Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Mitigation Planning

Mitigation Grants

Question 1: Are HMGP planning grants subject to a benefit-cost analysis in order to be eligible for funding?

Answer: The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 authorizes up to 7% of the HMGP ceiling to be used for the development of State, Indian Tribal, and/or local mitigation plans that meet the planning criteria outlined in 44 CFR Part 201. A benefit-cost analysis is not required for the use of the 7% planning funds.

Question 2: Are jurisdictions that are not participating in the NFIP eligible to receive HMGP Planning grants?

Answer: Yes. Non-participating jurisdictions are eligible for planning grants under the HMGP. Because of the post-disaster aspect of HMGP, FEMA wants to provide an opportunity to encourage sound mitigation planning, which may in turn serve to motivate non-participating jurisdictions to participate in the NFIP. Up to 7% of the total disaster HMGP funds may be used for State and local planning activities. For example, if a state receives $1 Million in HMGP, up to $70,000 could be used for planning grants to sub-applicants.

Question 3: If a jurisdiction does not have an approved plan when a disaster is declared, can the jurisdiction receive an HMGP project grant?

Answer: Yes. A local government can receive an HMGP project grant as long as the plan is approved prior to the grant award. In extraordinary circumstances, as defined by FEMA, FEMA Regional Directors may grant an exception to the local plan requirement. In these cases, a plan must be completed within 12 months of award of the project grant.

Local governments would also be eligible to receive an HMGP planning grant to develop or finalize their plan.

Question 4: Must a local jurisdiction amend a previously approved plan to add mitigation projects eligible for PDM-C funding?

Answer: No. There is no need for additional “mitigation actions" to be added to FEMA-approved multi-hazard mitigation plans to remain eligible for PDM-C funding if the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of both the State or Tribal State-level mitigation plan, and the local or tribal local mitigation plan. If local governments wish to report to FEMA that they have updated their plans, they may do so, but there is no requirement for this action. FEMA does not desire nor require the updating and resubmission of local plans for PDM-C or HMGP eligibility if the plan is already FEMA-approved and the project is consistent with the plan’s goals and objectives. This is also true for universities with their own approved mitigation plan.

Question 5: Are annual EMPG funds contingent upon a State meeting the Section 322 planning requirements?

Answer: No, EMPG funding will not be withheld from a State that does not update its mitigation plan in compliance with 44 CFR Part 201. However, FEMA does emphasize the need to encourage planning assistance and training with the EMPG funds. A State may choose to use the funding they receive under the EMPG to develop specific pieces of their plan as they relate to all hazards.

Question 6: Are separate plans required from State agencies when they are subgrantees to the State agency serving as the grantee to FEMA?

Answer: Not usually. State agency issues should be addressed in the State Mitigation Plan, and potential projects or funded activities should be included in the plan. The State has two options for addressing other State agency mitigation issues in a plan. The preferred option is to ensure participation in the State mitigation planning process by requiring each participating agency to sign-off on the State Mitigation Plan as a condition of mitigation project grant funding. State agencies should identify issues of particular interest to them, summarizing any specific projects, activities, or mitigation commitments in a brief document that can be an addendum to the State Mitigation Plan. The second option is: if agencies do not participate in the Statewide planning process, then they must prepare a separate plan in order to be eligible for mitigation project grant funding.

Back To Top

Risk Assessments

Question 1: What level of detail is necessary for a Risk Assessment?

Answer: The short answer to this question is "It depends."

As stated in 44 CFR §201.6(c)(2), the risk assessment should provide enough information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions. The risk assessment must include a description of the vulnerability that includes the potential impact of each hazard on the community. This type of information can be portrayed in many ways, but must be based on best available data. The following provides examples of the variety of ways vulnerability can be depicted; each of the examples below could meet DMA criteria if it is determined that the approaches and data used represent the community's best-faith efforts to obtain the most recent, accurate data available.

