) of repetitive 

loss properties in the community; and, 

2. In the mitigation strategy section, under implementation of Mitigation Actions, 

§201.6(c)(3)(iii), the plan must include documentation that continued 

enforcement of applicable floodplain management standards is part of its 

strategy for reducing flood losses. 

How Do You Organize a Multi-Jurisdictional Plan? 

There are a variety of ways that multi-jurisdictional plans may be organized. For 

example, they may describe what is common to all jurisdictions in one section of 

the plan and then have for each participating jurisdiction an appendix containing 

a detailed description of each jurisdiction (e.g., its history, economy, 

demographics, etc.), specific hazard information, and a mitigation strategy the 

jurisdiction commits to implementing. Figure 1 depicts this conceptual 

organization of a multi-jurisdictional plan. Jurisdictions can ask their State Hazard 

Mitigation Officer (SHMO) for a copy of an approved plan that can serve as a 

guide for assembling their own mitigation plan. 

 

Figure 1. Conceptual Organization of a Multi-Jurisdictional Plan 
INTRODUCTION 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

3 

About This Document 

This how-to guide uses the Plan Review Crosswalk (the Crosswalk) to explain 

each of the Rule’s planning requirements. The Crosswalk is a checklist FEMA 

uses to (1) determine whether a plan meets the Rule’s planning requirements 

and (2) provide comments to jurisdictions. The Crosswalk can be found in the 

FEMA publication “Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance under the Disaster 

Mitigation Act of 2000,” referred to on page ii of the Foreword. The Crosswalk 

may be downloaded from http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/guidance.shtm. 

More detailed guidance on preparing a plan can be found in the “core four” howto guides, identified on page ii of the Foreword. This guide should be used as a 

companion to those more detailed guides. 

This how-to guide provides the following: 

 The Rule language – From the CFR and italicized in this guide. 

 Reviewer’s Comments – Revisions to address the planning requirements, 

presented in the form of questions under the column titled Elements in the 

Crosswalk. The comments are of two types: 

- “Required,” which specify the revisions jurisdictions must make to meet 

the specific language of the Rule; and 

- “Recommended,” which encourage jurisdictions to go beyond the 

minimum requirements, thus preparing a more comprehensive plan. 

 Tips – Recommendations for how to meet the specific requirements. 

These tips suggest ways to address the Reviewer’s Comments. 

 Exhibits – Worksheets to assist the Planning Team in collecting and 

organizing necessary plan information. Sample worksheets provided in the 

body of this guide use an alternate font to illustrate how the exhibits can 

be completed. Blank worksheets are included in the Appendix. 

Key Principle 

The key principle underlying multi-jurisdictional planning, and followed in this 

how-to guide is that whenever the Rule refers to a jurisdiction, the requirement is 

applicable to each participating jurisdiction. 
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

4 

PLAN ADOPTION 

As discussed in FEMA’s publication, Getting Started: Building Support for 

Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-1), adoption of the plan solidifies the local 

governments’ commitment to implement the plan and keep it alive with updates. 

Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption 

Plan Review Evaluation Criteria 

Requirement §201.6(c)(5): For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting 

approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted.

Element Typical Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan indicate the 

specific jurisdictions 

represented in the plan? 

Required 

 List the jurisdictions requesting approval of the plan. 

Recommended 

 List all jurisdictions and, for county (or other 

encompassing jurisdictions such as a township or parish) 

plans, indicate which ones are participating in this multijurisdictional planning process and which are preparing 

their own plans. 

B. For each jurisdiction, has 

the local governing body 

adopted the plan? 

Required 

 Each participating jurisdiction must adopt the plan to 

receive formal approval from FEMA. 

 List the status of adoption for each of the participating 

jurisdictions. 

C. Is supporting 

documentation, such as a 

resolution, included for each 

participating jurisdiction? 

Required 

 For each participating jurisdiction requesting approval of 

the plan, include supporting documentation. 

TIP 1 – Identify potential participants and invite them to the planning 

process 

The first order of business when initiating a multi-jurisdictional planning process 

is to determine who will participate in the plan. Consider the definition of local 

government on page 1 and list all the potential participating jurisdictions. Invite 

them to join in the planning process and describe your efforts to involve them in 

the plan, even if some of those jurisdictions do not end up participating in the 

plan. 

Contact all Indian Tribal Governments in your geographic area regarding their 

preference for plan participation. Indian Tribal Governments may contact FEMA 

Regions for guidance on participation in a multi-jurisdictional plan. 
PLAN ADOPTION 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

5 

Invite universities and colleges to participate in the multi-jurisdictional plan. 

(Publicly funded universities and colleges will need to have their own plan or 

participate in a multi-jurisdictional plan if they intend to apply for hazard mitigation 

project grants under FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program.) 

TIP 2 – Clearly identify the participants in the plan 

Clearly and explicitly identify the participating jurisdictions. 

Also identify all jurisdictions within the geographic planning area that have 

chosen not to participate, those who participated but did not fully comply with all 

the participation requirements, and those jurisdictions that are not participating 

because they are preparing their own plans. Providing the participation status of 

all jurisdictions in the geographic planning area leaves no doubt about who is 

participating in the plan. 

TIP 3 – Include a map locating the participants 

Include a map showing all the jurisdictions within the geographic bounds of the 

plan and indicate which ones are participating/not participating in the plan. 

Clearly show the jurisdictional boundaries. 

TIP 4 – Include copies of adoption resolutions 

When submitting the plan for formal FEMA approval, include a photocopy of the 

signed resolution of adoption for each jurisdiction. Note that “approval” by local 

officials is not the same as formal “adoption.” FEMA requires that jurisdictions 

adopt the plan. 

Do not adopt the plan before first submitting a draft for FEMA to conduct a review 

(see Tip 7). Include a draft of the resolution in the draft plan to illustrate the 

wording of the adoption resolution. 

TIP 5 – Use a uniform resolution 

The Plan Author should provide a sample resolution to all participants, 

encouraging them to use standard language to the maximum practical extent. 

When each individual jurisdiction develops its own resolution of adoption there 

may be some inadvertent omissions. 

The resolution must clearly state that the participating jurisdiction is adopting the 

plan. Use of the word approve instead of adopt does not meet the adoption 

requirement. A sample resolution is included as Exhibit 1. 
PLAN ADOPTION 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

6 

Sample Exhibit 1: Adoption Resolution 

(Name of Jurisdiction) Town A 

(Governing Body) Town Council 

(Address) 100 Main Street, Town A 

RESOLUTION 

WHEREAS, the County ABC Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan has been 

prepared in accordance with FEMA requirements at 44 C.F.R. 201.6; and, 

WHEREAS, Town A, participated in the preparation of a multi-jurisdictional plan, 

County ABC Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; and, 

WHEREAS, Town A is a local unit of government that has afforded the citizens an 

opportunity to comment and provide input in the Plan and the actions in the Plan; and 

WHEREAS, Town A has reviewed the Plan and affirms that the Plan will be updated no 

less than every five years. 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Town Council that Town A adopts the 

County ABC Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as this jurisdiction’s MultiHazard Mitigation Plan, and resolves to execute the actions in the Plan. 

ADOPTED this XX day of December, 20XX at the meeting of the Town 

Council. 

__________________________________ 

(Mayor)
PLAN ADOPTION 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

7 

TIP 6 – Provide alternate acceptable forms of adoption documentation 

If you plan on using some documentation other than an adoption resolution, 

consult with your State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) before you submit your 

plan for approval. 

Some multi-jurisdictional plans have chosen other ways to document the 

adoption of the plan. A single resolution with signatures of authorized 

representatives from the participating jurisdictions has been considered 

acceptable. A statement in the plan that the resolutions are available on file has 

also been considered acceptable, with the condition that each participating 

jurisdiction’s name and date of adoption be listed in the plan. 

