Interwoven VisualPreview: //TEAMSITE/default/main/internet/fema/WORKAREA/workarea/txt/plan/mitplanning/howto3.txtSTATE AND LOCAL MITIGATION PLANNING
How-to guide
Developing the Mitigation Plan
identifying mitigation actions and implementation strategies

Contents
foreword	i

introduction	v

STEP ONE  develop mitigation goals and objectives	1-1
task A  review and analyze the results of the hazard profiles and loss estimation	1-2
task B  formulate goals	1-5
task C  determine objectives	1-7
task D  get public input	1-8

STEP TWO  identify and prioritize mitigation actions	2-1
task A  identify alternative mitigation actions	2-2
worksheet #1	2-4

task B  identify and analyze state and local mitigation capabilities	2-6
worksheet #2	2-8
worksheet #3	 2-11

task C  evaluate, select, and prioritize mitigation actions 	2-12
worksheet #4	 2-21
worksheet #5	 2-29

STEP THREE  prepare an implementation strategy	3-1
task A  identify how the mitigation actions will be implemented	3-1
task B  document the implementation strategy	3-8
task C  obtain the consensus of the planning team	3-9

STEP FOUR  document the mitigation planning process	4-1
task A  make decisions about the style of the document	4-2
task B  write the plan	4-3
task C  review the plan	4-5

afterword
appendix a  glossary	a-1
appendix b  library	b-1
appendix c  worksheets	c-1
appendix d  worksheet job aids	d-1
appendix e  example questionnaire	e-1

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.
[DIAGRAM displaying the Hazard Mitigation Planning Process: movement from Organize 
Resources to Assess Risk to Develop a Mitigation Plan to Implement the Plan and Monitor 
Progress.

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

Assess Risks: Next, communities need to identify the characteristics and potential consequences 
of hazards. It is important to understand how much of the community can be affected by specific 
hazards and what the impacts would be on important community assets.
Develop a Mitigation Plan: Armed with an understanding of the risks posed by hazards, 
communities need to determine what their priorities should be and then look at possible ways to 
avoid or minimize the undesired effects. The result is a hazard mitigation plan and strategy for 
implementation.

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

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.

[DEFINITION:
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.
END DEFINITION]

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.

[DMA:
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.
END DMA]

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
 
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.

[TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

introduction
This third guide in the state and local mitigation planning how-to 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.

[SIDEBAR WITH FLOWCHART:
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, 
which is covered by this guide, consists of four steps: develop mitigation goals and objectives, 
identify and prioritize mitigation actions, prepare an implementation strategy, and document the 
mitigation planning process. The fourth phase, Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress, 
discusses how to implement, monitor, and evaluate mitigation actions to keep the mitigation plan 
current.
END SIDEBAR]

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 particular community asset 
vulnerable to multiple hazards? Do hazards disproportionately affect a particular portion of your 
community?

[Flowchart of the four steps involved in Developing the Mitigation Plan.  In step 1, which is 
develop mitigation goals and objectives, State Goals and State Objectives are linked to Local 
Goals and Local Objectives.  Integral to local goals and objectives are Problem Statements, which 
use data from the Hazard Profiles and Loss Estimates.  Step 1 leads into step 2: identify and 
prioritize mitigation actions. This step contains five worksheets.  Worksheet #1 is "Identify 
Alternative Mitigation Actions." It is completed with the help of Worksheet Job Aid #1.  Next in 
the sequence are both Worksheet #2 and Worksheet #3.  Worksheet #2 is "State Mitigation 
Capability Assessment."  Worksheet #3 is "Local Mitigation Capability Assessment."  Worksheet 
#3 is completed with the help of Worksheet Job Aid #2.  Next comes Worksheet #4:  "Evaluate 
Alternative Mitigation Actions."  It leads to Worksheet #5:  "Prioritized Alternative Mitigation 
Actions."  The end of step 2 points to step 3: prepare an implementation strategy. Step 3 leads 
into step 4:  Document the Mitigation Planning Process. ]

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.
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.

[DEFINITIONS:
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 long-
term mitigation issues are addressed.
END DEFINITIONS]

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 mitigate 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.

[TIPS:
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. TIPS ENDS]
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 
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.

[STATE TIP:
States and tribes that choose to serve as grantees under HMGP must decide which level of 
mitigation plan to develop:
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.
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.
*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.
STATE TIP ENDS]

[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.

Communities have to meet different planning requirements to be eligible for different FEMA 
mitigation programs.  The table below explains how specific sections of the hazard mitigation 
plan—each of which is covered in a How-to guide—meets the requirements of three different 
FEMA programs.

Phase 1 of the Planning Process, Organize Resources, which is covered in FEMA How-to Series 
#1, addresses the Hazard Mitigation Grant and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (DMA 2000 Plan 
Criteria) in four ways: Coordination among agencies, integration with other planning efforts, 
involvement of the public throughout the planning process, and State coordination of local 
mitigation planning.  Phase 1, Organize Resources, can address the criteria of the Flood 
Mitigation Assistance Program in two ways:  Coordination with other agencies or organizations, 
and Public involvement.  Describe the planning process. Public involvement may include 
workshops, public meetings, or public hearings.  Phase 1 of the planning process can address the 
criteria of the Community Rating System Floodplain Management Planning (10-Step Process) in 
three ways: coordination with other agencies, involve the public, and organize to prepare the plan.

Phase 2 of the hazard mitigation planning process, Assess Risks, which is covered in FEMA 
How-to Series #2, can addresses the Hazard Mitigation Grant and Pre-Disaster Mitigation 
Program (DMA 2000 Plan Criteria) in four ways:  identify all hazards, profile hazard events, 
assess vulnerability, and estimate potential losses.  Phase 2 can meet the requirements of the 
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program in two ways: 1. Flood hazard area inventory. Identify the 
flood risk and include estimates of the number and types of structures at risk and repetitive loss 
properties; and 2. problem identification. Describe the existing flood hazard, the extent of flood 
depth and damage potential, and the applicant's floodplain management goals. Phase 2, Assess 
Risks, can address the Community Rating System Floodplain Management Planning (10-Step 
Process)in two ways: assess the flooding hazard and assess the problem. 
 
Phase 3 of the mitigation planning process, Develop the Mitigation Plan, which is covered in 
FEMA How-to Series #3, can address the Hazard Mitigation Grant and Pre-Disaster Mitigation 
Program (DMA 2000 Plan Criteria) in five ways: documentation of the planning process, local 
hazard mitigation goals, capability assessment, identification and analysis of mitigation actions, 
and funding sources. Phase 3 can meet the requirements of the Flood Mitigation Assistance 
Program through its review of possible mitigation actions. Identify and evaluate cost-effective 
and technically feasible mitigation actions. Phase 3, Develop the Mitigation Plan, can address the 
Community Rating System Floodplain Management Planning(10-Step Process)in three ways: set 
goals, review possible activities, and draft an action plan.

Phase 4, Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress, which is covered in FEMA How-To Series 
#4, can addresses the Hazard Mitigation Grant and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (DMA 2000 
Plan Criteria) in five ways:  Adoption of the plan; implementation of mitigation actions; 
implementation through existing planning mechanisms; monitoring, evaluating, and updating the 
plan; and continued public involvement. Phase 4 can meet the requirements of the Flood 
Mitigation Assistance Program by documenting formal plan adoption by the legal entity 
submitting the plan (e.g., Governor, mayor, county executive).  Phase 4, Implement the Plan and 
Monitor Progress, can address the Community Rating System Floodplain Management Planning 
(10-Step Process) in two ways: adopt the plan and implement, evaluate, and revise the plan. 

