5.2. Types of Capabilities

There are four key types of mitigation capabilities:

Planning and regulatory.
Administrative and technical.
Financial.
Education and outreach.

Each type of capability may include laws, regulations, policies, programs, staff or funding. They may go beyond traditional mitigation, too. The planning team may find other capabilities that help make the planning area more resilient.

5.2.1. Planning and Regulatory

Planning and regulatory capabilities are the codes, ordinances, policies, laws, plans and programs that guide growth and development. These capabilities can either support risk reduction or create areas that are more vulnerable to disaster. Common planning capabilities include comprehensive or master plans, housing plans, capital improvement programs, transportation plans, economic development strategies, disaster recovery plans and others. Also evaluate less-common plans if they exist, such as resilience and climate adaptation plans, natural resource plans, historic preservation plans, and water efficiency and conservation plans. Local plans have specific actions or policies that support community goals and drive decisions.

This type of capability also includes regulations and related processes. The plan must discuss the existing building codes and land use and development ordinances. Land use and development ordinances include zoning, subdivision, floodplain management, wildfire or steep slope regulations. They also include processes like site plan review. These capabilities regulate where land is developed and how buildings are constructed. Planning and regulatory capabilities include current plans and regulations. You should also consider a participant’s ability to change and improve them as needed.

Idea

Building Codes and Mitigation Capabilities

Hazard-resistant building codes reduce loss of life and property. The National Institute of Building Sciences’ Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves study found that adopting disaster-resistant building codes saves $11 for each $1 spent on implementation. FEMA’s Building Codes Save: A Nationwide Study shows that modern building codes lead to fewer property losses from natural disasters.

Several resources support the adoption and enforcement of building codes.

Nationwide Building Code Adoption Tracking. This FEMA resource notes jurisdictions which have adopted building codes.
Building Codes Adoption Playbook. This FEMA resource helps states and jurisdictions promote, adopt and enforce up-to-date building codes.
Inspect to Protect website. This Department of Homeland Security resource shows how well current building codes mitigate hazards.
The Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule assesses community building codes and their enforcement.

Graphic titled "Building Codes Generate Big Benefits at a Low Cost." On the left is a graphic of a home with the text, "Average home construction cost: $300,000." An arrow points to a similar graphic in the middle that says, "Average cost of code requirements to safeguard a new home - Hurricane: $4,500 (1.5%). An arrow with text "natural disaster strikes" points to the third graphic of a home, which says, "Average losses avoided from natural hazards over 30 years - Hurricane: $1,600 losses avoided per year. — Figure 13: The Building Codes Save study shows how building code adoption and enforcement is a cost-effective way to reduce losses. In this example, a $4,500 investment leads to $48,000 cumulative losses avoided over 30 years. (Access full-sized image)

Ask the following questions to identify and describe planning and regulatory capabilities:

What is the legal framework for land use planning in the state and participating communities? (A useful resource for this is the 2022 Survey of State Planning Laws)
What kinds of plans does each participant have? Which do they use most often?
Are there any laws or ordinances that mitigate hazards?
How do participants regulate growth and development?
How do participants protect community lifelines and other critical facilities, including dams and levees?
How do planning and development decisions and processes account for and/or increase hazard risk?

Consider

Case Study: Planning for Hazards (Colorado)

Land use policies and regulations can be powerful tools to promote smart growth and reduce long-term risk. Land use supports hazard mitigation in a few key ways:

Preventing development in hazard-prone areas.
Directing future growth to safer areas.
Protecting existing development in hazard-prone areas.

Recognizing a need to better understand how land use can support mitigation and resilience, Colorado developed Planning for Hazards. It is a comprehensive guide on how to add hazard mitigation into land use and development plans, codes and standards. This guide is specific to Colorado; not every land use tool works in every community. However, the guide provides great background information on different kinds of planning and regulatory tools that reduce risk. It also includes model code language and advice.

Graphic titled "Types of Tools." Under the title, it says, "Explore planning tools that help reduce risk." It then lists six types of tools: Addressing Hazards in Plans and Policies; Strengthening Incentives; Protecting Sensitive Areas; Improving Site Development Standards; Improving Buildings and Infrastructure; and Enhancing Administration and Procedures. — **Figure 14: Planning for Hazards describes six categories of planning tools that can reduce risk. It also aligns the tools to 12 different hazards.** (Access the full-sized image)

5.2.2. Administrative and Technical

Administrative and technical capabilities are the participant’s staff, skills and tools. These capabilities can be used for mitigation planning and to carry out specific mitigation actions. They also include the ability to access, coordinate and implement these resources effectively. Think of these as “people-powered” capabilities.

Human resources can include staff and volunteer engineers, planners, emergency managers, GIS analysts, building inspectors, grant writers, floodplain managers, climate and sustainability coordinators and communications specialists. For jurisdictions with limited staff, consider capacity as well as capability. Staff members may have the right skills, but do they have time to support mitigation?