Communities A, B and C each contain 5,000 households and 100 businesses (based on Census data and the local community plan). The communities each have a 100-year floodplain running through them, but there is no detailed information as to how many buildings lie in the floodplain, nor is there detailed information on what the depth of the 100-year flood would be at the buildings. The communities can demonstrate their vulnerability in the following ways:

Scenario 1: Community A's planning team obtains the tax maps (containing parcel-level information) for the community and transfers the FIRM boundaries onto it. It then counts the number of homes and businesses within the floodway and floodplain boundaries. The planning team determines that there are 500 households and 28 businesses within the floodplain, 100 of which are within the floodway. By obtaining the backup information from the FIRM from the study contractor that performed their currently effective Flood Insurance Study, they determine that the average 100-year flood depth in the floodway is 9 feet, and the average 100-year floodplain depth is 6 feet. They also determine that there are areas of high flow velocity in certain reaches of the stream, indicating that localized erosion may be a problem.

Scenario 2: Community B does not have detailed flood mapping; they have flood boundary information. The planning team estimates that, based upon the density and pattern of development in the community, approximately 15% of the housing and 20% of the businesses in the community lie in the 100-year floodplain. This is estimated visually by transferring the FIRM boundaries onto a land use map previously developed by the planning department. By multiplication, they determine that approximately 750 homes and 20 businesses are in the floodplain. The team then takes a USGS quadrangle map and estimates the average ground elevations within the floodway, and within the floodplain, and compares them with the average base flood elevation obtained from the FIRM. They determine that the average depth in the floodplain is 5 feet.

As the vulnerability assessment is completed, it is noted that given the zoning designation of currently vacant land within the floodplain, there is the potential for an additional 100 houses to be built in the floodplain. This is brought to the attention of the planning director.

Scenario 3: Community C works with the local university to have students do a "windshield survey" of the homes and businesses located in the flood plain. The students first obtain Q3 flood boundaries from www.hazardmaps.gov, and transfer them onto a new street map. They then use an old tax map to begin counting structures within the flood boundaries. Lastly, they take to the streets to visually count the number of homes and businesses that likely lie within the flood boundaries delineated on their street map. They determine there are 425 homes and 22 businesses within the flood boundaries.

In the examples above, each community arrived at the number of structures within the floodplain in a different manner, using the best data available to them, and using methods that matched the resources of the community. In each case, the community attempted to locate the best available data. None of these communities utilized GIS, a tool often used in risk assessment activities.

Question 2: Does FEMA require the use of HAZUS-MH for risk assessment?

Answer: No. HAZUS-MH is an outstanding tool for multihazard loss estimation and risk assessment, but it is not required for compliance with the risk assessment requirements promulgated in the Interim Final Rule and explained in the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance.

Jurisdictions are required to analyze their risks to the greatest extent possible. This means that the best data and techniques available to the community at the time of plan development must be used. While a small and impoverished community's plan cannot be rejected for failing to include a HAZUS-MH analysis (or even to include hazard maps at all), a plan developed in a major metropolitan area or in a community with robust economic and technical capabilities will be expected to reflect a more sophisticated level of analysis.

Although the use of HAZUS-MH for risk assessment is not required, it is strongly encouraged. Not only does the software estimate losses to several different types of hazards, but users can also tap HAZUS-MH databases to profile their community, identify critical facilities, and integrate data from manmade hazard models to support a wide variety of planning activities. To help users achieve maximum success, FEMA aggressively supports the HAZUS-MH user community with a program of training, guidance documents, technical support, and additional software packages that facilitate the use of HAZUS-MH for meeting the risk assessment requirements promulgated in the Rule. In addition, HAZUS User Groups provide invaluable peer-to-peer support for all levels of users from novices to experienced practitioners.

While the HAZUS-MH software is available free of charge from FEMA, ESRI's ArcView software is required to run HAZUS-MH. In cases where resource constraints or other reasons prohibit the use of advanced GIS, other capability-enhancing resources may be used. For example, ESRI offers a free GIS data viewing application called ArcExplorer that allows users to perform basic GIS functions such as viewing and querying data and producing maps.

Additionally, interactive web sites such as FEMA's HazardMaps.gov and the U.S. Geological Survey's National Atlas and National Map allow users to produce a variety of detailed, customized hazard maps using only a standard Web browser. These three sites offer many of the features available in commercially-available GIS applications yet cost nothing to use and require no formal training.