If a local jurisdiction has not passed a formal resolution, or used some other 

documentation of adoption, the clerk of the governing body or city attorney must 

provide written confirmation that the action meets their legal requirements for 

official adoption, and/or the highest elected local official or their designee must 

submit written proof of adoption. The signature of one of these officials is 

required with the explanation or other proof of adoption. 

Minutes of a council or other meeting during which the plan is adopted may or 

may not be sufficient – depending on the local law. That is why, if minutes are 

being submitted as documentation of adoption of the plan, the clerk of the 

governing body, or city attorney, must provide a brief, written explanation, such 

as, “In accordance with section X of the city code/ordinances, this constitutes 

formal adoption of the measure.” Their signature with the explanation would be 

sufficient. In the case of meeting minutes, it must be clear that the plan was 

adopted at that meeting. 

TIP 7 – Send a draft plan for review 

Most plans submitted for the first time are returned with comments and required 

revisions. If the plan was adopted prior to submission, any revisions made to it 

will likely require that the plan be re-adopted. Therefore, FEMA recommends that 

local mitigation plans be submitted for review prior to adoption. Once FEMA 

determines that the plan is approvable, the plan can be adopted and a copy 

submitted through the State to FEMA to receive formal approval. 
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

8 

PLAN PARTICIPATION 

As discussed in the FEMA publication Getting Started: Building Support for 

Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-1), participation in the planning process is 

essential to the success of the plan. 

Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation 

Plan Review Evaluation Criteria 

Requirement §201.6(a)(3): Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., watershed plans) may be 

accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process ... 

Statewide plans will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional plans.

Element Typical Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan describe how 

each jurisdiction 

participated in the plan’s 

development? 

Required 

 Describe how each jurisdiction participated in the planning 

process. 

TIP 8 – Participation by multiple jurisdictions 

The second order of business is to create a structure for communication and 

decision-making. Team members should agree upon who will be responsible for 

the overall plan development and identify a responsible point of contact for each 

participating jurisdiction. Whatever organization or approach is used, it is 

essential that some structure for accountability be developed at the onset of the 

process. The organizational models below have a: 

 “Plan Author” who coordinates and may do much of the work in preparing the 

plan. This may be a County agency, regional planning commission, 

university, or a consultant with the staff and capability to do research, prepare 

maps, develop text, and orchestrate the actual production of the plan 

document. Sometimes the author is a public agency which exercises 

leadership while relying on technical support from outside consultants. 

 “Planning Team” (in most cases) to assist the Plan Author and represents the 

jurisdictions in the preparation of the plan. Using a team fosters collaboration, 

develops a “corporate memory” of the process, and may provide a structure 

for plan maintenance. For details on building a Planning Team, refer to 

Chapter 2 of Getting Started: Building Support for Mitigation Planning (FEMA 

386-1).

TIP 9 – Include team members with technical and community knowledge 

Jurisdictions should carefully consider who represents them in the planning 

process. Although interested citizens and elected officials may be available, it is 

very helpful to include the municipal engineer, planner, emergency manager, or 

other individuals who have an in-depth understanding of the jurisdiction’s risks 

and capabilities.
PLAN PARTICIPATION 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

9 

TIP 10 – Encourage representatives to see the planning process to 

completion

Try to keep the same people involved through the entire planning process. 

Changing team members can slow meetings as the team explains the 

background on issues. When team members cannot be expected to attend all the 

meetings, have them identify an alternate at the onset of the planning process. 

Team members should keep their alternates regularly informed so that their 

alternates are ready to actively participate in discussions and make decisions. 

There is no single organizational model that will work best for all jurisdictions. 

This how-to guide describes two organizational models and an example of how 

the two can be combined into a third model. Select one that most closely fits with 

your capabilities. Whichever you choose, all participating jurisdictions must agree 

on the structure, follow an agreed-upon schedule, and comply with the agreed 

upon participation components (see Tip 13). 

Direct Representation Model 

In the first model for the multi-jurisdictional plan organization, each participating 

jurisdiction has direct representation on the Planning Team (see Figure 2). The 

representatives act on the jurisdiction’s behalf and bear the responsibility to be a 

conduit between the Plan Author and the jurisdiction. Because of the direct 

representation, the individual jurisdictions are able to be fully engaged in 

developing all aspects of the plan. 

This model works best where the number of participants is relatively few and 

representatives are actively engaged in the process. Because of the direct 

involvement, the plan should be highly reflective of the unique needs and 

interests of the individual jurisdictions. 

Figure 2. Direct Representation Model 

PLAN AUTHOR 

Coordinates plan preparation and participation 

PARTICIPATING 

JURISDICTION 

PARTICIPATING 

JURISDICTION 

PARTICIPATING 

JURISDICTION 

PARTICIPATING 

JURISDICTION 

PLANNING TEAM 

of 

DIRECT REPRESENTATIVES 
PLAN PARTICIPATION 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

10 

Authorized Representation Model 

In the second model, individual jurisdictions may authorize the Plan Author to 

prepare the plan on their behalf (see Figure 3). The jurisdictions should formally 

authorize the Plan Author or some other party to act on their behalf in developing 

the plan. (A sample resolution granting the Plan Author the authority to act on 

behalf of the jurisdiction is found in Exhibit 2.) 

This model is most appropriate where participants have little capability for active 

participation in the process. An example might be where a county agency 

prepares a plan that includes several small towns or incorporated jurisdictions 

that have no staff experienced in preparing plans. 

The benefits of this model are that it has few coordination issues and it can 

provide support to jurisdictions without sufficient capacity to otherwise participate 

in the mitigation planning process. However, this model minimizes the direct 

involvement of the jurisdictions and may not be fully reflective of each 

jurisdiction’s concerns, interests, and goals. 

Figure 3. Authorized Representation Model 

In the draft stage, the Plan Author (acting as the authorized representative) must 

seek public involvement and comments and should communicate with the 

governing body of each jurisdiction. The Plan Author thus serves as a facilitator 

of the planning process. 

TIP 11 – Use formal authorizations 

Formal authorization is clear evidence to the plan reviewer that the jurisdiction is 

utilizing this method of participation. This removes any question regarding how 

the jurisdiction has met the participation criteria. 

PARTICIPATING 

JURISDICTION 

PARTICIPATING 

JURISDICTION 

PARTICIPATING 

JURISDICTION 

PARTICIPATING 

JURISDICTION 

PLAN AUTHOR 

Prepares plan on behalf of jurisdictions 

FORMAL AUTHORIZATION 
PLAN PARTICIPATION 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

11 

Sample Exhibit 2: Resolution for Authorized Representation 

Resolution for authorizing the Plan Author to act on behalf of Local Jurisdiction 

(Name of Jurisdiction) Town A 

(Governing Body) Town Council 

(Address) 100 Main Street, Town A 

RESOLUTION 

WHEREAS, Town A has limited capability to undertake extensive participation in the 

preparation of a hazard mitigation plan; and. 

WHEREAS, X is able to act on behalf of Town A in the analysis and development of a 

hazard mitigation plan; and 

WHEREAS, X shall prepare a hazard mitigation plan in accordance with 44 FEMA 

requirements at 44 C.F.R. 201.6; and 

WHEREAS, X shall deliver a draft copy of the Plan for public comment as well as the 

governing body’s comment during the planning process and prior to adoption. 

NOW THEREFORE, Town Council authorizes X on behalf of Town A to prepare 

the County ABC Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, which shall be reviewed 

and considered for adoption by Town Council upon completion. 

ADOPTED this XX day of December, 20XX at the meeting of the Town Council. 