This category can go beyond paid staff. It can include other public and private sector resources. County, regional, quasigovernmental or nongovernmental agencies may be able to support mitigation. Community-based organizations and other grassroots groups can also help, especially in underserved communities. They have deep roots in their communities and may have technical experts or lived experiences that can support mitigation.

Ask the following questions to evaluate these capabilities:

Which staff are available to help carry out the plan?
Who will be responsible for implementing mitigation actions?
Have available staff been trained to support mitigation?
Are outside technical expertise or resources needed?
Do government agencies and departments regularly coordinate and problem-solve?
Are agreements in place between participants or between participants and other organizations that provide regular administrative or technical assistance?
Do participants work with nongovernmental organizations who also work in mitigation?

5.2.3. Financial

Financial capabilities are the resources to fund mitigation actions. Talking about funding and financial capabilities is important because mitigation actions have different costs. Mitigation actions like outreach programs are lower cost and often use staff time and existing budgets. Other actions, like earthquake retrofits, could require substantial funding from local, state and federal partners.

Consider a wide range of financial capabilities in the assessment, such as:

Property, sales, income or special purpose taxes.
General funds.
Utility service fees.
Impact fees from new development and redevelopment.
General obligation or special purpose bonds.
Federal funding.
State funding.
Private or nonprofit grants, loans or funding.
Any other previously identified potential cash or third-party, in-kind contributions.

For any of these, consider whether the resource has been used in the past. If it has, for what kinds of activities? Could it be used for mitigation? If the funding is local, could it be used for the local match of a federal grant?

One important local government action to get funds into mitigation projects is to describe how capital projects are prioritized among competing priorities. Are projects ranked, and how? How does mitigation fit into the capital improvement plan? Are there any financial policies in place that direct available funds to mitigation projects, or that can be used as non-federal grant match?

Idea

Mitigation Assistance Resource Guide

FEMA developed and published a document called the Mitigation Assistance Resource Guide to identify federal funding, technical assistance and other resources to support hazard mitigation.

The guide identifies different types of resources that local communities can use to advance mitigation actions and increase resilience. These resource types include grants, loans and technical assistance. The guide also prioritizes programs that support the following action types:

Education and Outreach
Natural Systems Protection
Planning and Regulations
Structure and Infrastructure

The guide identifies specifics to each program such as who is eligible, hazards addressed, restrictions, cost share and a web link to the resource. The guide also briefly describes the resource and identifies a mitigation success story that used the profiled program. Some FEMA regions have expanded versions of these guides that identify state resources in addition to the federal resources.

5.2.4. Education and Outreach

Education and outreach capabilities are programs and methods that can communicate about and encourage risk reduction. These programs may be run by a participant or a community-based partner. Partners, especially those who work with underserved communities, can connect the planning team to education and outreach capabilities.

Education and outreach activities can often be the easiest and most impactful activities for local agencies. They are easy to combine with other efforts. For example, education and outreach can bring mitigation and resilience topics to places where community members are already convened. While they take careful planning, these activities can often be accomplished without outside grant funding or expertise.

Examples of education and outreach capabilities include:

Fire safety programs.
Flood, dam and levee safety outreach, including awareness of inundation zones.
Public-private partnerships around disaster preparedness and recovery.
Other federal or nongovernmental organization programs like the National Weather Service StormReady® or TsunamiReady® program or the National Fire Protection Association’s Firewise USA® program.

Activities and awareness campaigns like the Great Shakeout should also be included. Some communities have their own public information or communications office to handle outreach initiatives.

Ask the following questions to describe education and outreach capabilities:

What outreach programs do participants use to share important information?
What venues do participants use for outreach activities? Could they be used to promote risk reduction?
What new or additional outreach efforts could get the most public participation and support for risk reduction?

Consider

Case Study: Boulder County, CO

In its 2022 plan update, Boulder County approached its public involvement strategy with a focus on equity and inclusion. Of its five overarching goals, one was to “Improve Public Awareness and Preparedness Regarding Hazard Vulnerability and Mitigation.” To do this, Boulder County launched a social media campaign to include members of the community that had historically been absent from or underrepresented in the hazard mitigation planning process.

While the original outreach and engagement plan featured several in-person public meetings, the Covid-19 pandemic forced the county to shift gears. Their revised strategy was to post updates online via the Office of Emergency Management’s website and Facebook page. The county’s public survey to gather information about hazard mitigation in the planning area garnered 1,700 views and 334 responses. The survey revealed that 88% of respondents had never participated in hazard mitigation planning before, making this outreach effort a clear success in engaging new community members.

In addition to its social media campaign, Boulder County gave the public many opportunities to comment on the plan over a period of several months rather than holding only one or two public meetings (as is more common).

The county went further to center on equitable and meaningful engagement opportunities by aiming to grow participation even more during the maintenance cycle of the 2022-2027 mitigation plan. Their forward-looking engagement strategy considers goals, target audiences, platforms, engagement tactics and evaluation measures for public involvement during plan maintenance.