ENDS TABLE ONE]
[DMA WITH FLOW DIAGRAM.  The bottom of the flow diagrams shows a state icon and a 
local icon pointing at each other. The state icon contains guidance, technical assistance, and 
funding; the local icon contains goals and objective based on state priorities. Together they point 
to State Goals & Objectives, which is pointed back at them.  State goals and objectives are based 
on priorities, and implemented via policies and guidance. State Goals and Objectives point up to 
State Hazard mitigation plan.]

State, 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.
ENDS DMA]

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

[ IMAGE OF STATES ICON]

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 
efforts. For tribes that choose to serve as subgrantees under HMGP, guidance focusing on local 
governments applies to these entities as well. 

[ IMAGE OF ADVANCED ICON]
The "Advanced" icon indicates an additional step you can take or when specialists may be 
needed. 

[ IMAGE OF CAUTION ICON]
The "Caution" icon alerts you to important information and ways to avoid sticky situations later 
in the planning process. 

[ IMAGE OF DMA ICON]
The "DMA" icon provides information relating to the mitigation planning requirements outlined 
in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). 

[ IMAGE OF GLOSSARY ICON]
The "Glossary" icon identifies terms and concepts for which a detailed explanation is provided 
in the Glossary included in Appendix A. 

[ IMAGE OF HAZUS ICON]
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. 

[ IMAGE OF TIPS ICON]
The "Tips" icon identifies helpful hints and useful information that can be used in the planning 
process. 

[DMA:
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.
DMA ENDS]

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. 

[TIPS:
Keep in mind that the World Wide Web is an ever-changing source of information, and Web 
addresses and the information they contain change over time.
END TIPS]

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.

[CAUTION:
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.
END CAUTION]

[SIDEBAR:
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.
END SIDEBAR]

[Diagram of the hazard mitigation planning process with 1st step - develop mitigation goals and 
objectives - enlarged ]

Step 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.

[GLOSSARY:
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.
END GLOSSARY]

[TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

[CAUTION:
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.
END CAUTION]

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 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
[TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

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.
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.

[CAUTION:
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 pre-formatted data reports and graphic maps contained in HAZUS-MH are useful 
and effective at communicating risks and making presentations.
END CAUTION]

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.

[TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

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.
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.

[ADVANCED:
You may want to take the opportunity to prioritize the issues/problem statements to reflect their 
relative challenge to the state/community.
END ADVANCED]

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.

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.

[TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

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

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.

[GLOSSARY:
Objectives define strategies or implementation steps to attain the identified goals. Unlike goals, 
objectives are specific and measurable.
END GLOSSARY]

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.

[TIPS:
Example 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.
END TIPS]

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

[TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

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. 
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.
[ADVANCED:
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.

2 COLUMN TABLE.
This table provides examples of four elements for which goals were set within a hazard 
mitigation plan, and Sample Performance-Based Objectives for each one.

Element:  Housing.  Sample Performance-Based Objectives:  1. Within 2 years, reduce by 10% 
the number of houses in the floodplain that are subject to repetitive losses from flooding; 2. 
Within 10 years, reduce by 30% the number of houses that are in the floodplain and vulnerable to 
flooding.

Element: Business. Sample Performance-Based Objectives:  1. Within 2 years, increase by 20% 
the number of businesses that have developed a business risk reduction plan; 2. Within 3 years, 
increase from 15% to 60% the proportion of businesses that have flood insurance.

Element: Critical Facilities. Sample Performance-Based Objectives:  1. 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; 2. 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.

Element: Environment. Sample Performance-Based Objective:  Within 3 years, reduce by 20% 
the number of agricultural businesses that have production, storage, or processing facilities that 
are vulnerable to flooding. 

Source of table: Hazard Mitigation in North Carolina: Measuring Success, February 2000.
END ADVANCED]

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.

[SIDEBAR:
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.

[COMPOSITE LOSS MAP covers different parts of the Town of Hazardville in one of three 
colors, depending on whether they have Moderate Vulnerability, High Vulnerability, or Extreme 
Vulnerability to hazards]

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 eventually 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."
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.
END SIDEBAR]

[Diagram of the hazard mitigation planning process with 2nd step - identify and prioritize 
mitigation actions - enlarged ]

Step 2: identify and prioritize mitigation actions

Overview

In 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. 

[TIPS:
Mitigation 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.
END TIPS]

Some actions you identify may be "bricks and mortar" projects, such as constructing tornado 
shelters or safe rooms, and retrofitting 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 

[TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

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 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. 

[TIPS:
Examples 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
END TIPS]

 [TIPS:
When identifying alternative mitigation actions, be sure to evaluate needs for both existing and 
future buildings and infrastructure.
END TIPS]

[TIPS:
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
END TIPS]

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 engineer to evaluate the flooding condition, or recommend that an engineering analysis be 
conducted to identify potential solutions. 

[WORKSHEET 1 IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION ACTIONS:
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.
3 COLUMN TABLE.
This table provides an example of what a completed Worksheet #1 might look like.  It follows the 
goal and objective.  

Alternative Action 1: Acquire flood-prone structures.  Sources of Information (Include sources 
you consulted for future reference and documentation): State Hazard Mitigation Officer. 
Comments (Note any initial issues you may want to discuss or research further): 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.

Alternative Action 2: Construct a berm around the park. Sources of Information (Include sources 
you consulted for future reference and documentation): Hazardville Dept. of Public Works. 
Comments (Note any initial issues you may want to discuss or research further): 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.

Alternative Action 3: Elevate structures.	Sources of Information (Include sources you consulted 
for future reference and documentation): Hazardville Dept. of Public Works. Comments (Note 
any initial issues you may want to discuss or research further): 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.

Following the table are two sentences followed by six checkoff boxes: 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, and/or Structural Projects.
END WORKSHEET 1]

[TIPS:
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>.
END TIPS]

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 door-to-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.

 [TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

 [TIPS:
University and college students are a useful and low-cost resource for developing surveys. 
Sociology, environ- mental 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.
END TIPS]

[TIPS:
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.
8-COLUMNED TABLE .
This table lists a number of Community-Wide Strategies and asks people to put a check mark in 
the box that applies to them: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, or Not 
Sure.		
				
Community-Wide Strategy A. I support a regulatory approach to reducing risk. Strongly Agree, 
Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, or Not Sure.

Community-Wide Strategy B. I support a non-regulatory approach to reducing risk. Strongly 
Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, or Not Sure.

Community-Wide Strategy C. I support a mix of both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches 
to reducing risk. Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, or Not Sure.

Community-Wide Strategy D. I support policies to prohibit development in areas subject to 
natural hazards. Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, or Not Sure.

Community-Wide Strategy 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. Strongly Agree, Agree, 
Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, or Not Sure.
END TIPS]

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.

[TIPS:
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 have 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.
END TIPS]

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 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. 

[TIPS:
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 post-
disaster 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.
END TIPS]

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.

[WORKSHEET #2 STATE MITIGATION CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT:
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.

7 COLUMNED TABLE.  Here is an example of a completed table. 
Agency Name (Mission/Function): Department of Economic Development (To enhance the 
economic well-being of the citizens of the State of Emergency through public investment.)

Programs, Plans, Policies, Regulations, Funding, or Practices: 1.	Infrastructure Development 
Fund.	

Point of Contact Name, Address, Phone, Email: Goldie Graham, 586 Ventura Blvd., Capitalia, 
EM, (555) 555-2345.

Effect on Loss Reduction (Support, Facilitate, or Hinder): Box for facilitate is checked.

Comments: Provides grants and loans to fund local infrastructure improvements, including 
stormwater management projects, for new or expanding businesses.

Agency Name (Mission/Function): Department of Economic Development (To enhance the 
economic well-being of the citizens of the State of Emergency through public investment.)

Programs, Plans, Policies, Regulations, Funding, or Practices: 2.	Development Tax Credits for 
Priority Growth Communities.