____________________________ 

(Mayor)
PLAN PARTICIPATION 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

12 

Tip 12 – Satisfactory participation before appointing Authorized 

Representative 

Appoint the authorized representative at the start of the planning process. Unless 

the jurisdiction has completed satisfactory participation up to the point of 

appointing an authorized representative, it will not satisfy the requirements for 

participation. 

Combination Model 

Some plans have been prepared with a combination of Direct Representation 

and Authorized Representation, especially for plans with relatively large numbers 

of jurisdictions where there is a range of capabilities among the jurisdictions. 

For instance, one combination could be the following. Led by a Plan Author, the 

jurisdictions may, due to large numbers, be divided into several sub-groups, 

perhaps by geographic proximity or some other common characteristic or 

interest. Larger jurisdictions may have direct representation on the Planning 

Team. Each of the sub-groups may authorize a Representative to act on their 

behalf, similar to the Authorized Representation model described earlier. The 

sub-group of Authorized Representatives, combined with any direct 

representatives, then constitutes the Planning Team for development of the plan 

which is directed, coordinated, or managed by the Plan Author (see Figure 4). 

An example of such a situation would be where a county provides the overall 

leadership and relies upon Councils of Government (COGs) to represent the 

smaller jurisdictions, and the larger cities have direct representation. 

In order to unquestionably meet the participation criteria, each jurisdiction should 

formally authorize the Plan Author to act on their behalf in the development of the 

plan. 

Any reasonable way to organize the participants will be acceptable if the 

jurisdiction demonstrates some kind of direct or representative participation. 

Make sure the plan clearly describes jurisdictional representation or formally 

authorized representation in the process. 
PLAN PARTICIPATION 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

13 

Figure 4. Combination Model 

TIP 13 – Define participation 

The Plan Author or Planning Team should explicitly define what will constitute 

satisfactory participation at the start of the process. 

In the Authorized Representation model, the measure of satisfactory participation 

could be that the participating jurisdictions formally authorize the Plan Author to 

develop the plan. 

With direct or indirect representation, satisfactory participation should reflect the 

amount of interaction deemed appropriate to make the plan reflective of 

participants’ needs and interests. Some measures that could be used include: 

 Attendance at a specified number of meetings or work sessions, 

 Submission of requested data, 

 Response to interviews, 

 Review and comment on draft materials, 

 Hosting opportunities for public involvement, and 

PARTICIPATING 

JURISDICTION 

PARTICIPATING 

JURISDICTION 

PARTICIPATING 

JURISDICTION 

PARTICIPATING 

JURISDICTION 

PLAN AUTHOR 

Sub-Group 

REPRESENTATIVE 

Sub-Group 

REPRESENTATIVE 

PLANNING TEAM 

AUTHORIZATION AUTHORIZATION 

PARTICIPATING 

JURISDICTION 

Direct

REPRESENTATIVE 
PLAN PARTICIPATION 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

14 

 Linking local Web sites to a plan Web site. 

Include in the plan a description of what constitutes satisfactory participation and 

a record of whether each participant qualified. A simple tool to document this 

would be a table such as that shown in Exhibit 3. 

Establish the measures of satisfactory participation early and stick to them. 

These measures will allow the plan to stay on schedule if the Planning 

Team/Plan Author is not waiting for tardy participants. 

Remember, this discussion applies to the involvement of each jurisdiction in the 

planning process. The plan still needs to contain all the required elements of the 

plan for each jurisdiction (for example, identification of unique hazards, risks, 

mitigation goals, actions, etc.). 
PLAN PARTICIPATION 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

15 

Sample Exhibit 3: Record of Participation 

The Planning Team determined that only those jurisdictions that meet 

all the participation components (listed in Table X) will be considered 

as a “participating jurisdiction” in this hazard mitigation plan. 

Table X. Record of Participation 

Nature of Participation Town A Town B Village C

Attended meetings or work 

sessions (a minimum of 2 

meetings will be considered 

satisfactory). 

 

Submitted inventory and summary 

of reports and plans relevant 

to hazard mitigation. 

 

Submitted list of hazards that 

affect the jurisdiction. 

 

Submitted description of what 

is at risk (including local 

critical facilities and 

infrastructure at risk from 

which hazards). 

 

Submitted a description or map 

of local land-use patterns 

(current and 

proposed/expected). 

 

Developed goals for the 

community. 

 

Developed mitigation actions 

with an analysis/explanation of 

why those actions were 

selected. 

 

Prioritized actions emphasizing 

relative cost-effectiveness. 

 

Completed questionnaires (with 

implementation strategy). 

 

Reviewed and commented on draft 

Plan. 

 

Hosted opportunities for public 

involvement (for example, 

linking local internet presence 

to a Plan Web site). 

 

Met 

Not met 

According to the participation components set by the Planning Team, 

only Town A and Village C have met the satisfactory participation 

requirements of this hazard mitigation plan. 
PLAN PARTICIPATION 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

16 

TIP 14 – What if some jurisdictions do not qualify for satisfactory 

participation? 

It is possible that some of the participants will not qualify for satisfactory 

participation, as defined in the plan. To accommodate participants that are nonsatisfactory in one or more of the participation components, the jurisdiction may 

select the most appropriate option from the following suggestions: 

 Join the plan during the Plan Maintenance cycle before the next formal Plan 

Update (for example, the 1-year review). The plan should specify how 

participation can occur in the Plan Maintenance section. In addition, 

jurisdictions should consult with their SHMO to determine what steps must be 

taken to comply with FEMA procedures for adding a jurisdiction to an 

approved plan. 

 Join the plan during the regular plan update cycle (for example, the 5-year 

update). 

 Extract data and material directly from the multi-jurisdictional plan to prepare 

its own single jurisdiction plan. 
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

17 

PLANNING PROCESS

Step 4 of the FEMA publication, Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying 

Mitigation Actions and Implementation Strategies (FEMA 386-3), explains how to 

document the planning process. 

Documentation of the Planning Process 

Plan Review Evaluation Criteria 

Requirement §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing 

the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: 

(1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and 

prior to plan approval; 

(2) An opportunity for neighboring jurisdictions, local and regional agencies involved in 

hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate 

development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit 

interests to be involved in the planning process; and, 

(3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and 

technical information. 

Requirement §201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to 

develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and 

how the public was involved.

Element Typical Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan provide a 

narrative description of the 

process followed to prepare 

the plan? 

Required: 

 Provide a narrative that summarizes the process used to 

prepare the plan.

B. Does the plan indicate who 

was involved in the planning 

process? (For example, who 

led the development at the 

staff level and were there 

any external contributors 

such as contractors? Who 

participated on the plan 

committee, provided 

information, reviewed drafts, 

etc.?) 

Required: 

 Describe who was involved in the planning process. 

Recommended: 

 Include in the description the composition of the 

[committee/Planning Team]) and how each member 

contributed to the process (i.e., what was his/her role). 

Describe who led the development of the plan at the staff 

level, whether there were external contributors (such as a 

local university or contractor), and what other interested 

parties were involved. 

C. Does the plan indicate how 

the public was involved? 

(Was the public provided an 

opportunity to comment on 

the plan during the drafting 

stage and prior to the plan 

approval?) 

Required: 

 Explain how the public was given the opportunity to 

comment on the plan during the drafting stage and also 

prior to plan approval. 
PLANNING PROCESS

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

18 

Element Typical Reviewer’s Comments 

D. Was there an opportunity for 

neighboring jurisdictions, 

agencies, businesses, 

academia, nonprofits, and 

other interested parties to be 

involved in the planning 

process? 

Required: 

 Discuss how local, State, and Federal agencies, 

neighboring jurisdictions, local businesses, community 

leaders, educators, and other relevant private and 

nonprofit interest groups participated in the plan 

development.

E. Does the planning process 

describe the review and 

incorporation, if appropriate, 

of existing plans, studies, 

reports, and technical 

information? 

