Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), excluding those on probation or suspended may apply for funding to prepare Flood Mitigation Plans.

The purpose of FMA planning grants is to assist communities in developing and updating Flood Mitigation Plans (FMPs). Examples of eligible activities for planning grants include conducting local planning discussions, contracting for consulting technical services such as engineering and planning, surveying structures at risk, and assessing repetitive losses.

NFIP-participating communities with approved Flood Mitigation Plans can apply for FMA Project Grants to implement measures to reduce flood losses.

No, a FEMA-approved Flood Mitigation Plan (FMP) is required in order for a community to receive an FMA project grant.

Yes, however, if the flood portion of the LHMP meets the FMP requirements, it may be submitted as an FMP. Contact OES (link to form?) to receive the LHMP/FMA crosswalk document which highlights the similarities and differences in plan requirements for each of these programs.

Eligible applicants are state and local governments, Indian tribes or tribal organizations, and certain nonprofit organizations. Individual homeowners and businesses may not apply directly to the program; however, a community may apply on their behalf.

HMGP funds may be used to fund projects that will reduce or eliminate the losses from future disasters. Projects must provide a long-term solution to a problem, for example, elevation of a home to reduce the risk of flood damages as opposed to buying sandbags and pumps to fight the flood. In addition, a project's potential savings must be more than the cost of implementing the project. Funds may be used to protect either public or private property or to purchase property that has been subjected to, or is in danger of, repetitive damage. Examples of projects include, but are not limited to:
Acquisition of real property for willing sellers and demolition or relocation of buildings to convert the property to open space use
Retrofitting structures and facilities to minimize damages from high winds, earthquake, flood, wildfire, or other natural hazards
Elevation of flood prone structures
Development and initial implementation of vegetative management programs
Minor flood control projects that do not duplicate the flood prevention activities of other Federal agencies
Localized flood control projects, such as certain ring levees and floodwall systems, that are designed specifically to protect critical facilities
Post-disaster building code related activities that support building code officials during the reconstruction process From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/hmgp/faqs.shtm

The State's administrative plan governs how projects are selected for funding. However, proposed projects must meet certain minimum criteria. These criteria are designed to ensure that the most cost-effective and appropriate projects are selected for funding. Both the law and the regulations require that the projects are part of an overall mitigation strategy for the disaster area.
The State prioritizes and selects project applications developed and submitted by local jurisdictions. The State forwards applications consistent with State mitigation planning objectives to FEMA for eligibility review. Funding for this grant program is limited and States and local communities must make difficult decisions as to the most effective use of grant funds. From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/hmgp/faqs.shtm

There are five issues you must consider when determining the eligibility of a proposed project.
Does your project conform to your State's Hazard Mitigation Plan?
Does your project provide a beneficial impact on the disaster area? i.e. the State
Does your application meet the environmental requirements? FEMA Environmental Program Site
Does your project solve a problem independently?
Is your project cost-effective? From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/hmgp/faqs.shtm

The amount of funding available for the HMGP under a particular disaster declaration is limited. The program may provide a State with up to 7.5 percent of the total disaster grants awarded by FEMA. States that meet higher mitigation planning criteria may qualify for 20 percent under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.
FEMA can fund up to 75% of the eligible costs of each project. The State or grantee must provide a 25% match, which can be fashioned from a combination of cash and in-kind sources. Funding from other Federal sources cannot be used for the 25% share with one exception. Funding provided to States under the Community Development Block Grant program from the Department of Housing and Urban Development can be used to meet the non-federal share requirement. From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/hmgp/faqs.shtm

Following a disaster declaration, the State will advertise that HMGP funding is available to fund mitigation projects in the State. Those interested in applying to the HMGP should contact their local government to begin the application process. Local governments should go (link to HMGP page)

After a disaster occurs the State will set a deadline for application submittal. For specific application dates go to (link to HMGP page).