Point of Contact Name, Address, Phone, Email: Buck Doughman, 200 Greenback Dr., Capitalia, 
EM, (555) 555-2346.

Effect on Loss Reduction (Support, Facilitate, or Hinder): Box for hinder is checked.
	
Comments: 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.

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.
END TABLE]

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.

[TIPS:
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
END TIPS]

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. 

[CAUTION:
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.
END CAUTION]

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 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. 

[DMA:
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)].
END DMA]

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.

[TIPS:
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/>.
END TIPS]

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. 

[TIPS:
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>).
END TIPS]

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.
[WORKSHEET #3 LOCAL MITIGATION CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT:
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.

7-COLUMNED TABLE. Here is an example of a completed table. 
Agency Name (Mission/Function): Department of Public Works (To ensure the proper 
functioning of public infrastructure.)

Programs, Plans, Policies, Regulations, Funding, or Practices: 1.	Sanitation Division

Point of Contact Name, Address, Phone, Email: M. T. Trashmore, 800 Dumptruck Ave., 
Hazardville, EM, (555) 555-1234.

Effect on Loss Reduction (check one): Support, Facilitate, or Hinder.  The box for facilitate is 
checked.

Comments: Responsible for cleaning storm drains, gutters, roadside ditches, etc.

Agency Name(Mission/Function): Department of Public Works (To ensure the proper functioning 
of public infrastructure.)

Programs, Plans, Policies, Regulations, Funding, or Practices: 2. Stream maintenance policy. 

Point of Contact Name, Address, Phone, Email: M.T. Trashmore

Effect on Loss Reduction (check one): Support, Facilitate, or Hinder. The box for hinder is 
checked. 

Comments: Streams and culverts are only scheduled to be cleaned/maintained every 3 years.

Agency Name (Mission/Function): Department of Public Works (To ensure the proper 
functioning of public infrastructure.)

Programs, Plans, Policies, Regulations, Funding, or Practices: 3.	Transportation Division. 

Point of Contact Name, Address, Phone, Email: Potsy McAsphalt 495 Mixing Bowl Lane 
Hazardville, EM, (555) 555-1235. 

Effect on Loss Reduction (check one): Support, Facilitate, or Hinder.  The box for support is 
checked.  

Comments:  State DOT maintains funds to renovate state highways and bridges. Priority given to 
elevating structures vulnerable to flooding.
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.
END WORKSHEET]

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" solution, as the possible results or end products of the process are quite varied and do not 
necessarily follow a straight path.

[SIDEBAR:
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? 

[TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

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. 

[TIPS:
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/>.
END TIPS]

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.

[TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

[TIPS:
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>.
END TIPS]

[GLOSSARY:
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.
END GLOSSARY]

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

[TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

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.

[TIPS:
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).
END TIPS]

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.

[TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

 [TIPS:
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>.
END TIPS]

[TIPS:
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/>.
END TIPS]

[HAZUS:
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>.
END HAZUS]

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. 
END SIDEBAR]

Table 2-1 suggests some considerations and sources of information for each STAPLEE criterion 
to use when completing Worksheet #4. 

[TABLE 2-1 RESEARCHING STAPLEE CRITERIA - 3 column table.  The three 
columns are Evaluation Category, Considerations, and Sources of Information.
Evaluation Category:  Social.	Considerations: Community Acceptance. Sources of 
Information:  1. Questionnaire (see Appendix E). 2. Interviews with government staff, non-profit 
organizations, and neighborhood advocacy organizations. 3. Community plans.  4. Newspaper 
articles.

Evaluation Category:  Social.  Considerations:  Adversely Affects Segment of Population.  
Sources of Information: Maps showing demographics (race, age, income, voting districts, etc.) 
with locations of proposed mitigation actions

Evaluation Category: Technical. Considerations: Technical Feasibility. Sources of Information: 1. 
Judgment of mitigation experts, scientists, and engineers. 2. Existing literature/studies on the 
action

Evaluation Category: Technical. Considerations: Long-term Solution. Sources of Information: 1. 
Judgment of mitigation experts. 2. Existing literature/studies on the action.

Evaluation Category: Technical. Considerations:  Secondary impacts. Sources of Information: 1. 
Judgment of mitigation experts. 2. Existing literature. 3. Maps showing environmentally sensitive 
resources with locations of proposed mitigation actions. 4. Scientific and/or engineering 
evaluations

Evaluation Category: Administrative. Considerations: Staffing (sufficient number of staff and 
training). Sources of Information: 1. Capability assessment (see Worksheets #2 and #3). 2. 
Jurisdiction organizational chart. 3. Availability of technical assistance from regional or state 
agencies. 4. Interviews with department heads and relevant staff.

Evaluation Category:  Administrative. Considerations: Funding Allocated. Sources of 
Information: 1. Capability assessment (see Worksheets #2 and #3). 2. Annual operating budget. 3. 
Capital improvement budget. 4. Interviews with department heads and relevant staff.

Evaluation Category: Administrative. Considerations: Maintenance/Operations. Sources of 
Information: 1. Capability assessment (see Worksheets #2 and #3). 2. Existing literature on 
maintenance costs. 3. Interviews with department heads and relevant staff.

Evaluation Category: Political. Considerations:	Political Support. Sources of Information: 1. 
Questionnaire (see Appendix E). 2. Interviews with elected officials. 3. Newspaper articles.

Evaluation Category: Political. Considerations: Local Champion or Plan Proponent (respected 
community member). Sources of Information: 1. Questionnaire (see Appendix E). 2. Interviews 
with elected officials, community leaders, and private sector participants in planning process.

Evaluation Category: Political. Considerations: Public Support (Stakeholders). Sources of 
Information: 1. Questionnaire (see Appendix E). 2. Interviews with government staff, non-profit 
organizations, and neighborhood advocacy organizations. 3. Newspaper articles. 4. Public 
meetings.

Evaluation Category: Legal. Considerations: State Authority. Sources of Information: 1. Research 
of state codes. 2. Contact with state attorney general's office.

Evaluation Category: Legal. Considerations: Existing Local Authority. Sources of Information: 1. 
Research of local codes and ordinances. 2. Local legal counsel.

Evaluation Category: Legal. Considerations: Action Potentially Subject to Legal Challenge by 
Opponents (stakeholders who would be negatively affected). Sources of Information: 1. Research 
by local legal counsel. 2. Maps, census, plans.

Evaluation Category: Economic. Considerations: Benefit of Mitigation Action. Sources of 
Information: 1. Benefit-cost analysis software/methodology. 2. Judgment of experts. 3. Existing 
literature. 4. Case studies of similar implemented actions. 5. Economic impact assessment.

Evaluation Category: Economic. Considerations: Cost of Mitigation Action. Sources of 
Information: 1. Order of magnitude cost estimate (e.g., Action A costs five times more than 
Action B). 2. Judgment of experts. 3. Local contractors. 4. Case studies.

Evaluation Category: Economic. Considerations: Contributes to Economic Goals. Sources of 
Information: 1. Judgment of experts. 2. Evaluation of community's comprehensive plan, 
economic development plan, and other community plans and policies.

Evaluation Category: Economic. Considerations: Outside Funding Required. Sources of 
Information: 1. Order of magnitude cost estimate. 2. Evaluation of state and federal funding 
programs.

Evaluation Category: Environmental. Considerations: Affects Land/Water Bodies. Sources of 
Information: 1. Maps, studies, plans. 2. Coordination with state and federal resource agencies, 
including compliance with all relevant statutes and regulations. 

Evaluation Category: Environmental. Considerations: Affects Endangered Species. Sources of 
Information: 1. Maps, studies, plans. 2. Coordination with state and federal resource agencies, 
including compliance with all relevant statutes and regulations.