Required: 

 Describe how existing plans, studies, reports, and 

technical documents were reviewed and integrated in the 

planning process. 

TIP 15 – Provide opportunity for public comment at least twice in the 

process 

At a minimum there must be an opportunity for the public to comment on the plan 

during the drafting stage and again prior to plan approval. 

It is advisable to make the process as open as possible. To this end, provide 

public comment opportunities at all meetings of the Planning Team. 

TIP 16 – Document data reviewed / incorporated 

Include a table in the plan similar to Exhibit 4A to summarize efforts to identify, 

review, and incorporate existing plans, studies, and other technical documents. 

While not required, it is advisable to show how each jurisdiction’s documents 

were incorporated. 

Use a form similar to Exhibit 4B to summarize this effort by jurisdiction. (This 

exhibit could be used to meet one of the components required for satisfactory 

participation.) This table will be useful to identify planning mechanisms 

appropriate in which to incorporate mitigation actions, programs, or policies that 

are identified in the plan. This is required later in the crosswalk. 

Incorporate data in the Hazard Identification, Hazard Profile, Risk Assessment, 

Mitigation Actions, or other sections of the plan as applicable to the jurisdiction. 

To demonstrate incorporation of the material into the plan, insert a notation in the 

Table, as in Exhibit 4A, indicating where in the plan the information is reflected. 
PLANNING PROCESS

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

19 

Sample Exhibit 4A: Record of Review 

Record of the review and incorporation of existing programs, policies, and technical 

documents for a single local jurisdiction 

(Name of Jurisdiction) Town A 

Prepared by: 

Name 

Title 

Telephone 

Existing Program/ Policy/ 

Technical Documents 

Does the 

jurisdiction have 

this program/ 

policy/ technical 

document? 

(Yes/No) 

Reviewed? 

(Yes/No) 

Method of 

incorporation into the 

hazard mitigation plan 

Comprehensive Plan Yes Yes Used for assessing 

development trends 

and future 

vulnerabilities 

Growth Management Plan No No 

Capital Improvement 

Plan/Program 

No No 

Flood Damage Prevention 

Ordinance 

No No 

Floodplain Management 

Plan 

Yes Yes Incorporated 

actions 

Flood Insurance Studies 

or Engineering studies 

for streams 

Yes Yes Incorporated 

expected frequency 

and extent of 

flooding 

Hazard Vulnerability 

Analysis (by the local 

Emergency Management 

Agency) 

No No 

Emergency Management 

Plan 

No No 

Zoning Ordinance Yes Yes Used for assessing 

future growth 

Building Code No No 

Drainage Ordinance No No 

Critical Facilities 

maps 

No No 

Existing Land Use maps Yes Yes Used for assessing 

vulnerability 

Elevation Certificates No No 

State Plan Yes Yes Incorporated risk 

assessment data 

HAZUS Yes Yes Used for loss 

estimation 
PLANNING PROCESS

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

20 

Sample Exhibit 4B: Record of Review (Summary) 

Record of the review of existing programs, policies, and technical documents for all 

participating jurisdictions 

Existing Program/ Policy/ Technical 

Documents Town A Town B Village C

Comprehensive Plan NA 0 NA 

Growth Management Plan NA √ √

Flood Damage Prevention 

Ordinance 

NA NA √

Floodplain Management Plan √ NA √

Flood Insurance Studies or 

Engineering studies for 

streams 

0 √ NA 

Hazard Vulnerability Analysis 

(by the local Emergency 

Management Agency) 

NA 0 √

Emergency Management Plan NA √ 0 

Zoning Ordinance √ 0 0 

Building Code NA √ NA 

Drainage Ordinance NA NA √

Critical Facilities maps NA √ 0 

Existing Land Use maps √ √ √

Elevation Certificates NA NA √

State Plan √ 0 0 

HAZUS √ √ NA 

Key: 

NA = the jurisdiction does not have this program/policy/technical document 

0 = the jurisdiction has the program/policy/technical document, but did not 

review/incorporate it into the multi-hazard mitigation plan 

√ = the jurisdiction reviewed the program/policy/technical document 
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

21 

RISK ASSESSMENT 

Refer to the FEMA publication, Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards 

and Estimating Losses (FEMA 386-2) for guidance in conducting a risk 

assessment. 

Plan Review Evaluation Criteria 

Requirement §201.6(c)(2): The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the 

factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified 

hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the 

jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from 

identified hazards. 

Identifying Hazards 

Plan Review Evaluation Criteria 

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the 

type ... of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. 

Element Typical Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan include a 

description of the types of 

all natural hazards that 

affect the jurisdiction? 

 If the hazard identification 

omits (without explanation) 

any hazards commonly 

recognized as threats to 

the jurisdiction, this part of 

the plan cannot receive a 

Satisfactory score. 

Required 

 Identify all natural hazards that affect each jurisdiction. 

TIP 17 – List all possible hazards 

To demonstrate that the planning process included consideration of all potential 

hazards, include a list of all the hazards identified. Indicate which hazards were 

deemed to be applicable. Prepare a summary table like that shown in Exhibit 5, 

showing the universe of hazards considered, including the ones that may not 

affect specific jurisdictions. 

TIP 18 – Consult the State hazard mitigation plan when identifying hazards 

Your State hazard mitigation plan lists the hazards that can potentially occur in 

your planning area. Clearly indicate that you consulted the State hazard 

mitigation plan in identifying the hazards. For consistency purposes, use the 

same hazard names as listed in the State hazard mitigation plan. 
RISK ASSESSMENT 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

22 

TIP 19 – Identify and describe the common hazards 

Identify which hazards affect all jurisdictions. These may include hazards like 

hail, lightning, or tornadoes, which normally do not have specific areas of 

occurrence. 

TIP 20 – Identify and describe hazards that vary by jurisdiction 

Indicate which geographically specific hazards affect specific jurisdictions. It may 

be possible that a hazard constitutes a significant risk to some jurisdictions and 

not others. Summarizing the data in a table (see Exhibit 5 below) can be 

instrumental in helping each jurisdiction focus on its most important hazards. 

TIP 21 – Differentiate between hazards 

Avoid combining dissimilar hazards like drought and heat. These hazards may 

occur at the same time, but they are different in effect and mitigation solutions. 

Similarly, flooding occurs in a variety of hazard types. Differentiate between 

storm surge or tidal flooding, riverine flooding, flash flooding, and urban flooding. 

Each type of flooding has different causes and potentially different mitigation 

choices. 

Differentiate between weather events and the hazards caused by the event. For 

example, a hurricane causes the specific hazards of high wind, storm surge, and 

coastal flooding, and each hazard needs to be profiled individually in order to 

develop appropriate mitigation solutions. 

Sample Exhibit 5: Hazard Identification by Jurisdiction 

Natural Hazards 

Considered Town A Town B Village C Town D

Flash Floods √ √ √ NA 

Landslides √ √ √ √

Tornadoes √ √ √ √

Drought √ √ √ √

Dam failure NA √ NA NA 

Extreme heat √ √ √ √

Wildfire √ √ √ √

Key 

√ = Affects the jurisdiction 

NA = Not a hazard to the jurisdiction 
RISK ASSESSMENT 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

23 

Profiling Hazards 

Plan Review Evaluation Criteria 

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the ... 

location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall

include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of 

future hazard events.

Element Typical Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the risk assessment 

identify the location (i.e., 

geographic area affected) 

of each natural hazard 

addressed in the plan? 

Required 

 For geographically specific hazards, describe the 

location of the hazard in each jurisdiction. 

 For hazards that can affect any location in all of the 

participating jurisdictions, include a statement to that 

effect. 

B. Does the risk assessment 

identify the extent (i.e., 

magnitude or severity) of 

each hazard addressed in 

the plan? 

