Week 10 Mitigation (Chapter 10 in Introduction to Emergency...

1 44.213 Emergency Management

Gary A. Gordon, P.E.

Week 10 – Mitigation (Chapter 10 in Introduction to Emergency Management, Phillips, Neal and Webb) The objective of Chapter 10, Mitigation, is to provide you with an understanding of:

The general concepts and purposes behind mitigation

The types of structural mitigation

The advantages and disadvantages of structural mitigation

The types of non‐structural mitigation

The advantages and disadvantages of non‐structural mitigation

The key steps that can be taken to conduct mitigation planning

Job and volunteer opportunities in the field of mitigation

Motivation to undertake mitigation steps in homes and workplaces Chapter 10 Objectives As presented in the chapter objectives on the previous page, we will be looking at developing an understanding of the general concepts and purposes behind mitigation measures. We will look at the types of structural and non-structural mitigation and their advantages and disadvantages. The chapter also presents the key steps used to conduct mitigation planning. The chapter, like past chapters, will look at jobs and volunteer opportunities in the disaster life cycle; mitigation. Mitigation Overview What is Mitigation? A dictionary definition of mitigation is the action of reducing the severity, seriousness, or painfulness of something. In disaster management and, as per FEMA, mitigation is “…taking action now, before the next disaster, to reduce human and financial consequences later.” It is the efforts used to lessen the impacts of a disaster. Mitigation can dramatically influence who lives or dies, which buildings survive the disaster and the length and

cost of recovery. There are 2 measures of mitigation. They are structural and non‐structural. Some turning points in mitigation measures include the 1966 Presidential Executive Order 11296 that required federal agencies to reduce floodplain development. This was intended to reduce the population and buildings that would be affected by floods and storm surges. In 1980, FEMA created its first interagency hazard mitigation teams and, in 1992, made mitigation a top priority. In 2001 and as result of 9/11, FEMA refocused its priorities to preparedness and response. I would suspect that the refocusing was the result of the massive response and recovery efforts required and undertaken. Preparedness for an unexpected event became a hot topic and area of immediate attention. And in 2005, mitigation concern was renewed after Hurricane Katrina. Do you know why? It would seem logical that the extensive damage in New Orleans, and in particular the Lower 9th Ward, was one of the reasons for this refocusing back onto mitigation.



Traditional and “Mitigated” Reconstruction in the Lower 9

th Ward

Structural Mitigation Structural mitigation centers on the built environment. Its focus and purpose is on creating a planned environment that can resist hazards and disasters. Structural mitigation measures include reinforcing dams and levees, retrofitting houses, buildings and bridges in seismic areas, building tornado cellars/safe rooms, elevating buildings and installing blast resistant windows and concrete barriers. The goal is to reduce loss of life, injuries and property damage.

Bennett Federal Office Building Seismic Retrofit, Salt Lake City

(Notice Cross-Bracing)

As we address structural mitigation, let’s look at how we are doing with regard to our nation’s infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) conducts a comprehensive assessment of current infrastructure conditions and needs every 4 years and grades it (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/). The infrastructure is graded and recommendations are on how to improve them. In 2009 and 2013, the ASCE awarded the grade of "D" to our

dams, nation‐wide. The assessment defined the high hazard dams as those that would cause considerable risk to life and property. Massachusetts has 341 high hazard dams according to the 2013 ASCE report card, of which 91% are state regulated with a $1.2 million budget. There are thousands of infrastructure types and locations across the U.S. that are in need of repair. The overall assessment of the U.S’s infrastructure in 2013 is D+. Specific segments

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/



that are generally susceptible to disasters are bridges C+, roads D, levees D-, energy D+, transit D and railroads C+. Why would you think the railroads have a better grade that the rest? It could be, in part, because the railroads are, for the most part, privately owned and need better maintained infrastructure to be efficient and competitive. So, we are looking at a less than average infrastructure across the U.S. to mitigate disaster related damage. One problem is that the bulk of the responsibility for maintenance and repair exists at the state government level and the estimate of repair is in the billions of dollars annually. Disaster mitigation costs would increase this amount. That is the challenge. Do you think that Massachusetts’ $1.2 million budget for dams is sufficient and how would that affect hazards?