Evaluation Category: Environmental. Considerations: Affects Hazardous Materials and Waste 
Sites. Sources of Information: 1. Maps, studies, plans. 2. Hazardous waste site databases. 3. 
Coordination with state and federal resource agencies, including compliance with all relevant 
statutes and regulations.

Evaluation Category: Environmental. Considerations: Consistent with Community's 
Environmental Goals. Sources of Information: 1. Maps of land use, zoning, sensitive areas, 
projected growth. 2. Interviews with government staff. 3. Review of local plans and policies.

Evaluation Category: Environmental. Considerations: Consistent with Federal Laws. Sources of 
Information: 1. Contact with federal agencies.

END OF TABLE]
[WORKSHEET #4 EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION ACTIONS:
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.
MULTI-COLUMNED TABLE contains an example of a completed worksheet #4.
Goal:  Minimize losses to existing and future structures within hazard areas.

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

STAPLEE Criteria: S-(Social), T-(Technical), A-(Administrative), P-(Political), L-(Legal), E-
(Economic), E-(Environmental).

Considerations for each criterion: Social	(Community Acceptance, Effect on Segment of 
Population); Technical (Technical Feasibility, Long-term Solution, Secondary Impacts); 
Administrative (Staffing, Funding Allocated, Maintenance/ Operations); Political (Political 
Support, Local Champion, Public Support); Legal (State Authority, Existing Local Authority, 
Potential Legal Challenge); Economic (Benefit of Action, Cost of Action, Contributes to 
Economic Goals, Outside Funding Required); Environmental (Effect on Land/Water, Effect on 
Endangered Species, Effect on HAZMAT/Waste Sites, Consistent with Community 
Environmental Goals, Consistent with Federal Laws).						
												
Alternative Action 1. Acquire flood-prone structures. Considerations for each criterion: Social 
(Community Acceptance -, Effect on Segment of Population -); Technical (Technical Feasibility 
+, Long-term Solution +, Secondary Impacts+); Administrative (Staffing -, Funding Allocated -, 
Maintenance/Operations -); Political (Political Support -, Local Champion -, Public Support +); 
Legal (State Authority +, Existing Local Authority +, Potential Legal Challenge +); Economic 
(Benefit of Action +, Cost of Action -, Contributes to Economic Goals -, Outside Funding 
Required -); Environmental (Effect on Land/Water +, Effect on Endangered Species +, Effect on 
HAZMAT/Waste Sites +, Consistent with Community Environmental Goals +, Consistent with 
Federal Laws +).

Alternative Action 2: Construct a berm around park. Considerations for each criterion: Social 
(Community Acceptance +, Effect on Segment of Population +); Technical (Technical Feasibility 
-, Long-term Solution -, Secondary Impacts -); Administrative (Staffing -, Funding Allocated -, 
Maintenance/Operations -); Political (Political Support +, Local Champion +, Public Support-); 
Legal (State Authority +, Existing Local Authority +, Potential Legal Challenge +); Economic 
(Benefit of Action -, Cost of Action +, Contributes to Economic Goals +, Outside Funding 
Required -); Environmental (Effect on Land/Water -, Effect on Endangered Species +, Effect on 
HAZMAT/Waste Sites +, Consistent with Community Environmental Goals +, Consistent with 
Federal Laws +).

Alternative Action 3: Elevate structures. Considerations for each criterion: Social (Community 
Acceptance +, Effect on Segment of Population +); Technical (Technical Feasibility -, Long-term 
Solution +, Secondary Impacts -); Administrative (Staffing -, Funding Allocated -, 
Maintenance/Operations +); Political (Political Support +, Local Champion +, Public Support +); 
Legal (State Authority +, Existing Local Authority +, Potential Legal Challenge +); Economic 
(Benefit of Action, Cost of Action -, Contributes to Economic Goals +, Outside Funding 
Required -); Environmental (Effect on Land/Water +, Effect on Endangered Species +, Effect on 
HAZMAT/Waste Sites +, Consistent with Community Environmental Goals +, Consistent with 
Federal Laws +).

Alternative Action 1: Acquire flood-prone structures. Comments: Will need to seek outside 
funding.

Alternative Action 2: Construct a berm around park. Comments: Will not provide 100-year flood 
protection to most homes. May be best for units that have not been purchased or elevated.

Alternative Action 3: Elevate structures. Comments: 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.

END WORKSHEET #4]
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. 

[TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

[TIPS:
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."
END TIPS]

[HAZUS:
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 Incest (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.  
END HAZUS]

[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.
3 columned table.  The first column contains a situation, the second an example, and the third a 
recommendation.

Situation 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: This is a desirable result, but the least 
common to occur.	
	
Example: 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."	

Recommendation (What would you do?): Select the alternative.

Situation 2: Two or more alternative actions seem technically feasible and acceptable, but more 
data is needed to determine which is most appropriate. Note: This is a very common result.	

Example: 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.

Recommendation (What would you do?): 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).

Situation 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: This is another very common result.	

Example: 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.
	
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.
Recommendation (What would you do?): Select both alternatives.

Situation 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: This is a common result that is the 
most difficult to resolve. These situations are the ones that test both the process and the 
participants.	

Example: 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. 

Recommendation (What would you do?): Select the alternative that best reflects the "will" of the 
community.

Example 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: This is a common result.	

Example: 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.	

This type of action is optimally initiated using pre-disaster 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.	

Recommendation (What would you do?): Select the alternative and list it as both a pre- and post-
disaster action. 
END TABLE]

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. 

 [TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

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 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.

[TABLE:
Multi-Voting Ranking
3 column table, showing the proposed mitigation actions, the number of votes it received, and the 
priority that resulted from the voting.
Mitigation Action: Elevate structures. Number of Votes: 3. Priority: 3
Mitigation Action: Build a berm around park. Number of Votes: 2. Priority: 4.
Mitigation Action: Acquire flood-prone structures. Number of Votes: 8. Priority: 1.
Mitigation Action: Establish public education and outreach projects. Number of Votes: 5. 
Priority: 2.

TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES: 	18.	END TABLE]
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.
[TABLE:
Numerical Ranking
4 column table]

Mitigation Action: Elevate structures. Rank Given to the Measure: 1,3,4,3. Sum of the Rankings: 
11. Average of Rankings: 2.75. Priority: 3.

Mitigation Action Build a berm around park. Rank Given to the Measure: 4,3,4,4. Sum of the 
Rankings: 15. Average of Rankings: 3.75. Priority: 4.

Mitigation Action Acquire flood-prone structures. Rank Given to the Measure: 1,1,2,1. Sum of 
the Rankings: 5. Average of Rankings: 1.25. Priority: 1.

Mitigation Action: Establish public education and outreach projects. Rank Given to the Measure: 
2,3,2,2. Sum of the Rankings: 9. Average of Rankings: 2.25. Priority: 2.
END TABLE]

[TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

[WORKSHEET #5 PRORITIZED ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION ACTIONS:
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.
4 column table, which contains alternative action in order of priority, goals and objectives, 
sources of information, and comments.

Alternative Action (In Order of Priority): 1. Acquire flood-prone structures. Goal(s) and 
Objective(s)(From Worksheet #1): Goal: Minimize losses to existing and future structures within 
hazard areas. Objective: Reduce damages to the manufactured home park in the floodplain.	

Source(s) of Information (From Worksheet #1): State Hazard Mitigation Officer Comments 
(From Worksheets #1 and #4): 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.

Alternative Action (In Order of Priority): 2. Establish public education and outreach projects. 
Goal(s) and Objective(s)(From Worksheet #1): Goal: Prevent destruction of forests and structures 
in the Urban Wildland Interface. Objective: Protect structures in the Urban Wildland Interface.

Source(s) of Information (From Worksheet #1): State of Emergency Dept. of Forestry. Comments 
(From Worksheets #1 and #4): Educate homeowners on benefits of creating defensible space. 
Many defensible space tips are generally low-cost 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.