Required 

 For geographically specific hazards, describe the extent 

of the hazard by jurisdiction. 

 For hazards that have uniform extent for all the 

participating jurisdictions, include a statement to that 

effect. 

C. Does the plan provide 

information on previous 

occurrences of each 

hazard addressed in the 

plan? 

Required 

 Describe previous occurrences by jurisdiction. 

D. Does the plan include the 

probability of future 

events (i.e., chance of 

occurrence) for each 

hazard addressed in the 

plan? 

Required 

 For geographically specific hazards, describe the 

probability of future events by jurisdiction. 

 For hazards that have the same probability of future 

occurrence for all the participating jurisdictions, include 

a statement to that effect. 
RISK ASSESSMENT 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

24 

TIP 22 – Use maps at appropriate scales 

Maps are an excellent way to clearly identify the location of the hazard in each 

affected jurisdiction. When preparing maps, use a scale that is appropriate to 

convey the information. Also, when data are available, include on the map land 

uses, buildings, critical facilities, and other infrastructure located in hazard areas. 

Some additional tips to keep in mind when preparing maps include: 

 Establish mapping standards early in the planning process. 

 Use uniform land use designations for all jurisdictions. 

 Show jurisdictional boundaries on all maps. Avoid maps that show areas well 

beyond the geographic extent of the plan. 

 Use maps that can be reproduced in black and white without losing legibility. 

 Provide a title and legend as appropriate for all maps. 

TIP 23 – Address area-wide hazards 

For hazards that affect the entire geographical area covered by the plan, include 

a statement that these hazards affect the entire planning area. Similarly, if the 

hazard's extent and probability of future occurrence is expected to be the same 

for all jurisdictions, include a statement to that effect. Be sure this is consistent 

with other information in the plan. The plan would still need to include the history 

of each hazard for each jurisdiction. 

TIP 24 – Use separate write-ups for each jurisdiction’s hazard profiles 

Use a separate write-up for each jurisdiction’s hazard profiles discussing the 

location, extent, history, and probability of future occurrences for each 

geographically specific hazard affecting the jurisdiction. 

If the plan lacks data regarding a certain aspect of a geographically specific 

hazard (location, extent, history, or probability of future occurrences), the plan 

should mention which jurisdictions lack what kind of data. Those jurisdictions can 

then formulate actions in the mitigation strategy section to address those data 

limitations as part of the plan update process. 

TIP 25 – Address hazards that can have common solutions for multiple 

jurisdictions 

For hazards that affect multiple jurisdictions (e.g., flooding), a common profile 

description (in addition to the jurisdiction-specific profiles) is appropriate so that 

opportunities to develop multi-jurisdictional mitigation solutions become clear. 
RISK ASSESSMENT 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

25 

Assessing Vulnerability: Overview 

Plan Review Evaluation Criteria 

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the 

jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. 

This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the 

community. 

Element Typical Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan include an 

overall summary description 

of the jurisdiction’s 

vulnerability to each 

hazard? 

Required 

 Describe each jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each 

identified hazard. 

Recommended 

 Provide a matrix with hazards on one axis and 

jurisdictions on the other axis, and indicate where 

high, medium, low, and no vulnerability exist. 

B. Does the plan address the 

impact of each hazard on 

the jurisdiction? 

Required 

 For each jurisdiction describe the hazard’s impact (for 

example, type and extent of damage to buildings, 

infrastructure, critical facilities, and activities, including 

evacuation and emergency services). 

TIP 26 – Summarize overall vulnerability and impact of hazards on each 

jurisdiction 

Have each jurisdiction complete the following steps: 

 Examine the hazard maps that show their jurisdiction and identify the areas 

that could be adversely affected by each hazard. 

 Describe what might happen. Describe the likely result of a hazard 

occurrence to the jurisdiction. Go on to rank the effects from least to most 

impact. 

See Exhibit 6 for an example. 
RISK ASSESSMENT 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

26 

Sample Exhibit 6: Overall Summary of Vulnerability by Jurisdiction 

Natural Hazards 

Identified Town A Town B Village C Town D

Flash floods H M L NA 

Landslides L H L M 

Tornadoes M M M H 

Drought L L H L 

Dam failure NA H NA NA 

Extreme heat M M M M 

Wildfire H M M L 

Key 

(Definitions below are only an example; jurisdictions may create their own ranking system.) 

NA = Not applicable; not a hazard to the jurisdiction 

L = Low risk; little damage potential (for example, minor damage to less than 5% of the 

jurisdiction) 

M = Medium risk; moderate damage potential (for example, causing partial damage to 5-10% 

of the jurisdiction, infrequent occurrence) 

H = High risk; significant risk/major damage potential (for example, destructive, damage to 

more than 10% of the jurisdiction, regular occurrence) 

Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures 

Plan Review Evaluation Criteria 

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the 

types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities 

located in the identified hazard area ... .

Element Typical Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan describe 

vulnerability in terms of the 

types and numbers of 

existing buildings, 

infrastructure, and critical 

facilities located in the 

identified hazard areas? 

Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not 

preclude the plan from being approved. 

Recommended 

 For all identified hazards, identify the type and number of 

existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities within 

each hazard area in each jurisdiction. 

 Identify the kinds of buildings (for example, residential, 

commercial, institutional, recreational, industrial, and 

municipal); infrastructure, (for example, roadways, bridges, 

utilities, and communications systems); and critical facilities 

(for example, shelters, hospitals, police, and fire stations) in 

each jurisdiction. 

B. Does the plan describe 

vulnerability in terms of the 

types and numbers of future 

buildings, infrastructure, 

and critical facilities located 

in the identified hazard 

areas? 

Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not 

preclude the plan from being approved. 

Recommended 

 For all identified hazards, identify the type and number of 

future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities within 

each hazard area for each jurisdiction. 
RISK ASSESSMENT 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

27 

TIP 27 – Differentiate between exposure and vulnerability 

Remember that simple exposure to a hazard does not mean a structure is 

vulnerable. For example, a structure exposed to high winds on the coast may not 

be damaged by winds if it is built to code to withstand those high winds. 

Differentiate between those assets that may be damaged from those that are not 

likely to be adversely affected. 

TIP 28 – Estimate future vulnerability 

Identify on a map where future development may occur based on local zoning, 

land use, or comprehensive plans, or simply based on an “educated guess” that 

extrapolates past development trends. Compare the identified locations to the 

hazard maps to show where future problems may occur. 

Use best judgment to estimate how much development of various land uses and 

infrastructure would be at risk. For this exercise, project growth for some nominal 

period (for example, 10 years) to create an estimate of the number of buildings, 

etc., that could be at future risk. 

Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses

Plan Review Evaluation Criteria 

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] 

estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph 

(c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the 

estimate ... .

Element Typical Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan estimate 

potential dollar losses to 

vulnerable structures? 

Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not 

preclude the plan from being approved. 

Recommended 

 Describe vulnerability in terms of estimated potential dollar 

losses for each identified hazard for each jurisdiction. 

B Does the plan describe the 

methodology used to 

prepare the estimate? 

Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not 

preclude the plan from being approved. 

Recommended 

 Describe the methodology used to estimate losses.

TIP 29 – Estimate potential dollar losses 

Refer to Step 4 of FEMA’s Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and 

Estimating Losses (FEMA 386-2) and fill out the worksheets from that section for 

each participating jurisdiction. 
RISK ASSESSMENT 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

28 

Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends 

Plan Review Evaluation Criteria 

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] 

providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the 

community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.

Element Typical Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan describe land 

uses and development 

trends? 

Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will 

not preclude the plan from being approved. 

Recommended 

 Provide a general overview of land uses (for example, 

location and kind of use) for each jurisdiction. 

 Describe development trends occurring within each 

jurisdiction (for example, describe the types of 

development occurring, location, density, and growth 

rate). 

