Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Program (LHMP)

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/CalEMA 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 CalEMA and FEMA for review.
Guidelines for completing an LHMP are available at: http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/planning_resources.shtm#1

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.

CalEMA 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/plan/mitplanning/faqs.shtm#8

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/plan/mitplanning/faqs.shtm#6

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/plan/mitplanning/faqs.shtm#6

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/plan/mitplanning/faqs.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/plan/mitplanning/faqs.shtm#9.

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/plan/mitplanning/faqs.shtm#7

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/plan/mitplanning/faqs.shtm#0

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/plan/mitplanning/faqs.shtm#0

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/plan/mitplanning/faqs.shtm#8

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/plan/mitplanning/faqs.shtm#8

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/plan/mitplanning/faqs.shtm#0

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/plan/mitplanning/faqs.shtm#6

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/plan/mitplanning/faqs.shtm#4

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 http://www.fema.gov/hazard/map/q3.shtm, 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/plan/mitplanning/faqs.shtm#1

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/plan/mitplanning/faqs.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, 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/plan/mitplanning/faqs.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/plan/mitplanning/faqs.shtm#3