Alternative Action (In Order of Priority): 3. Elevate structures. Goal(s) and Objective(s)(From 
Worksheet #1): Goal: Minimize losses to existing and future structures within hazard areas. 
Objective: Reduce damages to the manufactured home park in the floodplain.	

Source(s) of Information (From Worksheet #1): Hazardville Dept. of Public Works. Comments 
(From Worksheets #1 and #4): 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.

Alternative Action (In Order of Priority): 4. Build a berm around park. Goal(s) and Objective(s) 
(From Worksheet #1): Goal: Minimize losses to existing and future structures within hazard 
areas. Objective: Reduce damages to the manufactured home park in the floodplain.	

Source(s) of Information (From Worksheet #1): Hazardville Dept. of Public Works. Comments 
(From Worksheets #1 and #4): 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. 
END WORKSHEET]

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.

[SIDEBAR:
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.
END SIDEBAR]

[Diagram of the hazard mitigation planning process with 3rd step - prepare an implementation 
strategy - enlarged ]
prepare an implementation strategy

Overview
In 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.

[TIPS:
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.)
END TIPS]

[TIPS:
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 day-to-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.
END TIPS]

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 Environmental Protection 
Department is listed as administering this ordinance, then you would list this department as the 
lead agency. 

[TABLE 3-1: PREPARING AN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

5 columned table.  The five columns contain the two parts of task A1, two parts of task A2, and 
task A3 of the implementation strategy.  The rows below show the process and results for the 
implementation.  
Task A 1: Identify parties and define responsibilities. 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). Result: Identification of lead and support agencies and 
organizations, and a listing of their roles and responsibilities.

Task A 1: Confirm partners (technical or financial). Process: Contact technical and financial 
partners necessary for implementation. Result: Confirmed commitments from agencies and 
organizations that will perform specific tasks.

Task A 2: Identify resources (local, state, and federal governments; foundations; business 
partners; non-profits) to implement the action. Process: Prepare a budget and consult various 
resources to identify funding and technical assistance. Result: Development of a budget, broken 
out by task, to implement the action and a listing of funding and technical assistance sources.	

Task A 2: List materials needed (equipment, supplies, and vehicles). Process: Develop a list of all 
materials necessary for implementation. Result: A listing of necessary materials that are available 
and those that must be purchased to implement the action.

Task A 3: Define the time frame for implementing the actions. Process: Discuss the time frame 
for carrying out each action. Result: An agreed upon time frame for carrying out the actions.

Source: Adapted from Integrated Hazard Assessment for the Island of Puerto Rico, Final Report, 
2002.
END TABLE]

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 fine-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, exactions, 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 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:

[TABLE RELEVANT WEB SITES
2 column table:  agency and Web site.
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
END TABLE]

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.

[TIPS:
Home- or business-owners 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.
END TIPS]

 [CAUTION:
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.
END CAUTION]

 [TIPS:
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 impact-
resistant 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). 
"Fire Free! 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 "Fire Free! 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. 
END TIPS]

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. 

[TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

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).

[TIPS:
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)
END TIPS]

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). 

[TIPS:
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 hazard-prone 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.
END TIPS]

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. 

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.

[SIDEBAR:
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 flood-prone 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
[END SIDEBAR]

[Diagram of the hazard mitigation planning process with 4th step - document the mitigation 
planning process - enlarged ]
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.	
Procedures & Techniques

[TIPS:
Review existing mitigation plans, such as those from other communities or from your state, for 
ideas on how to structure your plan.
END TIPS]

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.

[STATE:
The state may wish to suggest a common format and style for all of its community plans.
END STATE]

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.
[TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

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.
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.
[TIPS:
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?
END TIPS]

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.

[DMA:
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.
END DMA]

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.
[HAZUS:
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.
END HAZUS]

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. 

[DMA:
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.
END DMA]

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. 

[TIPS:
See Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4) for more information on how to adopt the plan and 
monitor its progress.
END TIPS]

 [TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

Task C. Review the plan. 
1. Planning Team Review.
The planning team should have an opportunity to review the plan and provide comments.

[TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

2. Agency Review.
Agencies involved in plan implementation should receive a draft copy for review.

3. Public Review.
[CAUTION:
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.
END CAUTION]

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. 

4. Final Draft.
After comments have been received, revise the plan and prepare a final draft. 

[TIPS:
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.
END TIPS]

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 decision-making process by assigning priorities to the mitigation 
actions.

[STATE:
States should check with their FEMA Regional Office to determine the procedures established for 
reviewing draft plans.
END STATE]

[SIDEBAR:
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
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, multi-jurisdictional 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.

[SIDEBAR:
As detailed in the Foreword, the hazard mitigation planning process consists of four basic phases. 
[FLOW DIAGRAM INCLUDED, showing the four phases of the planning process, with 
the fourth step enlarged.  The four phases are:  organize resources, assess risks, develop a 
mitigation plan, and implement the plan and monitor progress.  Wide arrows leading 
from one phase down to the next show that the phases advance in sequence, but narrower 
arrows alongside the boxes also show that each phase relates to all the others.]
The next how-to in the series, Bringing the Plan to Life, will assist you in maintaining an up-to-
date, relevant plan.
END SIDEBAR]

Appendices
APPENDIX A Glossary

Acquisition of hazard-prone structures: Local governments can acquire lands in high hazard areas 
through conservation easements, purchase of development rights, or outright purchase of 
property.

Base Flood Elevation (BFE): 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 (BCA): 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.

Best Management Practices (BMPs): Appropriate, site-specific management techniques that 
maximize the benefits of land and natural resource management actions, while minimizing 
impacts. 

Bond: 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.

Building: 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.

Building codes: 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.
Capability assessment: 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. 

Channel maintenance: Ensuring that flood channels, storm sewers, retaining ponds, etc. do not 
become blocked by debris, sedimentation, overgrowth, or structural failure.
Coastal zone: 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.
Coastal zone management regulations: 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.

Community Rating System (CRS): 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.

Comprehensive plan: 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.

Construction of barriers around structures: Protective structures, such as berms and retaining 
walls, created by grading or filling areas with soil meant to keep flood waters from reaching 
buildings. 

Critical facilities: 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: Dams are artificial barriers which impound water, wastewater, or any liquid-borne 
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).

Debris: 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.
Density controls: 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. 
Design review standards: 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.
Design standards: 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.

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000): 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.

Dune and beach restoration: 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 vehicle 
traffic, and constructing sand traps or wind barriers.
Earthquake: A sudden motion or trembling that is caused by a release of strain accumulated 
within or along the edge of earth's tectonic plates.
Easements: Grant a right to use property, or restrict the landowner's right to use the property in a 
certain way.

Elevation of structures: Raising structures above the base flood elevation to protect structures 
located in areas prone to flooding.

Emergency response services: 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.

Eminent domain: The right of a government to appropriate private property for public use, with 
adequate compensation to the owner.

Environmental review standards: Guidelines established to ensure new development adheres to 
certain construction and site design standards to minimize the impact on the environment.

Erosion: 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.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): 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.

Fire-proofing: Actions taken on and around buildings to prevent the spread of fires.
Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program: 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.

Floodplain development regulations: 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. 

Floodplain zoning: Zoning regulations that prescribe special uses for and serve to minimize 
development in floodplain areas. 

Flood-proofing: 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. 

Forest and vegetation management: The management of forests and vegetation so they are 
resilient to landslides, high-winds, and other storm-related hazards.
Forest fire fuel reduction: 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.
General obligation bond: A bond secured by the taxing and borrowing power of the municipality 
issuing it.

Goals: General guidelines that explain what you want to achieve. They are usually broad policy 
statements, long-term in nature.