TIP 30 – Use maps 

Before conducting the vulnerability assessment, prepare maps showing land use, 

infrastructure, and critical facility data to assist the Planning Team in carrying out 

this part of the planning process. 

TIP 31 – Show development trends 

Describe trends in terms of amount of change over time (for example, number of 

houses/year) and identify where the development is occurring. 

Differentiate land uses of similar types that have distinctly different densities (for 

example, single-family homes, attached housing, and multifamily housing). 

Show where the future land uses are likely to occur based on comprehensive 

plans, zoning, or simply an extension of historic patterns. 

Show the expected growth or redevelopment for some reasonable future 

timeframe (for example, 10 years). 
RISK ASSESSMENT 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

29 

Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment 

Plan Review Evaluation Criteria 

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(iii): For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must

assess each jurisdiction’s risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning 

area.

Element Typical Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan include a risk 

assessment for each 

participating jurisdiction as 

needed to reflect unique or 

varied risks? 

Required 

 For each jurisdiction, identify and assess all risks that 

are not common to the entire planning area. 

Recommended 

 Prepare a matrix of the various jurisdictions and the 

range of hazards to show which risks are common and 

which are unique. 

TIP 32 – Identify unique risks to each jurisdiction 

Some risks are common and a range of mitigation actions can be developed for 

consideration by all jurisdictions. Other risks have geographically specific limits, 

affecting some jurisdictions more than others. For example, two towns may lie 

adjacent to each other. One town is older and was a river port, with much 

development in the floodplain. Its neighbor, more recently developed, has zoned 

the floodplain for open space. The two towns have a similar hazard (flooding), 

but very different risks. Provide separate descriptions of the risks for each 

jurisdiction. Describe the particular areas, populations, and structures that are at 

risk from each hazard.
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

30 

MITIGATION STRATEGY 

The FEMA publication, Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation 

Actions and Implementation Strategies (FEMA 386-3), discusses in detail how to 

formulate goals, objectives, and actions, prioritize the actions, and devise an 

implementation strategy. 

Requirement §201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the 

jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, 

based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand 

on and improve these existing tools. 

Local Hazard Mitigation Goals 

Plan Review Evaluation Criteria 

Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] 

description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the 

identified hazards. 

Element Typical Reviewer’s Comments 

A Does the plan include a 

description of mitigation goals 

to reduce or avoid long-term 

vulnerabilities to the identified 

hazards? (Goals are longterm; represent what the 

community wants to achieve, 

such as “eliminate flood 

damage”; and are based on 

the risk assessment findings.) 

Required 

 Describe the hazard reduction goals to reduce or avoid 

hazard vulnerabilities for each jurisdiction. 

TIP 33 – Develop goals that address specific risks 

From the jurisdiction’s risk assessment and description of past impacts, identify 

goals for each jurisdiction that address risks applicable to each hazard. 

Avoid overly general goals or goals that are common to all hazards. Well-defined 

goals will lead to effective actions. 
MITIGATION STRATEGY 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

31 

Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions 

Plan Review Evaluation Criteria 

Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that 

identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects 

being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new 

and existing buildings and infrastructure. 

Element Typical Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan identify and 

analyze a comprehensive 

range of specific mitigation 

actions and projects for each 

hazard? 

Required 

 Identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific 

mitigation actions for each hazard for each jurisdiction. 

B Do the identified actions and 

projects address reducing the 

effects of hazards on new 

buildings and infrastructure? 

Required 

 Develop actions that address the effects of hazards on 

new buildings and infrastructure in each jurisdiction. 

Recommended 

 Develop a matrix to show what actions address specific 

hazards and new buildings and infrastructure. The 

matrix should also address which communities are 

covered by the actions. 

C. Do the identified actions and 

projects address reducing the 

effects of hazards on existing 

buildings and infrastructure? 

Required 

 Develop actions that address the effects of hazards on 

existing buildings and infrastructure in each jurisdiction. 

Recommended 

 Develop a matrix to show what actions address specific 

hazards and existing buildings and infrastructure. The 

matrix should also show which communities are covered 

by the actions. 

TIP 34 – Select appropriate actions for each jurisdiction 

Describing a comprehensive range of actions is best done as part of the hazard 

profile section. The description could consist of a list of possible mitigation 

responses to a particular hazard. Then, select from those actions the ones that 

best address each jurisdiction’s vulnerability, capabilities, and interests. 

Document the “evaluation” of the range of actions using Worksheet 4 of 

Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementation 

Strategies (FEMA 386-3).
MITIGATION STRATEGY 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

32 

TIP 35 – Address new and existing buildings and infrastructure 

Make sure that the action or actions address both new and existing buildings and 

infrastructure (see Exhibit 7). 

Implementation of Mitigation Actions (Multi-Jurisdictional 

Mitigation Actions) 

Plan Review Evaluation Criteria 

Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv): For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable 

action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan. 

Element Typical Reviewer’s Comments 

A Does the plan include at 

least one identifiable action 

item for each jurisdiction 

requesting FEMA approval of 

the plan? 

Required 

 Identify at least one mitigation action per jurisdiction 

(see Exhibit 7). 

Sample Exhibit 7: Actions by Jurisdiction 

Mitigation Actions 

Applicable to 

New / Existing 

Buildings and 

Infrastructure 

Town A Town B Village C Town D 

Bridge 

Replacement 

(elevate above 

BFE) 

Existing √ 

Repetitive Loss 

Property 

Acquisition 

Existing √ √ √

Elevate critical 

facility above 

BFE 

Existing √ √

Public awareness 

program on local 

TV channel for 

tornado safety 

New and 

existing √ √ √

Code Update New √ √ √ √

Construct safe 

rooms in ABC 

neighborhood 

Existing √ 

Key 

√ = The jurisdiction will implement this action 
MITIGATION STRATEGY 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

33 

Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action 

plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, 

implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a 

special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost 

benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. 

Element Typical Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the mitigation strategy 

include how the actions are 

prioritized? (For example, is 

there a discussion of the 

process and criteria used?) 

Required 

 Describe each jurisdiction’s method for prioritizing 

actions. (In addition to cost benefit review, 

considerations may include social impact, technical 

feasibility, administrative capabilities, and political and 

legal effects, as well as environmental issues.) 

B. Does the mitigation strategy 

address how the actions will 

be implemented and 

administered? (For example, 

does it identify the 

responsible department, 

existing and potential 

resources, and timeframe?) 

Required 

 Describe how the actions will be implemented and 

administered by each jurisdiction. Include in the 

description the responsible party(ies)/agency(ies), the 

funding source(s), and the target completion dates for 

each action. 

C. Does the prioritization 

process include an emphasis 

on the use of a cost-benefit 

review (see page 3-36 of 

Multi-Hazard Mitigation 

Planning Guidance) to 

maximize benefits? 

Required 

 Describe the cost benefit review performed during the 

prioritization process to identify actions/projects with the 

greatest benefits. (If cost and benefit data are missing, 

a qualitative assessment of the comparative benefits will 

suffice.)

TIP 36 – Include at-least one action and implementation strategy for each 

jurisdiction 

Use Exhibit 8, one for each jurisdiction, to provide a summary of all needed 

information. 

TIP 37 – Identify collaborative actions 

Actions by individual jurisdictions may be part of or contribute to an area-wide 

mitigation action. The scope of such an action may be entirely within the 

jurisdiction or may be part of a larger action involving some or all of the other 

jurisdictions covered in the plan. 
MITIGATION STRATEGY 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

34 

Sample Exhibit 8: Implementation Strategy 

(Name of Jurisdiction) Town A 

* Priority assigned using a method that emphasized benefit-cost review (see plan text for description). 

