+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Introduction                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

> This lesson explores the reasons for communities to take steps to
> reduce hazard risks through mitigation. After completing the reading
> and the activities, you should be able to:

-   Explain the trends that have resulted in the dramatic increases in
    the cost of disaster response, recovery, and rebuilding.

-   Describe the relationship between sustainability and
    disaster-resistant communities.

-   Define mitigation as it applies to natural and manmade hazards.

-   Explain the intent and major components of Federal hazard mitigation
    initiatives, including the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.

-   Describe hazard mitigation successes.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Increased Costs of Disasters                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------+------------------------------------------+---+
| ![                       | Each year the United States sustains     |   |
| ](media/image1.jpeg){wid | natural and manmade disasters that cost  |   |
| th="2.098031496062992in" | hundreds of lives and average billions   |   |
| height="                 | of dollars in losses. These disasters    |   |
| 1.5763779527559054in"}![ | are caused by floods, wildfires, winter  |   |
| ](media/image2.jpeg){wid | storms, tornadoes, landslides,           |   |
| th="2.105511811023622in" | earthquakes, hurricanes, and other       |   |
| height                   | natural events, as well as intentional   |   |
| ="1.3992125984251969in"} | and unintentional manmade hazard events. |   |
|                          | These circumstances demand the attention |   |
| Photos: Examples of      | of government at all levels, the private |   |
| damage from natural      | sector, and individuals, to take steps   |   |
| disasters. Top photo     | to decrease hazard risks.                |   |
| shows flooding in        |                                          |   |
| populated city. Bottom   | ***Risk*** means the estimated impact a  |   |
| photo shows a crumbling  | hazard event would have on people,       |   |
| bridge.                  | services, facilities, and structures in  |   |
|                          | a community, and the likelihood of an    |   |
|                          | occurrence resulting in those            |   |
|                          | conditions.                              |   |
|                          |                                          |   |
|                          | Over the last several decades, land      |   |
|                          | development has led to sprawling         |   |
|                          | suburban communities and homes, built    |   |
|                          | with minimal attention to protection     |   |
|                          | against high winds, flooding, wildfire,  |   |
|                          | or other natural hazards. More people    |   |
|                          | were, and still are, moving to and       |   |
|                          | building in areas that put them in       |   |
|                          | harm's way.                              |   |
|                          |                                          |   |
|                          | #                                        |   |
+--------------------------+------------------------------------------+---+
| ## S                     |                                          |   |
| ustainability and Disast |                                          |   |
| er-Resistant Communities |                                          |   |
+--------------------------+------------------------------------------+---+

+--------------------------+------------------------------------------+---+
| ![](media/im             | According to the World Commission on     |   |
| age3.jpeg){width="2.2in" | Environment and Development, sustainable |   |
| height="1.44375in"}      | development "meets the needs of the      |   |
|                          | present without compromising the ability |   |
| Photo: Collapsed house   | of future generations to meet their own  |   |
| destroyed by tornado.    | needs."                                  |   |
|                          |                                          |   |
|                          | In sustainable communities, decisions    |   |
|                          | made by the present generation will not  |   |
|                          | reduce the options of future             |   |
|                          | generations. The present generation will |   |
|                          | pass on a natural, economic, and social  |   |
|                          | environment that will provide a high     |   |
|                          | quality of life. Some U.S. communities,  |   |
|                          | devastated by hurricanes and other       |   |
|                          | hazard events in the first 5 years of    |   |
|                          | the millennium, have demonstrated that   |   |
|                          | developed, populated hazard areas may    |   |
|                          | not be sustainable.                      |   |
|                          |                                          |   |
|                          | An essential characteristic of           |   |
|                          | sustainable communities is resistance to |   |
|                          | disasters. A disaster-resistant          |   |
|                          | community is one in which significant    |   |
|                          | steps and actions have been taken to     |   |
|                          | reduce the community's vulnerability to  |   |
|                          | potential hazard events. When an event   |   |
|                          | does occur, the rewards of these steps   |   |
|                          | and actions include:                     |   |
|                          |                                          |   |
|                          | -   Saved lives.                         |   |
|                          |                                          |   |
|                          | -   Reduced damage to property.          |   |
|                          |                                          |   |
|                          | -   Reduced economic losses.             |   |
|                          |                                          |   |
|                          | -   Minimized social disruption.         |   |
|                          |                                          |   |
|                          | -   Ability of local government to       |   |
|                          |     resume operations quickly.           |   |
|                          |                                          |   |
|                          | -   Shorter recovery period for the      |   |
|                          |     community.                           |   |
|                          |                                          |   |
|                          | -   Improved attractiveness to           |   |
|                          |     individuals and businesses by        |   |
|                          |     demonstrating effectiveness in       |   |
|                          |     dealing with a disaster.             |   |
|                          |                                          |   |
|                          | Communities pursue disaster resistance   |   |
|                          | through one or both of the following:    |   |
|                          |                                          |   |
|                          | -   Reducing risk to future development  |   |
|                          |     through location (planning), better  |   |
|                          |     codes, and implementation and        |   |
|                          |     enforcement of codes.                |   |
|                          |                                          |   |
|                          | -   Taking steps to protect existing     |   |
|                          |     development.                         |   |
+--------------------------+------------------------------------------+---+
| ## Definit               |                                          |   |
| ion of Hazard Mitigation |                                          |   |
+--------------------------+------------------------------------------+---+