Hazard: A source of potential danger or adverse condition.
Hazard information center: 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.

Hazard mitigation: Sustained actions taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk from hazards 
and their effects.

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): 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.

Hazard profile: 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.

Hazard threat recognition: The process of identifying possible hazards and estimating potential 
consequences.

Hazard warning systems: 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. 

HAZUS, HAZUS-MH: 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.

Health and safety maintenance: 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.).

Hillside development regulations: 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.

Levees and floodwalls: Flood barriers constructed of compacted soil or reinforced concrete walls.

Loss estimation: Forecasts of human and economic impacts and property damage from future 
hazard events, based on current scientific and engineering knowledge.
Mitigation actions: Activities, measures, or projects that help achieve the goals and objectives of 
a mitigation plan.

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

Objectives: Objectives define strategies or implementation steps to attain the identified goals. 
Unlike goals, objectives are specific and measurable.
Open space preservation: 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. 

Ordinance: A term for a law or regulation adopted by a local government.
Performance standards: 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.
Planning team: 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.

Policy: A course of action or specific rule of conduct to be followed in achieving goals and 
objectives.

Post-disaster mitigation: Mitigation actions taken after a disaster has occurred, usually during 
recovery and reconstruction. 

Post-disaster recovery ordinance: 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.

Post-disaster recovery planning: 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.
Private activity bond: 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.

Public education and outreach programs: Any campaign to make the public more aware of hazard 
mitigation and mitigation programs, including hazard information centers, mailings, public 
meetings, etc.

Real estate disclosure: Laws requiring the buyer and lender to be notified if a property is located 
in a hazard-prone area.

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.

Relocation out of hazard areas: A mitigation technique that features the process of demolishing or 
moving a building to a new location outside the hazard area.

Reservoirs: Large water storage facilities that can be used to hold water during peak runoff 
periods for controlled release during off-peak periods.

Resources: 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.
Retrofitting: See definition for structural retrofitting.

Risk: 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.

Safe room/shelter: 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.

Seawalls/bulkheads: Vertical coastal walls that are built and designed to protect buildings against 
shoreline erosion. May also protect against storm surge.
Sediment and erosion control regulations: Regulations that stipulate the amount of sediment and 
erosion that is acceptable for land undergoing development. 

Shoreline setback regulations: Regulations that establish a minimum distance between the 
existing shoreline and buildable areas.

Special tax bond: A bond secured by the pledge of a specific special tax.

Special use permits: Permits granted by local governments for land uses that have the potential 
for creating conflicts with uses on adjacent properties.

Stakeholder: Individual or group that will be affected in any way by an action or policy. 
Stakeholders include businesses, private organizations, and citizens.

State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO): 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.
Storm water management regulations: 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.

Strategy: Collection of actions to achieve goals and objectives.

Stream corridor restoration: The restoration of the areas bordering creeks, including the stream 
bank and vegetation.

Stream dumping regulations: Regulations prohibiting dumping in the community's drainage 
system, thereby maintaining stream carrying capacities and reducing the possibility of localized 
flooding.

Structural retrofitting: Modifying existing buildings and infrastructure to protect them from 
hazards.

Subdivision: The division of a tract of land into two or more lots for sale or development.
Subdivision and development regulations: 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.

Taxation: 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.

Transfer of development rights (TDR): 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.

Urban forestry and landscape management: 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.

Vulnerability: 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. 
Wetlands development regulations: Regulations designed to preserve and/or minimize the impact 
of development on wetlands.

Wind-proofing: Modification of design and construction of buildings to withstand wind damage.

Zoning: The division of land within a local jurisdiction by local legislative regulation into zones 
of allowable types and intensities of land uses.

Zoning or land use map: A map that identifies the various zoning district boundaries and the uses 
permitted by a zoning ordinance within those boundaries.

Zoning ordinance: Designation of allowable land use and intensities for a local jurisdiction. 

Zoning ordinances consist of two components: a zoning text and a zoning map.

APPENDIX B library

General Contact Information:
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
	http://www.fema.gov
FEMA Headquarters
	500 C Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20472
	Phone: 202-646-4600
FEMA Publications Warehouse
	800-480-2520
FEMA Mitigation Publications Library
	http://www.fema.gov/library/prepandprev.shtm
Web Sites:
American Planning Association
	http://www.planning.org
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs
	http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda
Community Rating System
	http://www.fema.gov/nfip/crs.htm
FEMA Individual Assistance Program
	http://www.fema.gov/rrr/inassist.shtm
FEMA Mitigation Planning
	http://www.fema.gov/fima/planning
FEMA Public Assistance Program
	http://www.fema.gov/rrr/pa
Flood Hazard Mitigation
	http://www.fema.gov/hazards/floods
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program
	http://www.fema.gov/fima/mtap.shtm
Habitat for Humanity
	http://www.habitat.org/
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
	http://www.fema.gov/fima/hmgp/
HAZUS and HAZUS-MH
	http://www.fema.gov/hazus/index.shtm
Home Rule and Dillon Rule
	http://www.naco.org/pubs/research/briefs/dillon.cfm
Institute for Business and Home Safety
	http://www.ibhs.org/
Institute for Local Self Government
	http://www.ilsg.org/
Landslide Hazard Mitigation
	http://www.fema.gov/hazards/landslides
Maxwell Campbell Public Affairs Institute: City and County Report Cards
http://www.governing.com/gpp/2000/gp0intro.htm and   
http://www.governing.com/gpp/2002/gp2intro.htm
Mitigation Success Stories
	http://www.fema.gov/fima/success.shtm
Multi-hazard Mapping Initiative
	http://www.hazardmaps.gov
National Association of Regional Councils
	http://www.narc.org
National Dam Safety Program
	http://www.fema.gov/fima/damsafe/
National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program
	http://www.fema.gov/hazards/earthquakes/eqmit.shtm
National Flood Insurance Program
	http://www.fema.gov/nfip
National Hurricane Program
	http://www.fema.gov/hazards/hurricanes/nhp.shtm
National League of Cities
	http://www.nlc.org
Native eDGE
	http://nativeedge.hud.gov
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
	http://www.fema.gov/fima/pdm
Protecting Your Home
	http://www.fema.gov/hazards/tornadoes/presskit3.shtm
Protecting Your Property from Fire: Dealing with Vegetation and Combustible Materials
	http://www.fema.gov/fima/how2001
Protecting Your Property from Fire: Roofing
	http://www.fema.gov/fima/how2002.shtm
Protecting Your Property from Wind
	http://www.fema.gov/fima/how2018.shtm
Protecting Yourself from Tornadoes: Safe Rooms
	http://www.fema.gov/mit/saferoom
Small Business Administration
	http://www.sba.gov/disaster
The Grantsmanship Center: Community Foundations
	http://www.tgci.com/resources/foundations/searchGeoLoc.asp
Tribal Governments: Laws, Legislation, and Related Topics
	http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/21indian/index.html
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
	http://www.usace.army.mil
U.S. Department of Agriculture
	http://www.usda.gov/da/disaster/nda.htm
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
	http://www.nrcs.usda.gov
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
	http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/dri/driquickfacts.cfm
U.S. Department of Transportation
	http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/erelief.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
	http://www.epa.gov/
U.S. State and Local Government Gateway
	http://www.firstgov.gov/Government/State_Local.shtml
Wildfire Hazard Mitigation
	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:
Burns, James MacGregor et al., 2001
State and Local Politics. Available at <http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/burns6/>.
Schwab, Jim et al., 1998
Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction (FEMA 421) and APA Planning 
Advisory Service Report 483/484. 
Schwab, Jim and IBHS, 2002
Summary of State Land Use Planning Laws. Available at 
http://www.ibhs.org/research_library/view.asp?id=302.

FEMA
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).
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.
Institute for Business and Home Safety
	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.

