406 Hazard Mitigation Workshop for PA Field Personnel
Unit 2- Introduction
Unit 2Methods and
Practices
(45 minutes)
Methods and Practices
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Introduce Unit


Define Hazard Mitigation Methods and Practices: Methods and practices used to analyze,
develop, and maximize the effectiveness of hazard mitigation projects
Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices
Methodology and Criteria for Determining Mitigation Objective
It is expected that students have a basic working knowledge of Hazard Mitigation issues
DF239 406 Hazard Mitigation
IG-2-1
Pilot-December 2004
406 Hazard Mitigation Workshop for PA Field Personnel
2- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices (cont’d)
Overall Design Principles
and Construction Practices
SM 4-4

Future Maintenance Cost Issues

Potential Secondary Impacts of
Mitigation Alternatives

Codes and Standards

Active vs. Passive Mitigation

Evaluating Effectiveness of Local
Practices
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Slide - 12
The remaining overall design principles and construction practices are also critical to the
selection of effective PA Mitigation Measures
 Future Maintenance Cost Issues – consider long-term costs
 Potential Secondary Impacts of Mitigation Alternatives – adverse impacts, increased risks
 Codes and Standards – mitigation benefits, regulatory requirements
 Active vs. Passive Mitigation – human intervention
 Evaluating Effectiveness of Local Practices – provides list of examples
Notes:

Inform participants that each of these topics will be covered on the visuals
that follow
DF239 406 Hazard Mitigation
IG-2-2
Pilot-December 2004
406 Hazard Mitigation Workshop for PA Field Personnel
2- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices (cont’d)
Repair and Mitigation

SM 4-5
Benefits of a combined approach
 Lowers
mitigation project costs
mitigation cost-effectiveness
 Reduces design and construction time,
effort
 Increases mitigation effectiveness
 Increases
Slide - 13
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Repair and Mitigation
Benefits of a combined approach
 Lowers mitigation project costs by avoiding the need for additional construction
mobilization
 Increases mitigation cost-effectiveness by lowering mitigation project costs
 Reduces design and construction time, effort by avoiding redundant labor and materials
 Increases mitigation effectiveness by allowing it to be a more integral part of the repaired
facility rather than an add-on measure
Emphasize that in order for the combined approach to be successful, the applicants and FEMA
need to identify mitigation measures early in the PA Process
Notes:

Provide additional, disaster-specific examples of these principles if
necessary, and ask participants if they have any experiences they would like
to share
DF239 406 Hazard Mitigation
IG-2-3
Pilot-December 2004
406 Hazard Mitigation Workshop for PA Field Personnel
2- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices (cont’d)
SM 4-6
Evaluating Effectiveness of
Mitigation Alternatives

Evaluating effectiveness - ask



Does it reduce/eliminate future damage?
Is the measure technically feasible?
Limitations on effectiveness
Not effective for all situations
Dependent on level of hazard
 Maintenance requirements/active measures


Slide - 14
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Evaluating Effectiveness of Mitigation Alternatives
Questions to ask when evaluating mitigation effectiveness:
 Technical feasibility - Can the mitigation measure be practically designed and constructed
without being cost prohibitive?
- Eligibility requirement under FEMA’s 406 Mitigation Policy (9526.1)
- Technical feasibility is often dependent on the condition of the existing site and facility
- Example: If a slab-on-grade masonry building located in the floodplain is in poor
structural condition, with major bearing wall and foundation cracks, it is probably not
technically feasible to elevate the structure on piles
 How effective is the mitigation measure at reducing or eliminating future damage (very,
somewhat, minimal)? Does the mitigation measure provide protection against future
events of higher or lower severity?
- Understanding the effectiveness/level of protection provided by the mitigation measure
is essential to assessing its cost effectiveness because project benefits are based on
avoided damages during various future events
- Note that an exact determination of effectiveness/level of protection is often easier for
some hazards (floods) than for others (earthquakes, tornadoes)
- Example: Flood mitigation by relocation of a facility out of the floodplain is highly
effective and provides the maximum level of protection against flood damage (provided
it is relocated out of harms way); whereas flood mitigation using a levee only provides
protection against flood depths that do not overtop or breach the levee. In some cases,
flood mitigation such as dry floodproofing – which is generally effective for floods up
to three feet maximum – can actually increase damage during more severe events by
trapping water inside the structure (if overtopped) or by collapsing walls, floor slabs, or
even the entire structure
Limitations on effectiveness:
 May not be effective for all situations
DF239 406 Hazard Mitigation
IG-2-4
Pilot-December 2004
406 Hazard Mitigation Workshop for PA Field Personnel
-