Wanapum Dam Repair, Beverly, WA

Another way to effect structural mitigation is by updating city and town building codes to reflect disaster mitigation measures in design and construction, and enforcing them. Developers, builders and homeowners should be required to properly design buildings, structures, etc. to ensure compliance with building and other codes, building and other permits are obtained, and the construction inspected. The codes, regulations, etc. exist to increase public safety and, when crafted and enacted proactively, minimize disaster related damage. Elevated structures in flood zones, hurricane clamps in hurricane prone areas and underground utility lines in high wind or tornado areas are examples of mitigation measures at the all levels. At times, builders and developers fight the codes and regulations. Therefore, it is incumbent on emergency managers and planners to work with building officials to ensure that construction in disaster prone areas is “mitigation-minded”.

Improvised Tornado Shelter in Oklahoma City



As with anything, there are advantages and disadvantages. The key advantage of structural mitigation is the reduction in loss of life, injuries and damage. The cost of rebuilding after a disaster is lessened and people can return home faster. Insurance costs could remain level and the psychological impacts, by returning home sooner, could be lessened. Recreational opportunities can also result. When building subdivisions, where part is in a flood zone, the unbuildable areas are often used for ball fields, parks, etc. that are acceptable land uses. The most recognized disadvantage of structural mitigation is the cost. Also, no single protection is perfect and it may lead to a false sense of security. This may cause people to stay and not evacuate. Structural mitigation should be such that people are safer, if they cannot evacuate, and minimize the damage and cost of recovery. It should not be in lieu of evacuating. Differential Impacts: Haiti Earthquake With regard to the level of mitigation and impacts, let’s look at the 2010 Chile and Haiti earthquakes. The Chile earthquake measured an 8.8, while the Haiti earthquake measured a 7.0. Yet, about 300,000 people died in Haiti compared to 800 in Chile. What can explain the lesser loss of life with a more violent earthquake? A simple explanation is the differences between the two nations with regard to the ability to afford and enforce mitigation measures, particularly structural. Haiti being a poorer nation did not have the resources to build structures to withstand earthquakes. Further, population density in areas close to the earthquake made a difference. The Haiti earthquake struck near the highly populated capital city of Port-au-Prince. The Chile earthquake (6th largest recorded by a seismograph) occurred off the coast about 150 – 200 miles southwest of the capital city of Santiago causing a tsunami impacting coastal towns.

Damage near Epicenter of 2010 Chile Earthquake



Damage from 2010 Haiti Earthquake

From the above photographs, you can see that, for the lack of a better term, sophistication in construction, which most likely contributed to the lesser casualties in Chile. Would you compare the recent Nepal earthquake and one in California as a similar example of differential impacts? Retrofitting as a Solution Retrofitting structures in disaster prone areas is important. Many communities contain older structures that may not meet building codes. That, in and of itself, is a problem. But when improving the codes to address prior disasters, makes the code issue more pronounced. This could require more retrofitting of the structures. The retrofitting could range from simple to complex. Further, the retrofit could be difficult due to interior modifications to the structure and age, material and type of construction.

Interior Retrofit to Strengthen Walls

Retrofit – University of California Berkley (UCB) As part of a FEMA Disaster Recovery University (DRU) Initiative, UCB conducted a hazard assessment at various locations at the university. This focused on the highest impact buildings and potential losses. As a result, funds were concentrated on retrofitting the buildings. This was expected to save the university and community considerably in disaster-related costs.



UC Berkley Retrofit Using FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Funds

Non-Structural Mitigation

What is non-structural mitigation? It is like it seems; mitigation measures focused on the non‐built environment. The key components are:

Land use planning

Building codes and enforcement

Public education

Relocations

Relocation ‐ Buyouts

Insurance These components will be discussed in this lecture.

The non‐built environment reflects the actions people take to reduce the impacts of area hazards. These actions involve choices about how and where we build, manage land and reduce potential losses by way of personal and collective actions. You will see that there is a relationship between land use planning and building codes and structural mitigation. Land use planning is a process of managing the development of land to plan for the needs of the community while safeguarding natural resources and preventing land-use conflicts. Land use planning is what is required to ensure compliance with subdivision control laws and zoning ordinances. It is a future oriented activity, as it represents proactive, rather than reactive, behavior. There are 2 elements involved in land use planning and disaster mitigation. They are location and design. Location addresses the limitations in building in potentially hazardous areas and design determines the most suitable design for structures based on hazards and the environment. The first step is to link land use with mitigation planning, as the two often work separately Next are building codes and their enforcement. They are based on national codes, such as that by the Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. (BOCA National Building Code) and state building codes (http://www.sec.state.ma.us/spr/sprcat/agencies/780.htm).