Prepared by: 

Name ___________________________ 

Title __________________________ 

Telephone ____________________ 

Priority* Mitigation Action/ Program/ Project Hazard Addressed Applies to Community Assets (Existing/ New) Existing Local Planning Mechanism through which the action will be implemented Primary Agency Responsible for Implementation / for Administration Date for Completion Estimated Cost ($) Funding Source 

1. Bridge 

Replacement 

(elevate 

above BFE) 

Flood Existing Capital 

Improvement 

Plan 

Dept of 

Public Works 

/ DPW 

Director 

2 years 

from when 

funds are 

made 

available 

$90,000 FEMA Public 

Assistance 

406 

Mitigation 

Funds 

2. Repetitive 

Loss 

Property 

Acquisition 

Flood Existing Floodplain 

Management 

Plan 

Dept of 

Public Works 

/ Village 

Administrator 

1 year 

from when 

funds are 

made 

available 

$80,000 Pre-Disaster 

Mitigation 

Program 

(75%) and 

local match 

(25%) 

3. Elevate 

critical 

facility 

(hospital) 

above BFE 

Flood Existing NFIP 

participation 

NFIP 

coordinator / 

Village 

Administrator 

2 years

from when 

funds are 

made 

available 

$50,000 Flood 

Mitigation 

Assistance 

Program 

grant 

4. Public 

awareness 

program on 

local TV 

channel 

All New and 

existing 

NA Public 

Outreach 

Coordinator / 

County 

Emergency 

Management 

Agency 

6 months $5,000 Private 

Channel I 

5. Code 

update 

Seismic 

and 

wind 

New Building 

Code 

Ordinance 

Building 

Department / 

Planning 

Director 

3 years Staff 

time 

Department 

budget 
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

35 

PLAN MAINTENANCE 

For plan maintenance, refer to two FEMA publications – Developing the 

Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementation Strategies

(FEMA 386-3) and Bringing the Plan to Life: Implementing the Hazard Mitigation 

Plan (FEMA 386-4). Plan maintenance is not explicitly defined for multijurisdictional plans; however, participating communities in the multi-jurisdictional 

planning process should not rely solely on the lead agency to keep the plan alive. 

Each participating jurisdiction should have a defined role in maintaining the plan; 

see the following discussion. 

Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan 

Plan Review Evaluation Criteria 

Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section 

describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the 

mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.

Element Typical Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan describe the 

method and schedule for 

monitoring the plan? (For 

example, does it identify the 

party responsible for 

monitoring and include a 

schedule for reports, site 

visits, phone calls, and 

meetings?) 

Required 

 Include a description of the method and schedule to 

monitor the plan. Include in the description the 

party(s)/agency(s) responsible for ensuring that the 

monitoring process is accomplished, and how and when 

the plan will be monitored. 

Recommended 

 Describe how each jurisdiction will participate in 

monitoring the plan. 

B. Does the plan describe the 

method and schedule for 

evaluating the plan? (For 

example, does it identify the 

party responsible for 

evaluating the plan and 

include the criteria used to 

evaluate the plan?) 

Required 

 Describe the method and schedule to evaluate the plan. 

Include in the description the party(s)/agency(s) 

responsible for evaluating the plan, and how and when 

the plan will be evaluated. 

Recommended 

 Describe how each jurisdiction will participate in 

evaluating the plan. 

C. Does the plan describe the 

method and schedule for 

updating the plan within the 

five-year cycle? 

Required 

 Describe the method and schedule for the plan update. 

Include in the description the party(s)/agency(s) 

responsible for updating the plan, and how and when 

the plan will be updated. 

Recommended 

 Describe how each jurisdiction will participate in 

updating the plan. 
PLAN MAINTENANCE 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

36 

TIP 38 – Plan to maintain the plan 

 If there was a Planning Team, retain it as an ongoing organization to maintain 

the plan. Replace vacancies at least annually. 

 If there was no Planning Team, assign responsibility for coordinating 

maintenance to the most capable municipal department among the 

participating jurisdictions. Require that department to acknowledge its role, 

identifying the individual who will be assigned to oversee the maintenance of 

the plan. Involve that individual in developing the maintenance strategy for 

the plan. 

 Set a clear schedule (for example, meet annually). Show what needs to be 

done, when to start, when to meet, who will participate and how, when and 

how to involve the public, and what conditions require special review/updates. 

 As a condition of continuing participation, require each jurisdiction to report 

on its actions, goals, and changes that may affect the content of the plan. 

TIP 39 – Update every 5 years 

For multi-jurisdictional plans, the schedule should include a start date early 

enough to provide each participating jurisdiction adequate time for review, 

concurrence, adoption, and FEMA approval within the time limit in order to 

remain eligible for project grant funding. 

Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms 

Plan Review Evaluation Criteria 

Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which local 

governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning 

mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. 

Element Typical Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan identify other 

local planning mechanisms 

available for incorporating 

the requirements of the 

mitigation plan? 

Required 

 Describe applicable local planning mechanisms for each 

jurisdiction (local planning mechanisms may include 

comprehensive plans, capital improvement plans, zoning, 

building codes, site development regulations, permits, and 

job descriptions). 

B. Does the plan include a 

process by which the local 

government will incorporate 

the requirements in other 

plans, when appropriate? 

Required 

 Describe the process to incorporate the mitigation plan 

requirements into local planning mechanisms for each 

jurisdiction. 
PLAN MAINTENANCE 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

37 

TIP 40 – Identify local planning mechanisms 

 

Local jurisdictions often have varying capabilities and planning mechanisms. 

Planning mechanisms may include plans, codes, ordinances, regulations, 

guidelines, and programs. Following are some examples for each of these 

categories: 

Plans 

 Comprehensive plans, 

 Capital improvement plans, 

 Redevelopment plans, 

 Area plans, 

 Watershed management plans, 

 Post-disaster recovery plans, 

 Comprehensive emergency management plans, 

 Regional development plans, and 

 Special functional plans such as: 

 Downtown redevelopment, 

 Airport, 

 Land buyout program, 

 Long-range recreation facilities plan, 

 School siting plan, 

 Open space plan, 

 Transportation improvement/retrofit programs, and 

 Water and sewer construction/retrofit programs. 

Codes, Ordinances, Regulations, and Guidelines 

 Building codes, 

 Land development codes, 

 Zoning ordinance, 

 Historic preservation ordinance, 

 Floodplain ordinance, 

 Tree protection ordinance, 

 Landscape ordinance, 

 Subdivision regulations, and 

 Development guidelines. 

Programs 

 Beach conservation and restoration program, 

 Local and/or regional emergency evacuation program, and 

 Historic preservation district program. 

Using Exhibits 4A and 4B which list some of the more common mechanisms, and 

the above list, identify in each jurisdiction those planning mechanisms that may 

be appropriate to use. Develop a matrix of the local planning mechanisms 

available and indicate how each action could be implemented through them. See 

Exhibit 8 for a sample format to document this process for each jurisdiction. 
PLAN MAINTENANCE 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

38 

TIP 41 – Describe the process for incorporation of plan requirements into 

other planning or community decision-making processes 

 

For each mechanism, describe how the Hazard Mitigation Plan actions, 

programs, or policies will be incorporated. For some mechanisms, it may be 

relatively simple with staff revising the document; for others there may be 

legislative or executive action required. Briefly describe the process, responsible 

party, and estimated time to execute the incorporation. 

Provide a separate description for each jurisdiction. 

Continued Public Involvement 

Plan Review Evaluation Criteria 

Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] 

discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan 

maintenance process. 

Element Typical Reviewer’s Comments 

A. Does the plan explain how 

continued public 

participation will be 

obtained? (For example, will 

there be public notices, an 

on-going mitigation plan 

committee, or annual review 

meetings with 

stakeholders?) 