Back To Top

Environmental Assessments

Question 1: Do the States have to prepare environmental assessments and collect data?

Answer: The regulations for enhanced plans at 206.5(b)(2)(iii) require "Demonstration that the State has the capability to effectively manage the HMGP as well as other mitigation grant programs, including a record of the following (B) Preparing and submitting accurate environmental reviews.

The States are not required to prepare the formal environmental documents, but FEMA does expect them to perform much of the data gathering and coordination necessary to support the environmental review process.

FEMA's environmental regulations at 44 CFR Part 10.7 discuss FEMA's overall approach to integrating National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) considerations with mitigation planning and project development. Paragraph 10.7(a) directs the FEMA Regional Director to "integrate the NEPA process with other planning at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to head off potential conflicts."

To facilitate compliance with this approach, FEMA sets out its expectations for applicants for FEMA assistance, generally States, tribal and local governments, in Paragraph 10.7(c)(2):

(2) To facilitate compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, applicants and other non-Federal entities are expected to:

(i) Contact the Regional Director as early as possible in the planning process for guidance on the scope and level of environmental information required to be submitted in support of their application;

(ii) Conduct any studies which are deemed necessary and appropriate by FEMA to determine the impact of the proposed action on the human environment;

(iii) Consult with appropriate Federal, regional, State, and local agencies and other potentially interested parties during preliminary planning stages to ensure that all environmental factors are identified;

(iv) Submit applications for all Federal, regional, State, and local approvals as early as possible in the planning process;

(v) Notify the Regional Director as early as possible of all other Federal, regional, State, local, and Indian tribe actions required for project completion so that FEMA may coordinate all Federal environmental reviews; and

(vi) Notify the Regional Director of all known parties potentially affected by or interested in the proposed action.

[45 FR 41142, June 18, 1980, as amended at 47 FR 13149, Mar. 29, 1982]

Back To Top

Critical Facilities

Question 1: For planning purposes, what should be considered a critical facility?

Answer: Every jurisdiction is unique. The list of assets that are most important to protect, as well as the criticality of any given facility, can vary widely from community to community. Thus, there is no universal definition of a critical facility, nor is one associated with the DMA 2000 planning requirements as promulgated in the Interim Final Rule. For planning purposes, a jurisdiction should determine criticality based on the relative importance of its various assets for the delivery of vital services, the protection of special populations, and other important functions.

A good place to start is Step Three of FEMA's Mitigation Planning How-To Guide, Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (FEMA 386-2). Based on a hazard-by-hazard identification of facilities that may be at risk, the Guide's emphasis on determining priorities for inventory data collection will help planners identify assets that are most critical to the jurisdiction. The companion publication Integrating Manmade Hazards into Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-7) builds on the guidance in Understanding Your Risks, detailing how the asset inventory can be tailored to focus on high-risk facilities such as critical infrastructures and key assets (see definitions below). A third potential point of departure is the inventory information available with FEMA's HAZUS-MH loss estimation software. HAZUS-MH databases include information on essential facilities such as hospitals, police and fire stations, emergency operations centers, shelters, and schools; transportation systems; utility lifelines; high potential loss facilities such as potable water, wastewater, oil, natural gas, electric power, and communication systems; and hazardous material facilities.

Numerous other sources provide additional guidance on identifying facilities that may be critical. First, FEMA's Public Assistance Guide (FEMA 322) states that "A critical facility is a structure that, if flooded, would present an immediate threat to life, public health, and safety. Critical facilities include hospitals, facilities that produce toxic materials, and emergency operations centers." The related regulation at 44 CFR § 206.226, Restoration of damaged facilities (text / PDF), states that "Eligible private nonprofit facilities may receive funding under the following conditions, The facility provides critical services, which include power, water (including water provided by an irrigation organization or facility in accordance with § 206.221(e)(3)), sewer services, wastewater treatment, communications, emergency medical care, fire department services, emergency rescue, and nursing homes"

The definition can be construed more or less broadly as appropriate to the jurisdiction's planning approach. FEMA's State and Local Guide (SLG) 101: Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning does not define critical facilities but provides the following examples:

Emergency service facilities and equipment (fire stations; police stations; custodial facilities, such as jails and juvenile detention centers, hospitals, and other health care facilities; rescue squads; public works facilities, etc.).