These strategies for reducing disaster damage and destruction are
commonly known as hazard mitigation. ***Hazard mitigation*** is defined
as sustained actions taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to
people and property from hazards and their effects.

The purpose of hazard mitigation is twofold:

-   To protect people and structures.

-   To minimize the costs of disaster response and recovery.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Hazard Mitigation and Emergency Management                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

The many tasks and functions of emergency management may be summarized
into a cycle through which communities *prepare* for emergencies and
disasters, *respond* to them when they occur, help people and
institutions *recover* from them, and *mitigate* their potential effects
to reduce the risk of future loss.

**Preparedness** ensures people are ready for a disaster and respond to
it effectively. Preparedness requires figuring out what you'll do if
essential services break down, developing a plan for contingencies, and
practicing the plan.

**Response** begins as soon as a disaster is detected or threatens. It
involves search and rescue mass care, medical services, access control,
and bringing damaged services and systems back on line. When State and
local governments are overwhelmed by a disaster, they may seek Federal
assistance through a Presidential disaster or emergency declaration.
Typically, Federal assistance is financial. However, in catastrophic
events, the Federal government may be asked to mobilize resources from
any number of Federal agencies, and to participate in the response.

**Recovery**, or rebuilding, after a disaster takes years. Services,
infrastructure (utilities, communication, and transportation systems),
facilities, operations, and the lives and livelihoods of many thousands
of people may be affected by a disaster. Local community and State
governments do what they can to bring about the recovery. When those
resources are expended, Federal loans and grants can help. Funds are
used to rebuild homes, businesses and public facilities, to clear debris
and repair roads and bridges, and to restore water, sewer and other
essential services.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Hazard Mitigation and Emergency Management (Continued)             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Viewed broadly, the goal of all **hazard mitigation** efforts is risk
reduction. The emphasis on *sustained* actions to reduce long-term risk
differentiates mitigation from preparedness and response tasks, which
are required to survive a disaster safely. Mitigation is an essential
component of emergency management. Effective mitigation actions can
decrease the impact, the requirements, and the expense of a natural
hazard event.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Hazard Mitigation Programs                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Hazard mitigation takes many forms. A few examples are effective
floodplain management, engineering of buildings and infrastructures to
withstand earthquakes, and the implementation of building codes designed
to protect property from natural hazards**.** The Federal government has
created several programs intended to help States and communities reduce
or eliminate long- term risk from hazards.

######## National Flood Insurance Program 

For decades, the national response to flood disasters was simply to
provide disaster relief to flood victims. Efforts also were made to
install flood-control constructions such as dams, levees, and seawall.

Funded by tax dollars, this approach failed to reduce the losses. It
also did not provide a way to cover the damage costs of all flood
victims. To compound the problem, the public generally could not buy
flood coverage from insurance companies, because private insurance
companies see floods as too costly to insure.

In the face of mounting flood losses and escalating costs of disaster
relief to U.S. taxpayers, Congress established the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) in 1968. The goals of the program are to reduce
future flood damage through floodplain management, and to provide people
with flood insurance. More than 35 years later, the NFIP continues to
offer flood insurance to homeowners, renters and business owners,
provided their communities use the NFIP\'s strategies for reducing flood
risk. Community participation in the NFIP is voluntary, although some
states require NFIP partnership as part of their floodplain management
programs. NFIP flood insurance is the best protection against the
devastating financial losses that floods cause.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Hazard Mitigation Programs (Continued)                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

######### Floodplain management 

Floodplain management refers to an overall community program of
corrective and preventive measures for reducing future flood damage.
These measures generally include zoning, subdivision, or building
requirements, and special-purpose floodplain ordinances. When a
community chooses to join the NFIP, it must adopt and enforce minimum
floodplain management standards for participation.

FEMA works closely with state and local officials to identify flood
hazard areas and flood risks. Floodplain management requirements within
Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) are designed to prevent new
development from increasing the flood threat and to protect new and
existing buildings from anticipated flood events.