Required 

 Describe public participation opportunities that each 

jurisdiction will have during the plan’s monitoring, evaluation, 

and updates (for example, soliciting input, holding meetings, 

posting the proposed changes to the plan on the Web, etc.). 

TIP 42 – Schedule public involvement 

Schedule regular public involvement in the plan maintenance process. 

Incorporate public involvement into the schedule for the plan maintenance as 

noted above. 
Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) August 2006 

39 

APPENDIX – EXHIBITS 

Exhibit 1: Adoption Resolution 

Exhibit 2: Resolution for Authorized Representation 

Exhibit 3: Record of Participation 

Exhibit 4A: Record of Review 

Exhibit 4B: Record of Review (Summary) 

Exhibit 5: Hazard Identification by Jurisdiction 

Exhibit 6: Overall Summary of Vulnerability by Jurisdiction 

Exhibit 7: Actions by Jurisdiction 

Exhibit 8: Implementation Strategy 
Exhibit 1: Adoption Resolution 

(Name of Jurisdiction) _____________________________________ 

(Governing Body) ________________________________________ 

(Address) _______________________________________________ 

RESOLUTION 

WHEREAS, (Insert name of Jurisdiction), with the assistance from (Insert name 

of Plan Author), has gathered information and prepared the (Insert name of the 

Multi-Jurisdictional Plan); and, 

WHEREAS, the (Insert name of the Multi-Jurisdictional Plan) has been prepared 

in accordance with FEMA requirements at 44 C.F.R. 201.6; and, 

WHEREAS, (Insert name of Jurisdiction) is a local unit of government that has 

afforded the citizens an opportunity to comment and provide input in the Plan and 

the actions in the Plan; and 

WHEREAS, (Insert the name of the governing body) has reviewed the Plan and 

affirms that the Plan will be updated no less than every five years; 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by (Insert the name of the governing 

body) that (Insert name of Jurisdiction) adopts the (Insert name of the MultiJurisdictional Plan) as this jurisdiction’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, and 

resolves to execute the actions in the Plan. 

ADOPTED this ______ day of _____, 200__ at the meeting of the (Insert the 

name of the governing body). 

Insert appropriate signature lines and dates 

___________________________________ 

(Mayor, Village Clerk, County Board Chair, etc.) 
Exhibit 2: Resolution for Authorized Representation 

Sample resolution for authorizing the Plan Author to act on behalf of Local 

Jurisdiction 

(Name of Jurisdiction) _____________________________________ 

(Governing Body) ________________________________________ 

(Address) _______________________________________________ 

RESOLUTION 

WHEREAS, (Insert name of Jurisdiction) has limited capability to undertake 

extensive participation in the preparation of a hazard mitigation plan; and 

WHEREAS, (Insert name of Representative) is able to act on behalf of (Insert 

name of Jurisdiction) in the analysis and development of a hazard mitigation 

plan; and 

WHEREAS, the (Insert name of Representative) shall prepare a hazard 

mitigation plan in accordance with FEMA requirements at 44 C.F.R. 201.6; and 

WHEREAS, (Insert name of Representative) shall deliver a draft copy of the Plan 

for public comment as well as the governing body’s comment during the planning 

process and prior to adoption. 

NOW THEREFORE, (Insert name of the governing body), authorizes (Insert 

name of Representative) to (participate in the preparation or prepare) the (Insert 

name of the Multi-Jurisdictional Plan) on behalf of (Insert name of Jurisdiction) 

which shall be reviewed and considered for adoption by (Insert name of the 

governing body) upon completion. 

ADOPTED this ______ day of _____, 200__ at the meeting of the (Insert the 

name of the governing body). 

Insert appropriate signature lines and dates 

___________________________________ 

(Mayor, Village Clerk, County Board Chair, etc.) 
Exhibit 3: Record of Participation 

Nature and required level of 

Participation 

Insert name of 

Participating 

Jurisdiction 

Insert name of 

Participating 

Jurisdiction 

Insert name of 

Participating 

Jurisdiction 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Met 

Not met 
Exhibit 4A: Record of Review 

Record of the review and incorporation of existing programs, policies, and 

technical documents for a single local jurisdiction 

(Name of Jurisdiction) _____________________________________ 

Prepared by: 

Name _________________________ 

Title __________________________ 

Telephone ____________________ 

Existing Program/ 

Policy/ Technical 

Documents 

Does the 

jurisdiction have 

this program/ 

policy/ technical 

document? 

(Yes/No) 

Reviewed by Plan 

Authors? 

(Yes/No) 

Method of 

incorporation into 

the hazard 

mitigation plan 

 
Exhibit 4B: Record of Review (Summary) 

Record of the review of existing programs, policies, and technical documents for 

all participating jurisdictions 

Existing Program/ Policy/ 

Technical Documents 

Insert name of 

Participating 

Jurisdiction 

Insert name of 

Participating 

Jurisdiction 

Insert name of 

Participating 

Jurisdiction 

 

Key 

NA = the jurisdiction does not have this program/policy/technical document 

0 = the jurisdiction has the program/policy/technical document, but did not 

review/incorporate it into the multi-hazard mitigation plan 

√ = the jurisdiction reviewed the program/policy/technical document 
Exhibit 5: Hazard Identification by Jurisdiction 

Natural Hazards 

Considered 

Insert name of 

Participating 

Jurisdiction 

Insert name of 

Participating 

Jurisdiction 

Insert name of 

Participating 

Jurisdiction 

Insert name of 

Participating 

Jurisdiction 

Avalanche * 

Coastal erosion * 

Dam failure * 

Drought 

Earthquake 

Expansive soils * 

Extreme cold 

Extreme heat 

Flash flood * 

Hail 

Ice 

Landslide * 

Levee failure* 

Lightning 

Riverine flooding * 

Snow 

Subsidence * 

Tidal surge * 

Tornado 

Tsunami 

Urban flood * 

Volcano * 

Wildfire * 

Wind (straight line) 

Other 

* These are likely to be geographically specific hazards 

Only natural hazards must be considered per the Rule; however, other significant 

hazards that are manmade should be included as well. See Integrating Manmade 

Hazards Into Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-7). Additional hazards may include civil 

unrest, nuclear power plant accidents, non-nuclear power plant accidents, transportation 

disruptions (port, rail, airport, highways, rivers), use of weapons of mass destruction 

(nuclear, chemical, biological), and hazardous materials leaks or accidents, etc. 

Key 

√ = Affects the jurisdiction 

NA = Not a hazard to the jurisdiction 
Exhibit 6: Overall Summary of Vulnerability by Jurisdiction 

Natural Hazards 

Identified 

Insert name of 

Participating 

Jurisdiction 

Insert name of 

Participating 

Jurisdiction 

Insert name of 

Participating 

Jurisdiction 

Insert name of 

Participating 

Jurisdiction 

 

Key 

(Define each risk ranking term.) 

High = 

Medium = 

Low = 
 Exhibit 7: Actions by Jurisdiction 

Mitigation 

Actions 

Applicable to 

New / Existing 

Buildings and 

Infrastructure 

Insert name 

of 

Participating 

Jurisdiction 

Insert name 

of 

Participating 

Jurisdiction 

Insert name 

of 

Participating 

Jurisdiction 

Insert name 

of 

Participating 

Jurisdiction 

 

 

 

 

 

Key 

√ = The jurisdiction will implement this action 
Exhibit 8: Implementation Strategy 

(Name of Jurisdiction) _____________________________________ 

Priority Mitigation Action/ Program/ Project Hazard Addressed Applies to Community Assets (Existing/ New) Existing Local Planning Mechanism through which the action will be implemented Primary Agency Responsible for Implementation / for Administration Date for Completion Estimated Cost ($) Funding Source 

 

Prepared by: 

Name _________________________ 

Title __________________________ 

Telephone ____________________