  • Communications networks (telephones, emergency service radio systems, repeater sites and base stations, television and radio stations, etc.).
  • Water supply system/facilities, to include waste water treatment.
  • Utilities (power plants, substations, power lines, etc.)
  • Transportation networks (roads, bridges, airports, rail terminals, maritime ports).
  • Homes, businesses, public facilities, etc.

While asserting the criticality of individual homes and businesses may require some explanation, the other assets mentioned are of a type that would be acceptable as part of most any critical facilities inventory. This argument is supported in FEMA's What is a Benefit? Guidance On Benefit-Cost Analysis Of Hazard Mitigation Projects. What is a Benefit? includes police, fire and medical buildings, Emergency Operations Centers, and emergency shelters in the category of critical facilities. However, the document also mentions utilities such as electric power, potable water, and wastewater, as well as roads and bridges, as distinct from ordinary buildings, stating that "Ordinary buildings include residential and commercial buildings, and public buildings used for non-critical functions, such as schools and administrative buildings."

Continuity of operations (COOP) planning provides yet another perspective on criticality. FEMA's Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings (FEMA 426) defines critical assets as "those assets essential to the minimum operations of the organization, and to ensure the health and safety of the general public", while the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Section 2(9) (6 U.S.C. 101(9) defines key resources as "publicly or privately controlled resources essential to the minimal operations of the economy and government."

Finally, national-level homeland security policy provides guidance on the kinds of assets that may be considered critical. First, critical infrastructures are defined in 42 U.S.C. 5195c(e), the Critical Infrastructures Protection Act of 2001, as "systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters." According to the National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets, critical infrastructure sectors comprise agriculture & food; water; public health; emergency services; defense industrial base; telecommunications; energy; transportation; banking & finance; chemicals & hazardous materials; and postal & shipping. While some of these, such as the defense industrial base, are more national in scope, most of them are first and foremost State, local, and private-sector activities.

In addition to critical infrastructures, the National Strategy referenced above uses the term key assets. These are described as "individual targets whose destruction could cause large-scale injury, death, or destruction of property, and/or profoundly damage our national prestige, and confidence." Furthermore, "such assets and activities alone may not be vital to the continuity of critical services on a national scale, but an attack on any one of them could produce, in the worst case, significant loss of life and/or public health and safety consequences." While this term is generally used in the context of identifying potential venues for sabotage or terrorist attack, the definition may be helpful in categorizing assets for all-hazard planning purposes.

Question 2: What level of detail is needed in the plan's identification of critical facilities?

Answer: The plan should provide enough information regarding critical facilities to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions. However, some information may be deemed as highly sensitive and should not be made available to the public. Such information that the jurisdiction considers sensitive should be treated as an addendum to the mitigation plan so that it is still a part of the plan, but access can be controlled. For more information on protecting sensitive information see How-To #7 Integrating Human-Caused Hazards into Mitigation Planning. (FEMA 386-7).

Back To Top

Prioritizing Projects (Benefit Cost Analyses)

Question 1: What level of detail should be provided in mitigation plans with respect to Benefit/Cost calculations for projects?

Answer: According to DMA interim final regulations, (44 CFR §201.6(c)(3)(iii)), local mitigation plans must contain a strategy (or action plan) whereby "Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs."

This is not intended to require a full-blown cost-benefit calculation for inclusion within the plan document. However, one key aspect of the many considerations in deciding what type of mitigation action(s) to pursue is an economic assessment of the particular action. This (and the other considerations) should be debated and discussed as part of the planning team's and or larger community's decision-making process. A possible result of these local discussions could be the decision to complete a formal cost/benefit evaluation of the various mitigation approaches that are technically appropriate for the situation. However, this is not required to be included in the plan. As long as the economic considerations are summarized in the plan document as part of the community's analysis of the "comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions of projects being considered…" (44 CFR §201.6(c)(3)(ii)), that would be sufficient.