It is important for applicants to understand the approval process. Once eligible projects are selected by the State, they are forwarded to the FEMA Regional Office where they are reviewed to ensure compliance with Federal laws and regulations. One such law is the National Environmental Policy Act, passed by Congress in 1970, which requires FEMA to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of each proposed project. The time required for the environmental review depends on the complexity of the project. From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/hmgp/faqs.shtm

Acquisition projects funded under the HMGP are voluntary and you are under no obligation to sell your home. Communities consider other options when preparing projects, but it may be determined by State and local officials that the most effective mitigation measure in a location is the acquisition of properties and the removal of residents and structures from the hazard area. Despite the effectiveness of property acquisitions, it may not make you or your family whole again. Acquisition projects are based on the principle of fair compensation for property. Property acquisitions present owners with an opportunity to recoup a large part of their investment in property that probably has lost some, if not most of its value due to damage. But, it will not compensate you or your family for your entire emotional and financial loss. From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/hmgp/faqs.shtm

The HMGP is administered by the State, which prioritizes and selects project applications developed and submitted by local jurisdictions. The State forwards applications consistent with State mitigation planning objectives to FEMA for eligibility review. Although individuals may not apply directly to the State for assistance, local governments may sponsor an application on their behalf. Funding for the grant program is limited and States and local communities must make difficult decisions as to the most effective use of available grant funds. From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/hmgp/faqs.shtm

The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program was authorized by @#167;203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief Act (Stafford Act), 42 USC, as amended by @#167;102 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Funding for the program is provided through the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund to assist States and local governments (to include Indian Tribal governments) in implementing cost-effective hazard mitigation activities that complement comprehensive mitigation programs, reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of property. PDM is a pre-disaster grant program. (From https://portal.fema.gov/FEMAMitigation/fma_help/bottom/faq.html#pdm)

Grants are available for the creation of Local Hazard Mitigation Plans (LHMPs) and for the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event.

The following entities are eligible: state-level agencies including state institutions (e.g., state hospital or university); Federally-recognized Indian tribal governments; local governments, including state-recognized Indian tribes, authorized Indian tribal organizations; public colleges and universities; and Indian tribal colleges and universities. (From http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pdm/)

Yes. All sub-applicants must have a FEMA-approved LHMP in order to be eligible to receive PDM funding. In addition, all applicants MUST have a FEMA-approved State/Tribal Standard or Enhanced hazard mitigation plan in accordance with 44 CFR Part 201. (From http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pdm/)

Complete a Notice of Interest (NOI) available on the OES web site. Eligible applicants who submit an NOI for an eligible activity will be given the code to access the Federal eGrants system at https://portal.fema.gov/famsVu/dynamic/mitigation.html. Also see the eGrants section on this website.

FEMA PDM program guidance is available at this website: http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pdm

Congress appropriated $100 million for competitive grants, technical assistance, and program support for the FY 2007 PDM program. Availability of PDM funds is dependent upon Congressional reauthorization of the program. (From http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pdm/)

The cost share is at least 25% non-Federal, 75% Federal.

Mitigation planning: $1M cap on Federal share, not to exceed 3 years.
Mitigation projects: $3M cap on Federal share, not to exceed 3 years. (From http://www.fema.gov/pdf/fima/pdm/fy_2006_pdm_overview.pdf)

The term "100-year flood" is misleading. It is not the flood that will occur once every 100 years. Rather, it is the flood elevation that has a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. Thus, the 100-year flood could occur more than once in a relatively short period of time. The 100-year flood, which is the standard used by mo st Federal and state agencies, is used by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as the standard for floodplain management and to determine the need for flood insurance. A structure located within a special flood hazard area shown on an NFIP map has a 26 percent chance of suffering flood damage during the term of a 30-year mortgage. (From: http://www.fema.gov/fhm/fq_fld03.shtm.)

For most waterways, the floodway is where the water is likely to be deepest and fastest. It is the area of the floodplain that should be reserved (kept free of obstructions) to allow floodwaters to move downstream. Placing fill or buildings in a floodway may block the flow of water and increase flood heights. Because of this, your community will require that you submit engineering analyses before it approves permits for development in the floodway. (From: http://www.fema.gov/fhm/fq_term.shtm.)

Floodplains are the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters, and those other areas subject to flooding. (From: A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management, FEMA, 1986.)

There are several ways to access flood zone information:
Contact your local government and ask to be directed to the department in charge of the Community Map Repository to view the hard copy FIRM. A listing of some community contact numbers can be found at this link http://www.fema.gov/regions/ix/commstatusca.shtm.

The Mitigation Division, a component of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), manages the National Flood Insurance Program. The three components of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are:


Nearly 20,000 communities across the United States and its territories participate in the NFIP by adopting and enforcing floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage. In exchange, the NFIP makes Federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in these communities. Community participation in the NFIP is voluntary.

In addition to providing flood insurance and reducing flood damages through floodplain management regulations, the NFIP identifies and maps the nation's floodplains. Mapping flood hazards creates broad-based awareness of the flood hazards and provides the data needed for floodplain management programs and to actuarially rate new construction for flood insurance.