Example: Flood mitigation by elevation of structures may not be effective in reducing
damage in areas subject to extreme impact forces from large, flood-borne debris
Dependent on level of hazard
- Example: Wind mitigation designed for hurricane-force winds (74-155 mph) will not be
as effective against violent tornadoes of F3 or greater (158-316 mph)
Maintenance requirements/active measures
- Example: The success of dry floodproofing measures depends on maintenance and
placement of flood shields, closing valves, and other protection of openings
immediately prior to the event
Combine with other measures
- Example: The effectiveness of certain earthquake mitigation measures, such as
strengthening floor and roof systems with steel chords, can be increased when
combined with other measures such as installing tension ties, shear anchors, or
collectors (drag struts)
Notes:

Provide additional, disaster-specific examples of these principles if
necessary, and ask participants if they have any experiences they would like
to share
References:



Hazard Mitigation Funding Under Section 406 (Stafford Act), FEMA Policy
9526.1, August 13, 1998
PA Guide, FEMA 322, pp. 100-101
Policy Digest, FEMA 321, p. 61
DF239 406 Hazard Mitigation
IG-2-5
Pilot-December 2004
406 Hazard Mitigation Workshop for PA Field Personnel
2- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices (cont’d)
Floodplain Management
Requirements
SM 4-8

Be aware of mitigation that…



Modifies/increases floodplain development
Involves Substantial Damage/Improvement
Identify mitigation project locations on
the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Slide - 15
Floodplain Management Requirements
Be aware of mitigation measures in Riverine and coastal floodplains that:
 Modifies/increases floodplain development – follow the 8-step process outlined in 44 CFR
Part 9 and mandated by EO 11988 and EO 11990
 Involves Substantial Damage/Improvement – under the “50% rule”, when the damage
repair cost meets or exceeds 50% of the replacement cost, the replacement cost is eligible
Review mitigation project locations on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
 Floodway development restrictions – check local floodplain ordinance, building codes
 100-year floodplain requirements
 500-year floodplain requirements (critical facilities)
 Coastal V Zone and A Zone construction requirements
 Example: Flood mitigation by elevating a structure on fill is not permitted in a coastal V
Zone under NFIP regulations
Floodplain management regulations
 44 CFR Part 9: Floodplain Management
 44 CFR Parts 59-78: National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
 Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) – restricts Federal expenditures/assistance in
designated Coastal Barrier Resource Resources System (CBRS) units
 Executive Orders (EOs) 11988 and 11990 – laws that require Federal agencies to evaluate
project impacts on floodplains and wetlands, respectively
DF239 406 Hazard Mitigation
IG-2-6
Pilot-December 2004
406 Hazard Mitigation Workshop for PA Field Personnel
Notes:

Inform participants that the new International Building Code series and ACSE
7 Standards are in compliance with NFIP Regulations, and are recommended
for adoption in communities to replace older model building codes and
standards that do not adequately address flood and other natural hazards
(wind, earthquake)

Refer participants interested in mitigation and Riverine and coastal
floodplains to the Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA 55, Third Edition) or
Engineering Principles and Practices for Retrofitting Flood Prone Residential
Buildings (FEMA 259, 2nd Edition) for more information

Inform participants that a basic description of the NFIP may be found on the
FEMA website (http://www.fema.gov/doc/library/nfipdescrip.doc)

Provide additional examples of these principles if necessary, and ask
participants if they have any experiences they would like to share
References:



44 CFR, Parts 9 and 59-78
EO 11988, EO 11990
Hazard Mitigation Funding Under Section 406 (Stafford Act), FEMA Policy
9526.1, August 13, 1998

PA Guide, FEMA 322, pp. 28-31, 92-94, 105-106, 110, 111

Policy Digest, FEMA 321, pp. 54, 106
DF239 406 Hazard Mitigation
IG-2-7
Pilot-December 2004
406 Hazard Mitigation Workshop for PA Field Personnel
2- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices (cont’d)
Future Maintenance Cost
Issues
SM 4-14

Consider maintenance costs in
evaluation
 “Low-cost”
mitigation may have high
maintenance/operating costs
 Often less effective over time
 May include active mitigation measures
Slide - 16
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Future Maintenance Cost Issues
Consider maintenance costs in evaluation and benefit-cost analysis

Initially “Low-cost” mitigation may have high maintenance costs
Mitigation with high maintenance costs

Often less effective over time because the measures may not be properly maintained, and
thus wear out more quickly than ones with a higher initial cost

May include active mitigation measures that require human intervention to maintain
effectiveness
Examples:

Flood - wet and dry floodproofing measures that depend on valves, shields that must be
properly placed and maintained

Earthquake – securing computers and other equipment with straps that must be
connected/anchored to heavier, more stable furnishings to be effective
Notes:
Provide additional, disaster-specific examples of these principles if
necessary, and ask participants if they have any experiences they would like to share

Normally, maintenance costs are not eligible for Public Assistance
References:

PA Guide, FEMA 322, pp. 26-27
DF239 406 Hazard Mitigation
IG-2-8
Pilot-December 2004
406 Hazard Mitigation Workshop for PA Field Personnel
2- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices (cont’d)
Potential Secondary Impacts
of Mitigation Alternatives
SM 4-15

Adverse effects on operations



Reduced accessibility, efficiency
Increased operation and maintenance costs
Increased risk from other hazards


Flood vs. wind
Flood vs. earthquake
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Slide - 17
Potential Secondary Impacts
Under FEMA’s 406 Mitigation Policy (9526.1) - Mitigation measures should not negatively
impact the facility’s operation or increase the risk from another hazard
Adverse impacts on operations
 Reduced accessibility, efficiency
 Increased operation and maintenance costs
Increased risk of other hazards
 Basic hazard mitigation philosophies for floods (elevate/relocate) vs. high winds (envelope
protection/underground sheltering) and earthquakes (ductility/low center of gravity) often
contradict one another
 Consider other natural (and even man-made) hazards – and the relative risk of those
hazards - as part of your mitigation project
 Example: Many underground utility lines are severed during earthquakes; however,
elevating the utilities on poles is not recommended because it increases the risk of damage
from wind, ice and severe storm events that are probably more frequent
Notes:

Provide additional, disaster-specific examples of these principles if
necessary, and ask participants if they have any experiences they would like
to share
References:

Hazard Mitigation Funding Under Section 406 (Stafford Act) FEMA Policy
9526.1, August 13, 1998
DF239 406 Hazard Mitigation
IG-2-9
Pilot-December 2004
406 Hazard Mitigation Workshop for PA Field Personnel
2- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices (cont’d)
Codes and Standards

SM 4-16
May achieve mitigation if
 Repair/replacement
triggers applicable
code/standard
 Implementation decreases vulnerability
of future damage

Verify eligibility of codes and
standards
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Slide - 18
Codes and Standards
May achieve mitigation if:


Repair/replacement of damaged facility triggers applicable code/standard; and
Implementation of code/standard decreases vulnerability of future damage
Verify PA eligibility of codes and standards
Notes:

Apply to the repair work being performed. If a facility needs repair work only, then
upgrades would apply to the damaged elements only.

Be appropriate to the pre-disaster use of the facility

Be reasonable, formally adopted, in writing, and implemented prior to the disaster
declaration date.

Apply uniformly to all facilities of the type being repaired within the applicant’s
jurisdiction.

Be enforced during the time it was in effect.