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/spr/sprcat/agencies/780.htm



They are adopted and/or modified (to a higher standard only) and managed by the municipal planning and building code enforcement offices, and enforced by encode inspectors. Mitigation, as part of code enforcement, is influenced by local residents, builders and contractors, and building, planning and public works officials. Code enforcement can be contentious at times and often limits choices for what and where you can build. Although codes are in effect at all times, people often do not take an interest in them until after a disaster. Post disaster and based on lessons learned, new codes may be written, enforcement is increased and, based on the new codes, people may be displaced. In response to hurricanes, building codes in some states have been modified to require mitigation measures in construction, such as hurricane roof clips or clamps (Florida). In earthquake prone areas, building and engineering design codes have required that new construction be designed to resist the movements caused by the earthquakes. (More and more states, as experience and risk dictates, require designing for earthquake loads.) Methods include isolating the base of the structure or using vibration control technologies to minimize forces caused by earthquakes. As damaged structures are rebuilt, retrofitting, to include these measures, will require new code compliance to minimize the impact of future disasters.

Oakland Bay Bridge Approach Collapse, Loma Prieta Earthquake

The next non-structural mitigation measure to be discussed is public education. Many local and state governments conduct hazard awareness events designed to make the public aware that mitigation measures, whether structural or non-structural, can help mitigate risk and reduce the impact of damage. Can you name one? However, communicating risk to the public and expecting them to take the recommended actions can be challenging. The most effective way to accomplish this is to transmit accurate information through trusted networks, such as local organizations, faith‐based locations and through schools. Appealing to people’s altruistic nature can motivate them to pay attention to public education messages and do what is needed to minimize their risk. Relocation is precipitated by and the result of frequent losses and where individuals seek a permanent solution to the repeated losses. Advantages of relocation focus on the fact that people no longer lose their homes and livelihoods. Relocations also reduce anticipated future repair costs for not only individuals, but also for governments and insurance providers. This is because, among other reasons, governments do not have to repeatedly rescue people, often



putting their own people at risk, and insurance carriers do not have to pay for damages again and again. The latter could cause individuals to lose insurance or have higher premiums. A key disadvantage of relocation is that people are permanently moving away from family and friends. This can be traumatic, especially since they probably suffered repeated losses in prior disasters. Also, people’s homes are often tied to jobs (i.e. farming and commercial fishing) and places where they reside often have cultural, environmental and historical value. An example is the fishing industry along the Gulf Coast where they are susceptible to repeated tropical storms and hurricanes. The oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico off the Texas and Louisiana coast and associated industries are also subject to repeated tropical storms and hurricanes. If a significant portion of the labor force were to relocate, an adverse impact could be caused by the shortage to qualified workers.

Oil Rig Damaged by Hurricane Katrina

A subset of relocation is a buyout. This is accomplished when relocation is not be financially feasible resulting in a potential loss of a economic investment. In cases where people need assistance to relocate, government may offer a buyout. In this process, people must agree to a fair market value for their property in return for moving out of a hazard area. This is often a difficult decision. The federal government may offer up to 75% cost share with the state and local governments. The properties bought out could be used for parks, open spaces, etc. Relocating businesses can be challenging. Public facilities that must relocate can use funding from multiple sources, but private firms must pay their own costs to relocate. From the 1950s to the 1970s, the village of Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin experienced repeated flooding of the downtown business district. Rather than building and maintaining a levee that was approved by the U.S. Corps of Engineers in 1975, the village leaders opted to relocate the business district away from the floodplain. Even though the federal government initially would not pay for the move, the village used its own funds in 1977 to purchase land on nearby high ground to relocate the business. The downtown property was worth approximately $1 million; the cost of the levee would have been $3.5 million and there would have been an annual maintenance cost of $10,000. The federal government finally provided about 15% of the $6 million relocation cost.



1978 Soldiers Grove, WI Flood

Insurance is another form of non-structural mitigation. It provides a financial means to rebound from disasters, however, many insurance policies do not cover flood or wind damage. To compensate for this, the U.S. government offers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) through FEMA. Policies cost about $500 per year and houses are covered up to $250K and contents up to $100K. To be eligible for the NFIP, communities must adopt and enforce floodplain management through zoning and subdivision control regulations via the planning board and conservation commission. Flood insurance carries a deductible. In recap, non-structural mitigation is usually less costly than effecting structural mitigation measures; like washing hands is to pandemic reduction. Since the premiums are relatively low, there is typically a high return on investment by way of a reduction in loss of life, injuries and property loss. A disadvantage is that attention is paid to infrequent or unprecedented events, and people may ignore pre‐event advice. Mitigation is primarily the responsibility of individuals, so limited resources for mitigation may be a problem. Further, people may not be able to afford insurance. And insurance may not cover all of or any portion of the event-caused damage. Successful Non-Structural Mitigation Projects – Project Impact Project Impact (PI) was initiated by FEMA in 1997 subsequent to Hurricane Floyd flooding. PI emphasized non‐structural techniques of mitigation in a four-pronged program, as follows:

Identify and recruit PI partners in the community, such as local government, civic and volunteer groups, businesses and citizens,

Define community risk and exposure to natural disasters,

Set priorities and target resources to reduce the impact of future disasters, and

Keep the community informed and focused on PI's ability to reduce damage and costs of future disasters.

PI built new partnerships that reduced risks and created a grass‐roots based solution to mitigation. PI was not funded by the administration following its inception. It was deemed as not “cost effective”. However, FEMA has many programs that provide the same benefit as Project Impact did.



Successful Non-Structural Mitigation Projects – Disaster Resilient Universities (DRU) Damage caused by earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding or other events can result in enormous losses. Impacts of terrorism at a major sporting event or an explosion at a campus lab are sources of disasters that universities think of. (Look at the Texas A&M biological hazmat violation case in Textbook #2.) DRU is a network of universities to facilitate open communication, discussion and resource sharing among university and college emergency management practitioners to ensure campuses are more disaster resilient. Initial steps in the process include developing a mitigation planning team, identifying hazards and reduce the risks, prioritizing action areas and implementing measures to mitigate risks and reduce losses. The discussion of U-Berkley in lecture 8-1 is an example of this process and program. Benefits of Mitigation Planning We have discussed structural and non-structural mitigation in this and the prior lecture. Now, what about mitigation planning and its benefits? Simply put, mitigation planning saves lives, there are fewer injuries and less property is damaged. It minimizes economic disruption to the community and region, agricultural damage is reduced, etc. Mitigation planning lessens the impact on people and helps with stress reduction and mental health issues. It also provides lifelines and the infrastructure is stabilized. A question of concern is does mitigation planning mitigate legal liability? Why Should We Plan? We plan because it reduces post disaster pressure of having to react, rather than being proactive. With a plan in place you know what to do and have set priorities. It avoids crisis management. The planning process brings people together and builds partnerships across the spectrum of stakeholders. This allows a community or region to approach the problem(s)

associated with a disaster, without the burden of a looming post‐disaster crisis. It reduces risk and requires ideas from all stakeholders no matter how diverse they may be. Planning is a complex process particularly since it involves many political subdivisions, interests, physical constraints and the environment, and community values. Its focus is life safety and safeguarding property.

Mitigation Planning in the Movie Evan Almighty



Hazard Mitigation Planning Process There are 4 key components in the hazard mitigation planning process. They are:

Organizing resources,

Assessing the risks,

Developing a mitigation plan, and

Implementing the plan and monitoring its progress. Organizing resources it is important that interested and vested members in the process are involved and technical expertise is sought and used. This balances the process. When assessing the risks, you must know what the hazards and consequences are. Once priorities are set, the mitigation plan can be logically developed. If you have a plan, any plan, and it is not followed or monitored, you have essentially wasted your time. Therefore, it is important that you implement the plan and monitor its progress. When formulating the planning team, who do you look at as participants? You look at the local, state and federal government, private sector, concerned citizens and academic institutions. Can you think of others? A powerful “champion” is recommended. Who would you think a “champion” would be? You should also link mitigation planning to other planning. One would think that would include land use and environmental planning. Strategies for Getting Started Once you have established the planning team, how would you get started? First, you would hold a kickoff meeting and then set a regular schedule for meetings to maintain progress and momentum. You would assign planning tasks based on skill sets and establish a set of goals for the plan. Then and in parallel with the schedule for the planning initiative, establish defined and realistic timelines and milestones to keep things on track. Also you must use all available resources to ensure the plan is complete, correct and coordinated, and reflects a community approach. I would look at FEMA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Coast Guard, volunteer organizations, such as the Red Cross, and state, local and regional emergency agencies as key partners in getting started and keeping things on track.

Cooperative U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Coast Guard

Debris Removal Effort in Northern California

Week 10 Mitigation (Chapter 10 in Introduction to Emergency...

Documents

Transcript of Week 10 Mitigation (Chapter 10 in Introduction to Emergency...