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/nfip.shtm

For "Answers to Questions About the National Flood Insurance Program" go to http://www.fema.gov/nfip/qanda.shtm

The Elevation Certificate (FEMA Form 81-31) is an important administrative tool of the NFIP. It is used to determine the proper flood insurance premium rate; it can be used to document elevation information necessary to ensure compliance with community floodplain management regulations; and it may be used to support a request for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revision based on fill (LOMR-F).

Because a FEMA Elevation Certificate is needed before most flood insurance policies can be issued under the NFIP, communities are encouraged to obtain and maintain Elevation Certificates so that residents and businesses can easily obtain flood insurance. In order to participate in the NFIP Community Rating System (CRS), communities must require and maintain the Elevation Certificate for all new and substantially improved structures.

Under the NFIP, communities are required to obtain the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new and substantially improved structures and maintain a record of all such information [44 CFR 60.3(b)(5)]. The community's permit files need an official record that documents to what height new buildings and substantial improvements in the Special Flood Hazard Area were elevated. This record is needed to show that buildings constructed in the floodplain are compliant with the community's floodplain management ordinance. While communities can create their own forms for documenting elevation information, communities are encouraged to use the FEMA Elevation Certificate for documenting the elevation of various building elements (section C of the Elevation Certificate) and for documenting building compliance including the lowest floor determination (section G of the Elevation Certificate which is the Community Information section). The advantage of using the Elevation Certificate is that it will help the property owner in obtaining flood insurance since this form is used in determining a flood insurance rate.

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/fpmbul.shtm

FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) identify areas across the country that have been shown to have higher risks of flooding. These are called Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). Buildings constructed in SFHAs after a FIRM was issued by FEMA are described as "Post-FIRM construction" (provided they were built on or after January 1, 1975) and applications for flood insurance coverage for these structures must be accompanied by an EC to be rated by the insurance agent or underwriter.

Buildings constructed in SFHAs before a FIRM was available for the area are described as "Pre-FIRM construction" and the NFIP does not require an EC for rating these structures. However, owners of Pre-FIRM buildings whose lowest floor meets the NFIP's minimum elevation requirements to raise a structure above projected flood waters often choose to submit an EC with their NFIP policy application to reduce their annual flood insurance premium. (From: http://www.fema.gov/nfip/ecarticl.shtm.)

(From: http://www.fema.gov/fhm/fq_term.shtm#frequt7)

Zone A
Zone A is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 100-year floodplains that are determined in the Flood Insurance Study by approximate methods. Because detailed hydraulic analyses are not performed for such areas, no Base Flood Elevations or depths are shown within this zone. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply.

Zone AE and A1-A30
Zones AE and A1-A30 are the flood insurance rate zones that correspond to the 100-year floodplains that are determined in the Flood Insurance Study by detailed methods. In most instances, Base Flood Elevations derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply.

Zone AH
Zone AH is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the areas of 100-year shallow flooding with a constant water-surface elevation (usually areas of ponding) where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet. The BFEs derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply.

Zone AO
Zone AO is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the areas of 100-year shallow flooding (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain) where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet. The depth should be averaged along the cross section and then along the direction of flow to determine the extent of the zone. Average flood depths derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown within this zone. In addition, alluvial fan flood hazards are shown as Zone AO on the FIRM. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply.

Zone AR
Zone AR is the flood insurance rate zone used to depict areas protected from flood hazards by flood control structures, such as a levee, that are being restored. FEMA will consider using the Zone AR designation for a community if the flood protection system has been deemed restorable by a Federal agency in consultation with a local project sponsor; a minimum level of flood protection is still provided to the community by the system; and restoration of the flood protection system is scheduled to begin within a designated time period and in accordance with a progress plan negotiated between the community and FEMA. Mandatory purchase requirements for flood insurance will apply in Zone AR, but the rate will not exceed the rate for unnumbered A zones if the structure is built in compliance with Zone AR floodplain management regulations.

For floodplain management in Zone AR areas, elevation is not required for improvements to existing structures. However, for new construction, the structure must be elevated (or floodproofed for non-residential structures) such that the lowest floor, including basement, is a maximum of 3 feet above the highest adjacent existing grade if the depth of the base flood elevation (BFE) does not exceed 5 feet at the proposed development site. For infill sites, rehabilitation of existing structures, or redevelopment of previously developed areas, there is a 3 foot elevation requirement regardless of the depth of the BFE at the project site.

The Zone AR designation will be removed and the restored flood control system shown as providing protection from the 1% annual chance flood on the NFIP map upon completion of the restoration project and submittal of all the necessary data to FEMA.