Metropolitan University and URS
	Integrated Hazard Assessment for the Island of Puerto Rico, Final Report, 2002 (HMGP).
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
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.
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
	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.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
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.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Agency
	Job Creation and Job Skills Development in Indian Country. Available at 
	http://www.osec.doc.gov/eda/html/1g3_researchrpts.htm.
Village of Gurnee, Illinois
Local Mitigation Plan, November 2001.

Appendix C & D were removed from this document and presented as HTML files on the main How-To
Guide #3 page.

appendix e example questionnaire

[Disaster Resistant Design logo:  A picture of the state of Oregon, encircled by a comet and its 
tail.  Across the picture of the state are the words "Planning for Disaster Resistance."]
January 2003
Dear Oregon Citizen:
We need your help!
Your community is currently engaged in a planning process to reduce the risks and losses 
associated with natural disasters. As a part of this process, the City is working with Partners for 
Disaster Resistance and the Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup at the University of Oregon to 
conduct a household survey. This survey provides an opportunity for you to share your opinions 
about preparing for and reducing your household's and your community's risks from natural 
disasters. The information you provide about disaster preparedness could help improve the 
coordination of preparedness and risk reduction activities in your community.
Your opinions are important to us! Please complete the enclosed survey and return it in the 
postage-paid envelope. The survey will take about 15-20 minutes to complete. Please finish and 
return this survey by February 3rd, 2003.
Oregon has been designated a "Showcase State for Natural Disaster Resistance and Resilience." 
Partners for Disaster Resistance is bringing together public agencies and private organizations 
throughout the state to coordinate efforts to provide citizens and organizations statewide an 
opportunity to prepare for and minimize the impacts of natural hazards.
If you have questions regarding the survey, please contact the Oregon Natural Hazards 
Workgroup at the University of Oregon at (541) 346-3889. For information on Partners for 
Disaster Resistance: Oregon Showcase State, please visit http://www.OregonShowcase.org.
Thank you for your participation!
Sincerely,
André LeDuc, State Coordinator, Partners for Disaster Resistance: Oregon Showcase Program, 
www.OregonShowcase.org. Beverlee Venell,  Director, Oregon Emergency Management, 
www.osp.state.or.us/oem/. Suzanne Hildick, Executive Director, American Red Cross, Oregon 
Trail Chapter, www.PrepareForLife.org.
[Disaster Resistant Design logo]
[Household Natural Hazards Preparedness Questionnaire]
This questionnaire is designed to help gauge household preparedness for disasters, and 
knowledge of tools and techniques that assist in reducing risk and loss from natural hazards.  The 
questionnaire should be completed by an adult, preferably the homeowner or head of household.  
The information you provide about your needs for disaster preparedness could help improve 
public/private coordination of preparedness and risk reduction activities within your community.  
We ask that you please take a few minutes to complete this questionnaire.

Your returned survey indicates your willingness to take part in the study.  Your participation in 
this study is voluntary.  If you have questions regarding your rights as a research participant, 
please contact the Office of Human Subjects Compliance, Riverfront Research Park, Suite 106, 
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR  97403-5219, or call (541) 346-2510.  All individual survey 
responses are strictly confidential, and are for research purposes only.

Natural Hazard Information

1. In the past five years, or since you have lived in the community you currently reside in, have 
you or someone in your household experienced a natural disaster such as an earthquake, severe 
windstorm, flood, wildfire, or other type of natural disaster?
Yes. No (if NO Skip to Question 2).

1.1. If ("YES") which of these natural disasters have you or someone in your household 
experienced? (Please check all that apply.) Drought, Dust Storm, Earthquake, Flood, Landslide / 
Debris Flow, Wildfire, Household Fire, Windstorm, Volcanic Eruption, Severe Winter Storm, 
Other (specify). 

2. How concerned are you personally about the following natural disasters affecting your 
community? (Check the corresponding box for each hazard.)


Drought: Extremely Concerned, Very Concerned, Concerned, Somewhat Concerned, or Not 
Concerned.

Dust Storm: Extremely Concerned, Very Concerned, Concerned, Somewhat Concerned, or Not 
Concerned.

Earthquake: Extremely Concerned, Very Concerned, Concerned, Somewhat Concerned, or Not 
Concerned.

Flood: Extremely Concerned, Very Concerned, Concerned, Somewhat Concerned, or Not 
Concerned.

Landslide / Debris Flow: Extremely Concerned, Very Concerned, Concerned, Somewhat 
Concerned, or Not Concerned.

Wildfire: Extremely Concerned, Very Concerned, Concerned, Somewhat Concerned, or Not 
Concerned.

Household Fire: Extremely Concerned, Very Concerned, Concerned, Somewhat Concerned, or 
Not Concerned.

Tsunami: Extremely Concerned, Very Concerned, Concerned, Somewhat Concerned, or Not 
Concerned.

Volcanic Eruption: Extremely Concerned, Very Concerned, Concerned, Somewhat Concerned, or 
Not Concerned.

Wind Storm: Extremely Concerned, Very Concerned, Concerned, Somewhat Concerned, or Not 
Concerned.

Coastal Erosion: Extremely Concerned, Very Concerned, Concerned, Somewhat Concerned, or 
Not Concerned.

Severe Winter Storm: Extremely Concerned, Very Concerned, Concerned, Somewhat Concerned, 
or Not Concerned.

3. Have you ever received information about how to make your household and home safer from 
natural disasters? Yes. No.  (IF NO Skip to Question 4.)
3.1 If "YES", how recently? Within the last 6 months, between 6 and 12 months, between 1 and 2 
years, between 2 and 5 years, 5 years or more. 
3.2. From whom did you last receive information about how to make your household and home 
safer from natural disasters? (Please check only one.) News media, Government agency, 
Insurance agent or company, Utility company, University or research institution, American Red 
Cross, Other non-profit organization, Not sure, or Other: (list). 

4. Who would you most trust to provide you with information about how to make your household 
and home safer from natural disasters? (Please check all that apply.) News media, Government 
agency, Insurance agent or company, Utility company, University or research institution, 
American Red Cross, Other non-profit organization, Not sure, Other: (list). 

5. What is the most effective way for you to receive information about how to make your 
household and home safer from natural disasters? (Please check all that apply) Newspapers: 
Newspaper stories, Newspaper ads. Television: Television news, Television ads. Radio: Radio 
news, Radio ads. Other methods: Schools, Outdoor advertisements (billboards, etc.), Books, Mail, 
Fire Department/Rescue, Internet, Fact sheet/brochure, Chamber of Commerce, Public 
workshops/meetings, Magazine, University or research institution, Other (please explain).

Preparedness Activities in Your Household

Households can do many things to prepare for a natural disaster or emergency. What you have on 
hand or are trained to do when a disaster strikes can make a big difference in your comfort and 
safety in the hours and days following a natural disaster or emergency. Basic services, such as 
electricity, gas, water and telephones, may be cut off, or you may have to evacuate at a moment's 
notice. The following questions focus on your household's preparedness for disaster events.  

6. In the following list, please check those activities that you have done in your household, plan to 
do in the near future, have not done, or are unable to do. (Please check one answer for each 
preparedness activity.) 

In your household, have you or someone in your household: 

A. Attended meetings or received written information on natural disasters or emergency 
preparedness? Have Done, Plan To Do, Not Done, or Unable To Do.
B. Talked with members in your household about what to do in case of a natural disaster or 
emergency? Have Done, Plan To Do, Not Done, or Unable To Do.
C. Developed a "Household/Family Emergency Plan" in order to decide what everyone would do 
in the in event of a disaster? Have Done, Plan To Do, Not Done, or Unable To Do.
D. Prepared a "Disaster Supply Kit" (Stored extra food, water, batteries, or other emergency 
supplies)? Have Done, Plan To Do, Not Done, or Unable To Do.
E. In the last year, has anyone in your household trained in First Aid or Cardio-Pulmonary 
Resuscitation (CPR)? Have Done, Plan To Do, Not Done, or Unable To Do.