Once funding is being sought for the particular mitigation action, the detailed benefit/cost calculation would be required, as described under the various grant program regulations.

Back To Top

Privacy of Property Addresses

Question 1: Are potential acquisition project property addresses required to be noted in the plan?

Answer: No. A list of potential properties or areas that are being considered for acquisition should be prepared in advance, as part of the mitigation strategy but the specifics regarding property addresses should remain at the project level.

Back To Top

Schools and Private Non-Profit (PNP) Institutions

Question 1: What Planning requirements must be met by an academic institution interested in applying for mitigation project grants?

Answer: A college or university must be an active participant in a FEMA approved State/Tribal or local plan OR have an approved plan of their own that meets the requirements of 44 CFR Part 201 to be eligible for mitigation project grants. If an institution is participating in a plan, the plan must specifically identify those land areas that pertain to the institution, their specific hazards, including an analysis of those risks and any aspects that are unique to the institution relative to the community the institution resides in. When hazards and risks are identified, at least one specific mitigation action must be developed to reduce the impact of future disasters on the institution. The institution must also take ownership of their responsibilities set out in the plan they are participating in by formally adopting or resolving to adhere to and implement the actions identified. This can be accomplished through a resolution or letter from the institution President, Board of Directors or recognized governing body.

If a college or university was not a participant in a State/Tribal or local plan then they must develop a plan of their own that meets the requirements of 44 CFR Part 201.6 to be eligible for all mitigation project grants.

All colleges and universities are eligible to apply for a planning grant through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant program.

Participation in a planning effort means all of the following:

  • Have an active role in the development of a plan (through meeting attendance, data input, plan review, etc.)
  • An assessment of the specific area describing any unique differences from the jurisdiction as a whole.
  • At least one specific action item developed for the Mitigation Strategy that will reduce the impact of future disasters on that entity. This action may be the same for the entire area included in the plan, unless unique circumstances suggest a different action would be more appropriate.
  • Formal adoption or agreement by the entity to adhere to and implement the plan requirements.

Question 2: What planning strategy should a university system consider when thinking about adopting a multi-campus approach?

Answer: There are a number of different approaches that colleges and universities can use to satisfy the planning requirements. In a large and complex state university system, for example, there may be several component universities, each with multiple campuses, extension offices, and other sites; given that the various universities may be subject to different risk issues, each individual university may be best served by developing a stand-alone, single-jurisdiction plan. However, the state university system's Board of Regents or other top-level entity may determine that the State would be best served if planning for all of its component institutions and campuses were coordinated at the highest possible level in order to facilitate and coordinate capital improvement planning; in such a case, the top-level entity could develop a multi-jurisdictional plan to which the participating component institutions would then be signatories. Regardless of whether planning is distributed or centralized, however, the plans developed will be local plans, not State plans, even if they are developed by and for State institutions. Similarly, private institutions may opt to participate in local or regional multi-jurisdictional plans, or they may develop plans of their own. Either way, the key to success is to ensure that all of the requirements established by regulation are met. This includes coordinating the planning activities of each campus with those of the surrounding community and, in the case of a multi-institution plan, ensuring that each institution's unique risks are addressed in addition to those risks affecting the entire state university system.

Question 3: What should be the role of private nonprofit organizations in the development, review, and approval of local mitigation plans?

Answer: Private nonprofit organizations, especially those that may be eligible applicants for mitigation projects, should participate in the development of the local mitigation plan. If they have fully participated in the development and review of the local plan, it is not necessary for them to approve/adopt the plan, as long as it is adopted by the local jurisdiction. Note: the issues related to private nonprofits that cover a wide geographic area, such as rural electric cooperatives or levee districts, will be addressed in a separate FAQ.

Question 4: Must private nonprofit organizations (PNPs) have a FEMA-approved multi-hazard mitigation plan in order to receive HMGP project funds?