Zone A99
Zone A99 is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to areas of the 100-year floodplains that will be protected by a Federal flood protection system where construction has reached specified statutory milestones. No BFEs or depths are shown within this zone. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply.

Zone D
The Zone D designation on NFIP maps is used for areas where there are possible but undetermined flood hazards. In areas designated as Zone D, no analysis of flood hazards has been conducted. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements do not apply, but coverage is available. The flood insurance rates for properties in Zone D are commensurate with the uncertainty of the flood risk.

Zone V
Zone V is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 100-year coastal floodplains that have additional hazards associated with storm waves. Because approximate hydraulic analyses are performed for such areas, no BFEs are shown within this zone. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply.

Zone VE
Zone VE is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 100-year coastal floodplains that have additional hazards associated with storm waves. BFEs derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply.

Zones B, C, and X
Zones B, C, and X are the flood insurance rate zones that correspond to areas outside the 100-year floodplains, areas of 100-year sheet flow flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 100-year stream flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile, or areas protected from the 100-year flood by levees. No BFEs or depths are shown within this zone.

For general information, go to FEMA's FLOODSMART.GOV website, http://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/pages/index.jsp and click on "Estimate Your Premium." Consult with your insurance agent to get actual premium costs or get assistance locating an agent at the above website using the "Find an Agent" button.

DMA 2000 places new emphasis on local mitigation planning. DMA 2000 requires local governments to develop and submit mitigation plans for FEMA approval as a condition of receiving Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) project grants or Pre-Disaster Mitigation project grants (PDM).

The local Hazard Mitigation Planning process analyzes a community's risk from natural hazards, coordinates available resources, and implements actions to reduce or eliminate risks. A local mitigation plan should be prepared before a disaster to guide risk reduction activities before an event; it should also be reviewed, and amended regularly, so as not to overlook opportunities for vulnerability reduction (mitigation).

The local hazard mitigation planning process is described in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) which amended the Stafford Act's requirements regarding eligibility to receive certain mitigation grant funding. The regulations containing requirements for a local hazard mitigation plan can be found in 44 Code of Federal Regulations 201.6.

The Interim Final Rule (IFR) 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206, Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program list the content requirements of State, local and Tribal, mitigation plans. The FEMA/OES Plan Review Crosswalk is based on those published in the IFR and should be completed and attached to a draft plan when submitting the plan to OES and FEMA for review.
Guidelines for completing an LHMP are available at: http://www.fema.gov/fima/resources.shtm

The Interim Final Rules, which published the criteria for the development of a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, specify "natural hazards" for the hazard analysis section of a LHMP. So technically the answer to this question is "yes." However, it would be difficult to ignore a major technological, human created, or potential terrorist target within a community and still have a comprehensive hazard analysis for the community.

As an example, the large propane storage tanks in the city of Elk Grove have been looked at by criminals as a possible anti-government target. Also to consider concerning these large, non-natural storage tanks, would be the effects of natural hazards (such as fire or earthquake) on these storage tanks. These additional considerations should be part of a comprehensive evaluation of the hazards facing a community.

The object should be to create safer, disaster resistant communities by identifying the real hazards and to mitigate those hazards, not to pick hazards that meet only the exact "letter" of the rule or regulations.

OES is encouraging counties as Operational Areas to take the lead in organizing Operational Area jurisdictions (cities and special districts) in the hazard mitigation planning process and to consider sponsoring a multi-jurisdictional plan. Each community is free, however, to create their own, independent, single jurisdiction Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Yes. All categories of federal PA funding are available to local governments without approved LHMPs.

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.

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

No. For instance, a list of potential properties or areas that are being "considered" for mitigation strategies, such as acquisition, should be included as part of the mitigation strategy section of the LHMP, but the specifics regarding property addresses should remain at the project level, and need not be in the plan in advance.

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.)

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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)].

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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.

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm.

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.

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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.

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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.

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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:

• risks, where they differ from the general planning area;
• mitigation actions (at least one action must be identified for each jurisdiction);
• participation in the planning process (examples of participation include attending meetings, contributing research , data, or other information, commenting on drafts of the plan, etc.); and
• adoption (each jurisdiction must formally adopt the plan).