7. Building a disaster supply kit, receiving First Aid training and developing a household/family 
emergency plan are all inexpensive activities that require a personal time commitment. How 
much time (per year) are you willing to spend on preparing yourself/household for a natural 
disaster or emergency event?  (Check only one.) 0-1 hour, 2-3 hours, 4-7 hours, 8-15 hours, 16+ 
hours, Other (please specify). 

8. What steps, if any, have you or someone in your household taken to prepare for a natural 
disaster? (Check all that apply.) Have stored: Food, Water, Flashlight(s), Batteries, Battery-
powered radio, Medical supplies (First aid kit), Fire extinguisher, Smoke detector on each level of 
the house. Prepared a Disaster Supply Kit, Received First Aid/CPR Training, Made a fire escape 
plan, Developed a reconnection plan: Where to go and who to call, Discussed utility shutoffs, 
Other (please explain).

9. Does your household have insurance coverage for flood events? Yes (If you answered YES 
skip to Question 10). No.

9.1 If "NO," what is the main reason your household does not have insurance for flood events? 
(Please check only one.) Not located in the floodplain, Too expensive, Not necessary, Never 
considered it, Deductibles too high/not worth it, Not familiar with it/ don't know about it, Other: 
(list). 

10. Does your household have insurance coverage for earthquake events? Yes (If you answered 
YES skip to Question 11). No.

10.1 If "NO," what is the main reason your household does not have earthquake insurance? 
(Please check only one). Too expensive, Not available, Not necessary, Never considered it, 
Deductibles too high/not worth it, Not familiar with it/ don't know about it, Other: (list).

Natural Hazard Risk Reduction

Risk reduction activities are those actions you can take to protect your home from natural hazard 
events, such as earthquakes, floods, or wildfires. You can do nonstructural modifications or 
retrofits to protect your home's contents against damage, often at minimal cost.  You can also 
conduct structural retrofits to strengthen your home's structure or skeleton, although 
modifications to a structure tend to be quite involved and generally require the expertise of a 
registered design professional (engineer, architect or building contractor).  

11. Did you consider the possible occurrence of a natural hazard when you bought/moved into 
your current home? Yes. No.

12. Would you be willing to spend more money on a home that had features that made it more 
disaster resistant? Yes. No. Don't Know.

13. Would you be willing to make your home more resistant to natural disasters? Yes. No. (If you 
answered No skip to Question 14.)

13.1 How much are you willing to spend to better protect your home from natural disasters? 
(Check only one.) Less $100, $100 - $499, $500 - $999, $1000 - $2499, $2500 - $4999, $5000 
and above, Nothing, Don't know, What ever it takes, Other (please explain). 

Question 14 includes nonstructural and structural modifications that make your home more 
resistant to earthquakes.  There are many measures that can be taken for other natural hazards, 
such as wildfires and floods.

14. What nonstructural or structural modifications for earthquakes have you made to your home? 
(Please check all that apply.) 

	14a. Nonstructural: Anchor bookcases/cabinets to wall, Secure water heater to wall, Install 
latches on drawers/cabinets, Fit gas appliances with flexible connections, Others (please explain), 
None.
 
	14b. Structural: Secure home to foundation, Brace inside of cripple wall with sheathing, Brace 
unreinforced chimney, Brace unreinforced masonry & concrete walls and foundations, Others 
(please explain), None. 

15. Which of the following incentives, if any, would motivate you to take additional steps to 
better protect your home from a natural disaster? (Check all that apply.) Insurance discount, Low 
interest rate loan, Lower new home construction costs, Mortgage discount, Tax break or 
incentive, None, Other (please explain).

Community Natural Hazard Preparedness

16. Natural hazards can have a significant impact on a community, but planning for these events 
can help lessen the impacts.  The following statements will help determine citizen priorities for 
planning for natural hazards.  Please tell us how important each one is to you.

A. Protecting private property:  Very Important, Somewhat Important, Neutral, Not Very 
Important, Not Important
B. Protecting critical facilities (e.g. transportation networks, hospitals, fire stations): Very 
Important, Somewhat Important, Neutral, Not Very Important, Not Important
C. Preventing development in hazard areas:  Very Important, Somewhat Important, Neutral, Not 
Very Important, Not Important
D. Enhancing the function of natural features (e.g. streams, wetlands):  Very Important, 
Somewhat Important, Neutral, Not Very Important, Not Important
E. Protecting historical and cultural landmarks:  Very Important, Somewhat Important, Neutral, 
Not Very Important, Not Important
F. Promoting cooperation among public agencies, citizens, non-profit organizations, and 
businesses:  Very Important, Somewhat Important, Neutral, Not Very Important, Not Important
G. Protecting and reducing damage to utilities:  Very Important, Somewhat Important, Neutral, 
Not Very Important, Not Important
H. Strengthening emergency services (e.g. police, fire, ambulance):  Very Important, Somewhat 
Important, Neutral, Not Very Important, Not Important

17. Are there any other issues regarding the reduction of risk and loss associated with natural 
disasters that you feel are important?

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

A. I support a regulatory approach to reducing risk:  Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, 
Strongly Disagree, Not Sure
B. I support a non-regulatory approach to reducing risk:  Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, 
Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Not Sure
C. I support a mix of both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to reducing risk:  Strongly 
Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Not Sure
D. I support policies to prohibit development in areas subject to natural hazards:  Strongly Agree, 
Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Not Sure
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:  Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, 
Strongly Disagree, Not Sure
F. I support the use of local tax dollars to reduce risks and losses from natural disasters:  Strongly 
Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Not Sure
G. I support protecting historical and cultural structures:  Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, 
Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Not Sure
H. I would be willing to make my home more disaster-resistant:  Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, 
Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Not Sure
I. I support steps to safeguard the local economy following a disaster event:  Strongly Agree, 
Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Not Sure
J. I support improving the disaster preparedness of local schools:  Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, 
Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Not Sure
K. I support a local inventory of at-risk buildings and infrastructure:  Strongly Agree, Agree, 
Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Not Sure

General Household Information.

19. Please indicate your age.

20. Gender: Male. Female.

21. Please indicate your level of education: Grade school/no schooling, Some high school, High 
school graduate/GED, Some college/trade school, College degree, Postgraduate degree, Other, 
please specify.

22. Zip code. 

23. County.

24. How long have you lived in Oregon? Less than one year, 1-5 years, 5-9 years, 10-19 years, 20 
years or more. 

25. If you have lived in Oregon for less than 20 years, in what state did you live before you 
moved to Oregon? Not Applicable, California, Idaho, Washington, Other: (list).

26. Do you have access to the Internet? Yes. No.

27. Do you own or rent your home? Own. Rent.

28. Do you rent/own a: Single-family home, Duplex, Apartment (3-4 units in structure), 
Apartment (5 or more units in structure), Condominium / townhouse, Manufactured home, Other: 
(list).	

Please feel free to provide any additional comments in the space provided:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR PROVIDING THIS INFORMATION

The Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup at the University of Oregon's Community Service 
Center prepared this survey. Implementation of this survey made possible by funding from 
Oregon Emergency Management and the Public Entity Risk Institute.

For more information on, please contact Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup at 1209 University 
of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1209, call (541) 346-3653 or visit www.OregonShowcase.org




howto3.txt   


      Home New Form Import Edit More... 
      Browse Folders 
       
      Undo Changes 
      Review 
      Check Links 
      View Differences 
      Submit 
       
      Copy 
      Move 
      Delete 
      Rename 
      Convert 
       
      Tag 
      Versions 
      Properties 
       
      Assign Task 
      Add to My Favorites