Answer: No. PNP applicants for HMGP project grants do not need to have an approved multi-hazard mitigation plan in order to receive HMGP project funds. However, in order for a PNP project application to be approved, the following conditions must be met:

1. The jurisdiction in which the project is located must have an approved plan, and

2. The project must be consistent with the plan’s goals and objectives.

(Note that, for FEMA’s PDM program, PNPs are not eligible sub-applicants, but an eligible local government could apply for a grant on their behalf.)

Question 5: How can Rural Electric Cooperatives and similar multi-jurisdictional utility private non-profit (PNP) entities meet FEMA's mitigation planning requirements in order to receive a project grant under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)?

Answer:  Multi-jurisdictional utility PNPs, including Rural Electric Cooperatives (RECs), which sometimes span several counties, are eligible sub-applicants for assistance under the HMGP.  Their infrastructure often sustains damage from severe snow and ice storms, and they frequently seek HMGP funding after disaster declarations from these storms to mitigate future similar losses.

RECs are treated as private non-profit organizations (PNPs) for the purposes of disaster assistance provided by FEMA under the Stafford Act. They are not considered local governments.  This distinction is important, because current regulations provide only for local governments, not PNPs, to meet the planning requirement, by submitting a local mitigation plan (LMP) and having it approved by FEMA. 

For PNPs such as RECs or other multi-jurisdictional utilities, FEMA is identifying two ways in which RECs may meet the mitigation planning requirement of Section 322 of the Stafford Act, as implemented at 44 C.F.R. Part 201, to ensure that projects funded by the HMGP are consistent with the mitigation strategies of the State, Tribal, and/or local jurisdiction in which the project is located.

(1) The local jurisdiction(s) within which the REC mitigation project is located have FEMA approved LMPs.

As FEMA has previously established (through FAQs) addressing PNPs and the mitigation plan requirement for HMGP project grants, FEMA strongly encourages PNPs in general, especially those that may be eligible sub-applicants for mitigation projects, such as RECs, to participate in the development of local mitigation plans. 

In order for a REC project application to be approved, the following conditions must be met:

  • Each jurisdiction in which the project is located must have an approved plan, and
  • The project must be consistent with the plan's goals and objectives.

Therefore, RECs applying for HMGP funds for a project located within jurisdictions that have a FEMA-approved mitigation plan must provide written documentation that the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the plans of the jurisdiction(s) in which the project is located.

(2) The FEMA approved State Mitigation Plan addresses RECs.

FEMA acknowledges the critical function of multi-jurisdictional RECs, and the impact of the loss of that function on States and on communities within a State.  (Other multi-jurisdictional utility PNPs may or may not be classified as critical by a State).  Thus, the State may prepare an annex to its SMP specific to RECs and/or other multi-jurisdictional utilities that provide a critical function.  This will enable these entities to be eligible sub-applicants for HMGP project funds if the project area is not addressed by approved LMPs.  The RECs and similar entities must participate with the State in the development of this annex, specifically in the identification of hazards potentially affecting their infrastructure, assessment of the vulnerabilities of the infrastructure to these hazards and identification of mitigation measures to reduce these vulnerabilities.  The level of detail of the risk assessment and mitigation strategy of the annex must follow the requirements for local plans (§201.6(c)(2) and (3)), rather than the requirements for Standard State plans, in order to provide site-specific information.  Coordination with local jurisdictions within which REC infrastructure is located must be documented in the annex, whether or not they have FEMA approved LMPs.  Coordination with these jurisdictions will help ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the plan will be acceptable, and not in conflict with development or other plans of these jurisdictions.  The Annex must be approved by the State and FEMA, and the REC must participate in future updates of the Plan with respect to the Annex.

Question 6: Must school districts (or independent school districts, or other special districts defined as local governments at 44 CFR 201.2) have a FEMA-approved plan in order to receive HMGP project funds? (Note: Independent school districts are independent of the local government where they are located.)

Answer: Yes. These districts, because they are defined as local governments, are required to have an approved plan - or demonstrate their participation as a separate government entity in another local government’s approved mitigation plan - in order to receive project grants under HMGP or PDM. They would have to meet all FEMA local plan requirements. School districts do not fall under the definition of private nonprofit organizations [44 CFR 206.2(a)(19)].