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

In the case of a new jurisdiction wishing to join a multi-jurisdictional plan that has already received FEMA approval, the new jurisdiction is strongly encouraged to develop its own single jurisdictional plan. This is because the new jurisdiction must complete all the planning criteria found in 44 CFR Part 201.6 (c) (1-4), including an open planning process. By attempting to join an existing plan, changes made to this previously approved plan would constitute significant changes and would require all existing participants involved to re-adopt the plan and re-submit it to FEMA for evaluation and approval. This would be time-consuming and may be impractical for those jurisdictions that have already received this approval.

The new jurisdiction is encouraged to contact the multi-jurisdictional planning team to seek agreement on joining the plan during its update. As accepted by the multi-jurisdictional planning team, the new jurisdiction can establish a similar plan format consistent with the approved multi-jurisdictional plan and have access to information and data pertinent to its planning effort. In five years (or whenever the other jurisdictions wish to re-adopt the plan) the new plan can be merged into the multi-jurisdictional plan. All jurisdictions must continue to meet the requirements of 201.6 (c) 1-4.

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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.

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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.

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

According to DMA interim final rules, (44 CFR @#167;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 @#167;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.

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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

As stated in 44 CFR @#167;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.

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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.

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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 (PDF) (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 @#167; 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 @#167; 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 (PDF) (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.

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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 FEMA's How-To Guide #7 Integrating Human-Caused Hazards into Mitigation Planning. (FEMA 386-7)

From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

The State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP) is the official statement of the State's hazard identification, vulnerability analysis, and hazard mitigation strategy. The SHMP is the result of a collaborative multi-agency planning process with multiple opportunities for public participation. The goal of the SHMP is to guide implementation activities to achieve the greatest reduction of vulnerability, which results in saved lives, reduced injuries, reduced property damages, and protection for the environment.

The SHMP is also a federal requirement under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) for the State of California to receive federal funds for the following disaster assistance grant programs: Public Assistance (PA)--Category C through G, Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG), and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).

In order for California to continue to be eligible for federal disaster assistance funding, the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) is required to update the SHMP every three years. The next SHMP update must be approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by October 8, 2007. With this update, OES intends to submit an Enhanced version of the SHMP that will qualify California for increased federal HMGP funds.

States that have an approved Enhanced State Mitigation Plan at the time of disaster declaration will qualify to receive increased federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds. Approval of the plan increases HMGP funds from 7.5 percent to up to 20 percent of the total estimated eligible Stafford Act disaster assistance in a federally declared event.

The current SHMP was initially approved by FEMA as a Standard SHMP on October 8, 2004, and is required to be updated every three years. As part of this update process, OES intends to submit an Enhanced version of the SHMP in October 2007 in order to qualify for increased federal HMGP funds up to 20 percent of the total estimated eligible Stafford Act disaster assistance in a federally declared event.

A digital copy can be viewed from this Web Portal or you can request a CD through the Request Form

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.
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.

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.) From: : http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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)].
From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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. From: : http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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 From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm.

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. From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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. From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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. From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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:
1. risks, where they differ from the general planning area;
2. mitigation actions (at least one action must be identified for each jurisdiction);
3. participation in the planning process (examples of participation include attending meetings, contributing research , data, or other information, commenting on drafts of the plan, etc.); and
4. adoption (each jurisdiction must formally adopt the plan). From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

In the case of a new jurisdiction wishing to join a multi-jurisdictional plan that has already received FEMA approval, the new jurisdiction is strongly encouraged to develop its own single jurisdictional plan. This is because the new jurisdiction must complete all the planning criteria found in 44 CFR Part 201.6 (c) (1-4), including an open planning process. By attempting to join an existing plan, changes made to this previously approved plan would constitute significant changes and would require all existing participants involved to re-adopt the plan and re-submit it to FEMA for evaluation and approval. This would be time-consuming and may be impractical for those jurisdictions that have already received this approval.
The new jurisdiction is encouraged to contact the multi-jurisdictional planning team to seek agreement on joining the plan during its update. As accepted by the multi-jurisdictional planning team, the new jurisdiction can establish a similar plan format consistent with the approved multi-jurisdictional plan and have access to information and data pertinent to its planning effort. In five years (or whenever the other jurisdictions wish to re-adopt the plan) the new plan can be merged into the multi-jurisdictional plan. All jurisdictions must continue to meet the requirements of 201.6 (c) 1-4. From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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.
From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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.
From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

According to DMA interim final rules, (44 CFR @#167;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 @#167;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. From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

The short answer to this question is "It depends."
As stated in 44 CFR @#167;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. From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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. From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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 @#167; 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 @#167; 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. From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

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 FEMA's How-To Guide #7 Integrating Human-Caused Hazards into Mitigation Planning. (FEMA 386-7) From: http://www.fema.gov/fima/planfaq.shtm

The wildland–urban interface (WUI) is commonly described as the zone where structures and other human development meet and intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels.

