Mitigation Action Categories

FEMA sets six broad categories for organizing mitigation actions.  The Planning Team slightly modified these categories to align more with New York City’s built environment.  For example, the FEMA category Natural Resource Protection was changed to Coastal/Natural Resource Protection and the FEMA category Structural Projects was changed to Infrastructure Projects. These categories allow mitigation actions to be compared and provide a standardized method for eliminating unsuitable actions. All mitigation actions identified in New York City’s HMP fall within one of the following mitigation action categories, described below:

Mitigation Action Category
Prevention and policy Government, administrative, or regulatory actions and processes that influence the way land and buildings are developed and built.
Property protection Actions that involve the modification of existing buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard, or removal from the hazard area.
Public education and awareness Actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, businesses, and property owners about the hazards they face and protective measures they can take to best prepare for or respond to hazards.
Coastal/natural resource protection Actions that, in addition to minimizing the hazard losses, also preserve or restore the functions of natural or coastal systems.
Emergency services Actions that protect people and property, or increase the capacity of emergency response during and immediately following a disaster event.
Infrastructure projects Actions that involve the engineering of infrastructure systems (energy, telecom, water, transportation) to be more resistant to the impacts of hazards.

Assigning HMP Index

Projects from the 2014 HMP were assigned an HMP index reference. This reference consists of an abbreviation of the primary hazard addressed followed by a number based on the order in which the action appears in the table. For example, the mitigation action with the index F.E.1 is the first existing mitigation action that addresses flooding: it is being implemented by Con Edison, the first agency in alphabetical order.

Hazard Abbreviation
Hazards CBRN releases CB
Coastal erosion CE
Coastal storms CS
Cyber threats CY
Disease outbreaks DO
Drought D
Earthquake EQ
Extreme temperatures ET
Flooding F
Infrastructure failures IF
Multi-hazard* MH
Severe weather SW
Winter storms WS
Schedule Phase Existing E
Potential P

Hazard Abbreviations for Mitigation Action Tables

New projects were assigned HMP index using a similar process except that instead of using E or P for schedule phase, the year 2018 was included to indicate that action was new for the plan update. For example, the mitigation action with the index CS.2018.001 is the first new mitigation action that addresses Coastal Storms. It is being implemented by Department of Environmental Protection, the first agency in alphabetical order.

Column Header Description

The table below describes the types of information detailed in the Mitigation Actions Database.

Column Header Description
HMP Index Index number
Mitigation Action Title Project title
Mitigation Action Description A brief description of the action.
Mitigation Action Category Categories include: Prevention and policy, Property protection, Public education and awareness, Coastal/natural resource protection, Emergency services, and Infrastructure projects.
Schedule Phase Status from last update: existing, potential, or completed action.
Schedule Phase Status from last update: existing, potential, or completed action.
Lead Lead agency
Support Any support agencies that play a key role in the project’s execution.
Hazard Addressed CBRN, Coastal Erosion, Coastal Storms, Cyber Threats, Complex Coordinated Attack, Earthquakes, Extreme Heat, Flooding, Infrastructure Failures, Severe Weather, and Winter Weather.
Funding Source Authority Capital, Authority Expense, Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation, CDBG, CDBG-NY Rising, CDBG-Rebuild By Design, City Capital, City Expense, DOI, FEMA, FEMA-428, FEMA-HMGP, FEMA-HSGP, FEMA-TSGP, FHWA, FTA, Insurance Proceeds, Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, MTA, Other, Other Federal, Other State, PANYNJ, Private, Ratepayers, SMLP, Unknown, Urban Land Institute, and USACE.
Cost Estimate Provide a cost estimate of the total project. Try to avoid per year or per month cost estimates.
Overall Start Date
When the project started.
Overall End Date
When the project was completed or scheduled to be completed.
Additional Schedule Information For potential projects that do not have a defined timeline or projects that are ongoing.
Goals and Objectives Hazard mitigation goals and objectives addressed by the mitigation action.
Priority* Results of the mitigation action prioritization analysis.
Web link Links to any public plans or websites related to the action for more information.
Notes Additional information

*Priority is only assigned for potential projects.


The Planning Team used the seven STAPLEE evaluation criteria to assign values to the actions. A score of plus 1 (1) was assigned if the proposed action is favorable; a minus 1 (-1) was assigned if the action is unfavorable; and 0 (0) was assigned if the evaluation criteria does not apply to the mitigation action. (See Planning – Who is Involved?)

STAPLEE Category Description
Social* (STAPLEE) Does the public support the overall implementation and specific mitigation action?
Technical* (STAPLEE) Is the proposed action technically feasible and help reduce losses in the long term?
Administrative* (STAPLEE) Does the city have the staff and capabilities necessary to implement the action?
Political* (STAPLEE) Is there political support to implement and maintain the action?
Legal* (STAPLEE) Are there proper laws, ordinances, and resolutions in place to implement the action?
Economic* (STAPLEE) Are there sources of funds that can be used to implement the action?
Environmental* (STAPLEE) How will the action affect the environment (land, water, endangered species)?

Calculating Implementation Criteria

The second step to the prioritization process was to add three additional criteria. These three criteria are based on: (1) number of objectives the action meets, (2) projected costs, and (3) projected timeline.  Using the same rating system as used in the STAPLEE analysis, each criterion was assigned a value of -1, 0, or 1. The Planning Team established quantifiable ranges for each criterion that met the parameters of the -1, 0, or 1 values (see table below).

1. Project Timeline 2. Project Cost 3. Number of objectives the action meets
-1 = ≥ 10 years
0 = TBD, ongoing, ≥ 5 years to < 10 years
1 = ≤ 5 years
-1 = > $100 million
0 = TBD, > $10 million to < $100 million
1 = < $10 million
-1 = 1 objective
0 = 2 to 3 objectives
1 = 4+ objectives


Adding up the values of the 10 criteria was the third step in prioritizing the mitigation actions. The 157 potential mitigation actions received a cumulative value ranging from –10 to 10. The overall value was used to assign a final prioritization of low, medium, or high.  Actions with a final score of zero or lower were determined “low” priority because these actions have as many or more negative attributes as positive attributes. Actions with a final score of 1–5 were prioritized as “medium,” while actions with a final score of 6–10 were prioritized as “high” because they have many positive attributes and few, if any, negative attributes.