Back To Top

Review of Mitigation Plans

Question 1: What is the policy to prevent a conflict of interest when a contractor has the potential to be involved in the preparation of a mitigation plan and that same company is used to assist FEMA in plan reviews?

Answer: If the contractor has been involved at all in the preparation of a plan, or any portion of the plan, they will not be able to participate in the plan review. This does not apply to general data collection that may be generated as part of post-disaster recovery activities.

Question 2: Will a local plan be approved if it does not address the “shoulds” sections of the local planning requirements?

Answer: Yes, since these sections are recommended but not required under 44 C.F.R. 201.6. It should be noted that the information described in the “shoulds” can significantly strengthen and improve the risk assessment as well as assumptions made in the plan (including the mitigation strategy). Nonetheless, a plan that does not address these components can be approved if it meets all the mandatory requirements. FEMA strongly encourages that plans without a fully developed risk assessment make this a priority for the 5-year update, since a more complete risk assessment will provide a stronger foundation for the mitigation plan and program. This will aid not only the jurisdiction, but the State as it incorporates local risk assessments into its mitigation plan.

Back To Top

Multi-jurisdictional Plans

Question 1: The planning criteria outlined in 44 CFR Part 201 discuss the development of countywide or multi-jurisdictional plans (which must be adopted by all jurisdictions included), since many issues are better resolved by evaluating hazards in a more comprehensive fashion. If a jurisdiction within the boundaries of a multi-jurisdictional planning area does not participate in the planning process and/or does not formally adopt the plan, what are the implications to the other participating jurisdictions within that multi-jurisdictional plan?

Answer: When a multi-jurisdictional plan is prepared, any participating entity/jurisdiction must adopt the plan if they wish to be eligible for future project grant funding from FEMA. If they do not want to sign off on the plan, that will not prevent any of the other jurisdictions from approving the plan and being eligible for project grants. For instance, if there was a countywide plan, and town A did not adopt the plan, but the county and other towns/cities did adopt it, the only one adversely affected would be town A. We expect, however, that the multi-jurisdictional plan would address any issues that crossed over jurisdictional lines to as great a degree as possible.

Question 2: Must all participating jurisdictions in a multi-jurisdictional plan meet all the local planning requirements, just as if they were participating in a single jurisdictional plan?

Answer: Yes. Although economy-of-scale efforts are apparent and encouraged with multi-jurisdictional plans, FEMA requires that all participating jurisdictions meet the requirements for mitigation planning identified in 44 C.F.R. 201.6. While certain elements are common to all participating jurisdictions (e.g., planning process, hazards, goals, and maintenance), there are some elements that are unique to each participating jurisdiction, including:

Question 3: Is it possible to add jurisdictions to an already FEMA-approved multi-jurisdictional plan?  If so, what are the criteria and conditions that must be met?

Answer: When multi-jurisdictional Mitigation Plans are developed, not all potential communities and jurisdictions may have participated in the process.  After the plan has been reviewed, adopted, and approved, additional jurisdictions may wish to become part of the planning process.  In order for additional jurisdictions to be added to an existing, FEMA-approved, mitigation plan, the conditions below must be met (if all three conditions cannot be met, a jurisdiction has the option of developing its own plan).

1. The jurisdiction(s) asking to be included is located within the boundaries of the area covered by the multi-jurisdictional plan.

2. The organization that was responsible for preparing and submitting the multi-jurisdictional plan to the State and FEMA must agree with the addition of the requesting jurisdiction(s) to the plan.

3. When the original multi-jurisdictional plan was developed, the risk assessment included an analysis of the major hazards, especially the natural hazards - e.g., flooding, tornadoes, winter storms, wild fire, etc. - that have the potential to impact the additional jurisdiction(s).  (Note that new hazards can be added if they affect the requesting jurisdiction, either as part of the requesting jurisdiction's annex, or the entire updated plan, per option 1 or 2 below).