Inform local officials that the new International Building Code series and
ACSE 7 Standards are strongly recommended for adoption in communities to
replace older model building codes and standards that do not adequately
address natural hazards (flood, wind, earthquake)

Inform participants that PA eligibility requirements will be covered in detail
later in this unit

Provide disaster-specific examples of these principles if necessary, and ask
participants if they have any experiences they would like to share
DF239 406 Hazard Mitigation
IG-2-10
Pilot-December 2004
406 Hazard Mitigation Workshop for PA Field Personnel
2- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices (cont’d)
Active vs. Passive Mitigation
SM 4-17

Active mitigation – requires human
intervention

Passive mitigation – no human
intervention needed

Passive mitigation measures
preferred
Slide - 19
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Active vs. Passive Mitigation
Active mitigation measures require some degree of human intervention to be fully effective
 Examples of Active Mitigation
- Flood - dry and wet floodproofing techniques that depend on the installation of flood
shields over doors and other openings prior to the event
- Wind - storm shutters that depend on installation or securing of shutters
- Earthquake – securing computers and other equipment that depend on the securing of
equipment with straps or other fasteners
Passive mitigation measures do not require any human intervention to be fully effective
 Examples of Passive Mitigation
- Flood – elevation and relocation of structures (no additional intervention needed)
- Wind – improving roof sheathing and improving connections between the roof framing
and walls (no additional intervention needed)
- Earthquake – installation of shear walls or cross bracing (no additional intervention
needed)
Passive measures are preferable
 Active mitigation measures should be avoided if possible, especially for natural hazards
where there is little or no warning time such as flash floods, tornadoes or earthquakes
Notes:

Provide additional, disaster-specific examples of these principles if
necessary, and ask participants if they have any experiences they would like
to share
References:
DF239 406 Hazard Mitigation
IG-2-11
Pilot-December 2004
406 Hazard Mitigation Workshop for PA Field Personnel

Engineering Principles and Practices for Retrofitting Flood Prone Residential
Buildings, FEMA 259, 2nd Edition, June 2001, p. I-5
DF239 406 Hazard Mitigation
IG-2-12
Pilot-December 2004
406 Hazard Mitigation Workshop for PA Field Personnel
2- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices (cont’d)
Evaluating Effectiveness of
Local Practices
SM 4-19

Local practices may achieve
mitigation through
 Better
 Better
construction techniques
construction materials
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Slide - 20
Evaluating Effectiveness of Local Practices
Local practices may achieve mitigation through the use of:
 Improved construction techniques such as compaction of loose soils to a specified, tested
density
 Improved construction materials such as replacing unreinforced masonry with reinforced
masonry or concrete
Does the applicant have any requirements or preferences for mitigation?
 Understanding applicant requirements and preferences for mitigation is critical to the
selection of suitable measures that will be technically feasible and cost effective
 Example: The owner and occupants of a public building may not wish to mitigate against
earthquakes using exterior cross bracing for aesthetic reasons or because the bracing can
block windows
Notes:

Provide additional, disaster-specific examples of these principles if
necessary, and ask participants if they have any experiences they would like
to share
References:

Hazard Mitigation in the Public Assistance Program, FEMA Response and
Recovery, Infrastructure Division, dated April 10, 2001
DF239 406 Hazard Mitigation
IG-2-13
Pilot-December 2004
406 Hazard Mitigation Workshop for PA Field Personnel
2- Methodology & Criteria for Determining Mitigation Objective
(cont’d)
Relocation

SM 4-21
Eligible for PA funding if
 Required
by applicable standard
effective
 Not barred by other FEMA regs/policies
 Cost

Relocate public facilities >50%
damaged under 406 (PA)

Relocate other facilities under 404
(HMGP)
Slide - 21
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Relocation
Permanent relocation of a damaged facility out of a hazardous area may be eligible for Public
Assistance if the relocation project is:

required by an applicable Federal, State or local standard (such as a floodplain management
regulation) or if the facility is subject to repetitive heavy damage;

cost effective when project costs are compared to future damages; and

not barred by other FEMA regulations or policies
Eligible relocation project costs include demolition and removal of the old facility, land
acquisition, construction of a new facility, and ancillary facilities such as roads and utilities
Once a relocation project is approved, the old site is not eligible to receive future Federal
funding, unless it is converted to open space use with minimal park facilities
Under 406 (PA) mitigation, relocation is typically associated with movement of critical public
facilities located within a floodplain or severe seismic hazard area that suffer major damage
from a declared disaster (damage cost > 50% of replacement cost)
Relocation of other facilities is generally handled under 404 (HMGP) mitigation
Notes:

Remind participants that differences between 406 and 404 mitigation were
discussed in Unit 2 of this course

Refer participants interested in additional information on the differences
between 406 and 404 mitigation should refer to pages 98-99 of the FEMA
Public Assistance Guide
DF239 406 Hazard Mitigation
IG-2-14
Pilot-December 2004
406 Hazard Mitigation Workshop for PA Field Personnel
References:

PA Guide, FEMA 322, pp. 31-32, 98-99

Policy Digest, FEMA 321, pp. 60, 61, 104, 106
DF239 406 Hazard Mitigation
IG-2-15
Pilot-December 2004
406 Hazard Mitigation Workshop for PA Field Personnel
2-Methodology & Criteria for Determining Mitigation Objective (cont’d)
Code Upgrades

SM 4-23
Code upgrades as mitigation
 Adopt
latest codes (2000 IBC, NFPA)
repair/reconstruction code
 Improve local floodplain management
ordinance in accordance with the
Community Rating System (CRS)
 Adopt

Slide - 22
Verify eligibility of code/standard
(five criteria)
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Code Upgrades
Examples of code upgrades used as mitigation include the following:
 Adopting latest building codes and standards (2000 IBC, ASCE 7, NFPA) in place of
existing model building codes (NBC, SBC, UBC)
 Adopting repair/reconstruction code provisions to allow post-disaster repairs to exceed the
codes and standards of the original construction
 Improving local floodplain management ordinance (CRS – Community Rating System –
awards insurance discounts to communities that exceed NFIP minimums)
Verify eligibility of code/standard using the FEMA “five criteria.” The code or standard must:
 Apply to the work being performed
 Be appropriate to the pre-disaster use of the facility
 Be reasonable, formally adopted, in writing, and implemented prior to disaster
 Apply uniformly to all facilities of the type being repaired
 Be enforced during the time it was in effect
Notes:

Provide additional, disaster-specific examples of these principles if
necessary, and ask participants if they have any experiences they would like
to share
References:


Stafford Act, Sections 406(e) and 409 (PA Guide, Appendix B)
44 CFR, Sections 206.221(i) and 206.226(b) (PA Guide, Appendix C)

PA Guide, FEMA 322, pp. 27-28, Policy Digest, FEMA 321, p. 17
DF239 406 Hazard Mitigation
IG-2-16
Pilot-December 2004
406 Hazard Mitigation Workshop for PA Field Personnel
2-Methodology & Criteria for Determining Mitigation Objective (cont’d)
Non-Structural Mitigation

SM 4-25
Mitigation of non-structural
building elements
 Elevate
utilities
shelving
 Anchor lighting
 Anchor
Slide - 23
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Non-Structural Mitigation
Definition: mitigation of non-structural building elements (i.e. elements whose failure would
not lead to a collapse of the structure, such as exterior facing, interior partitions and fixtures,
utilities and contents) to reduce the risk of damages and casualties
Examples of non-structural mitigation techniques
 Elevate utilities to protect them from inundation and debris impact during floods and
coastal storms
 Anchor tall bookshelves and filing cabinets to protect them from toppling in an earthquake
 Anchor overhead or pendant lighting systems to prevent them from collapse during an
earthquake
 May also apply to hazard insurance coverage covering buildings and contents
Non-structural mitigation measures may require eligibility review
References:

Flood Mitigation Handbook for Public Facilities, FEMA Region X, February
28, 2002

Earthquake Mitigation Handbook for Public Facilities, FEMA Region X,
February 28, 2002

PA Guide, FEMA 322, p. 101
DF239 406 Hazard Mitigation
IG-2-17
Pilot-December 2004