Interspersing of developed land and wildland, where there are no easily discernible boundaries between the two systems. An example would be what real estate brochures describe as "ranchettes" or "weekend farmer" homes.

A wildfire hazard zone consists of relatively homogeneous lands and is based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors (PRC 4201-4204). Following the disastrous 1980 fire season, Senator Ayala introduced legislation which required the director of CDF to zone all State Responsibility Area (SRA) lands in accordance with the degree of severity of fire hazard. The purpose of the zoning was to identify measures to be taken to retard the rate of spreading and to reduce the potential intensity of uncontrolled fires that threaten to destroy resources, life, or property. The final maps were adopted into regulation as Section 1280 of CCR Title 14 on March 12, 1985. The end result was that each Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ)" received one of three ratings: Moderate, High, or Very High.

To determine whether or not you are in a wildfire hazard zone, contact you local fire department or your local emergency management organization.

By creating a fire safe landscape of at least 100 feet around your house, you will reduce the chance of a wildfire spreading onto your property and burning through to your home. This is the basis for creating a "defensible space" - an area that will help protect your home and provide a safety zone for the firefighters who are battling the flames. Clearing all flammable vegetation a minimum of 100 feet around your home and other structures will not only provide you with the greatest chance for survival, it is also required by California law.

There are no programs available from the state or federal government to provide support directly to individuals. Contact CDF or your local fire department, Fire Safe Council, or emergency management agency.

Certain types of fuel breaks are called "shaded" fuel breaks because large trees are left standing to provide shade and reduce the plant growth rate within the fuel break.

No, "Mr. Cohn had an interesting connection with the origin of the Great Chicago Fire. He steadfastly maintained that the traditional story of the cause of the fire -- Mrs. O'Leary's cow that kicked over a lantern -- was untrue. He asserted that he and Mrs. O'Leary's son, in the company of several other boys, were shooting dice in the hayloft by the light of a lantern, when one of the boys accidentally overturned the lantern, thus setting the barn afire. Mr. Cohn never denied that when the other boys fled, he stopped long enough to scoop up the money." Please visit: http://www.hydeparkmedia.com/cohn.html

The Fire Safe Council has a large quantity of information for homeowners, including a check list. Follow this link: http://www.firesafecouncil.org/homeowner/index.cfm

There are no programs available from the state or federal government to provide support directly to individuals. Contact your local fire department, Fire Safe Council, or emergency management agency.

A Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) is a plan for an at-risk community that is developed by the applicable local government, local fire department, State agency, interested parties, and Federal land management agencies. The Plan identifies and prioritizes areas for hazardous fuel reduction and recommends methods of treatment that will protect communities and infrastructure. It also recommends measures to reduce structural ignitability throughout the community.

For general information about CWPPs see the California Fire Alliance Website. Below is a link to the Website's CWPP Guidance page. http://www.cafirealliance.org/cwpp/.

If you want to know about a CWPP in your area, contact your local fire department.

A fault is a fracture in the crust along which one side has moved relative to the other side. Faults can be very small or hundreds of miles long. The earth's crust is composed of huge plates that are in slow but nearly constant motion. Part of California is on the Pacific Plate, and part is on the North American Plate. The San Andreas Fault, which runs from the Salton Sea in Imperial County to Cape Mendocino in Humboldt County, is the boundary between these plates. Sometimes one block of the crust moves up while the other moves down, sometimes they move horizontally in opposite directions (that's what's happening with the San Andreas Fault; Los Angeles is creeping closer to San Francisco). Some faults are well known and easy to spot, such as the San Andreas. Others are underground, with nothing on the surface revealing their presence (a blind thrust fault). The 1994 Northridge earthquake was caused by a blind thrust fault. (From http://www.consrv.ca.gov/index/Earthquakes/qh_earthquakes.htm)

Earthquakes occur when the two sides of a fault slip suddenly against each other. The Pacific and North American plates move past each other about 1.5 inches a year. The friction between the plates causes stress, which is released when the blocks of crust slip suddenly along a fault plane. That releases waves of energy that travel through the ground, causing the shaking you feel. (From http://www.consrv.ca.gov/index/Earthquakes/qh_earthquakes.htm)

There are hundreds of identified faults in California; about 200 are considered potentially hazardous based on their slip rates in recent geological time (the last 10,000 years). More than 70 percent of the state's population resi