If these conditions can be met, there are two options that can be used to add additional jurisdictions to a FEMA-approved plan.  The choice depends on whether the plan has been recently approved, and it would be premature to undertake a full multi-jurisdictional revision in advance of the required five-year plan update and re-submittal (Option 1), or if the addition of the new jurisdiction(s) is occurring far enough along in the five-year lifespan (before the required update and re-submittal) of the plan that a full revision will begin in the very near future (Option 2).  The jurisdiction(s) wishing to join an existing plan should consult with the agency, organization, or jurisdiction responsible for the plan to decide which approach to use.  Regardless of the option chosen, each jurisdiction joining a multi-hazard planning process and seeking to receive credit from FEMA for an approved plan must satisfy all of the local mitigation planning requirements identified at 44 C.F.R. 201.6.

Option 1 - Approved Plan with Additional Annex or Appendix.  This option is best suited to situations in which the original multi-jurisdictional plan has been recently approved by FEMA and the majority of the plan's five-year lifespan remains ahead. In these cases, the jurisdictions that participated in the original planning process would not be required to take any action. Plan content specific to any new jurisdiction will be included in a new annex or appendix to the existing plan, and changes would not be made to the main sections of the previously approved plan. 
The following actions must be taken to add new jurisdictions to the existing multi-jurisdictional mitigation plan and enable them to receive credit for having a FEMA-approved plan: 

1. The requesting jurisdiction(s) must review the multi-jurisdictional hazard analysis and determine if there are any additional hazards that have not been addressed and threaten the jurisdiction(s).  If none exist, the jurisdiction(s) must document their review process and state that no additional hazards exist.  If the review reveals additional hazards, the jurisdiction(s) must analyze the risks it/they face associated with those hazards and include this analysis in their written appendix to the multi-jurisdictional plan.  This should not be a "rubberstamp" of the existing risk assessment. 

2. The requesting jurisdiction(s) must document agreement with the stated mitigation goals of the original plan.  Additional goals specific to the requesting jurisdiction may be added. Each additional jurisdiction must also develop a list of proposed mitigation appropriate for it.  These can include the common actions outlined in the multi-jurisdictional plan, but must include at least one specific mitigation action for the jurisdiction itself. 

3. The requesting jurisdiction(s) must document the involvement of both the general public and the local government (even if the plan is being facilitated by a consultant or contractor) in the planning process in accordance with 44 C.F.R. 201.6.  The measurement of success in the original plan must be consistent for the additional jurisdictions.

4. Each final DRAFT annex or appendix (less formal adoption), along with the original plan, and a letter of concurrence from the agency or organization responsible for the plan, must be submitted to the State for formal review.  When the State finds the plan approvable, it will forward it to FEMA.  When FEMA's review finds the plan "approvable pending adoption," the new jurisdiction can formally adopt the full plan and its jurisdiction-specific annex or appendix (including its jurisdiction-specific risk assessment information and mitigation actions) and submit the plan in final form through the State to FEMA for approval.

The plan approval date for the added jurisdictions will continue to be the date given by FEMA for the original plan.  This means that the additional jurisdictions will have less than the entire 5-year plan approval window before they will need to engage in the required update for the full multi-jurisdictional plan.

Option 2 - Revise and Update Full Plan.  This option is best suited to situations in which the addition of new jurisdictions to the original multi-jurisdictional plan is occurring far enough along in the five-year lifespan of the original plan that a full revision will begin in the very near future.  In these cases, the responsible agency or jurisdiction for the plan determines that it is an appropriate time for the plan revision process to begin, and the new jurisdiction(s) can participate at the same level as the original jurisdictions.

Back To Top

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Participation

Question 1: If a jurisdiction identifies flooding as a hazard in its mitigation plan, but does not participate in the NFIP, can FEMA still approve the plan?

Answer: Yes. NFIP participation is not currently a requirement for approval of multi-hazard mitigation plans. Therefore, FEMA cannot disapprove a plan solely because the local government is not participating in the NFIP. However, local plan regulations at 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(ii) require the mitigation strategy to identify and analyze “a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure.” If a plan identifies flooding as a significant hazard and the plan’s mitigation strategy does not adequately address this hazard (particularly with respect to new and existing structures and infrastructure), FEMA may disapprove the plan for failure to satisfy this requirement.

Back To Top

Last Modified: Tuesday, 11-Dec-2007 10:21:14 EST