Communities participating in the NFIP must require permits for all
development in the SFHA. Permit files must contain documentation to
substantiate how buildings were actually constructed. The community also
must ensure that construction materials and methods used will minimize
future flood damage. In return, the Federal government makes flood
insurance available for almost every building and its contents within
the community.

***Flood Mapping***

Flood maps are used to locate a property within a particular flood zone.
When considering purchasing or renewing a flood insurance policy, a
property owner needs to know whether the property is in a low- to
moderate or high-risk area to determine which policy is right for them.

Over the years, many of the government\'s flood insurance maps have
become obsolete due to urban growth, changes to river flows and
coastlines, and even flood mitigation efforts like drainage systems and
levees. Accurate information is essential to inform property owners of
emerging flood risks and to determine appropriate rates for flood
insurance coverage.

**Map Modernization** is FEMA\'s response to the need to update and
maintain flood hazard maps. This initiative is creating digital flood
insurance rate maps (DFIRMs) for more than 20,000 communities across the
United States. In addition, the DFIRMs will become the platform for
identifying other potential risks such as land erosion, deforestation
and ice flows.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Hazard Mitigation Programs (Continued)                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

This five-year effort will transform flood maps into maps that are more
accurate, easier-to-use and readily available to consumers. When Map
Modernization is complete, you will be able to print and use these maps
right from your desktop. FEMA\'s commitment to this aggressive,
multi-year initiative will save the government an estimated \$45 billion
over the next 50 years.

***Flood Insurance***

Unlike a standard homeowners policy, flood insurance covers losses to
property caused by flooding. Some of the things a standard flood policy
will cover include:

-   structural damage.

-   furnace, water heater and air conditioner.

-   flood debris clean up floor surfaces such as carpeting and tile.

A flood insurance policy can also cover the contents of a home, such as
furniture, collectibles, clothing, jewelry and artwork.

Policies are available in three forms: **Dwelling** (most homes),
**General Property** (apartments and businesses), and **Residential
Condominium Building Association** (condominiums).

If a property owner has a federally backed mortgage on a home located in
a high-risk area, federal law requires the purchase of flood insurance.
Also, if a property owner received a federal grant for previous flood
losses, they must have a flood policy to qualify for future aid.

> National Dam Safety Program (NDSP)

Dams are an integral part of our Nation's infrastructure, equal in
importance to bridges, roads, and airports. There are now more than
10,000 dams in the United States classified as high-hazard potential,
meaning that their failure from any means, including a terrorist attack,
could result in loss of life, significant property damage, lifeline
disruption, and environmental damage.

The Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002, which was signed into law on
December 2, 2002, addresses safety and security for dams through the
coordination by FEMA of federal programs and initiatives for dams and
the transfer of federal best practices in dam security to the states.
The Act of 2002 includes resources for the development and maintenance
of a national dam safety information network and the development by the
National Dam Safety Review Board of a strategic plan that establishes
goals, priorities, and target dates to improve the safety and security
of dams in the United States.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Hazard Mitigation Programs (Continued)                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

The Act of 2002 continues all of the programs established by the 1996
Act that have been serving to increase the safety of the Nation's dams,
including grants to the state dam safety programs that regulate over
78,000 dams in the United States; training for state dam safety staff
and inspectors; and technical and archival research, including the
development of devices for the continued monitoring of the safety of
dams.

**National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program**

Earthquakes cannot be prevented, but their impacts can be managed to a
large degree so that loss of life and property can be reduced. To this
end, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) seeks to
mitigate earthquake losses in the United States through both basic and
directed research and implementation activities in the fields of
earthquake science and engineering.

The NEHRP is the Federal Government's coordinated approach to addressing
earthquake risks. Congress established the program in 1977 (Public Law
95-124) as a long-term, nationwide program to reduce the risks to life
and property in the United States resulting from earthquakes. The NEHRP
is managed as a collaborative effort among the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the United
States Geological Survey (USGS).

The four goals of the NEHRP are to:

-   Develop effective practices and policies for earthquake
    loss-reduction and accelerate their implementation.

-   Improve techniques to reduce seismic vulnerability of facilities and
    systems.

-   Improve seismic hazards identification and risk-assessment methods
    and their use.

-   Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.

**National Hurricane Program**

The National Hurricane Program conducts and supports many projects and
activities that help protect communities and their residents from
hurricane hazards. Three key components of the Program are Response and
Recovery; Planning, Training, and Preparedness; and Mitigation.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Hazard Mitigation Programs (Continued)                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

***Response and Recovery***

Helping communities and individuals repair damage, rebuild, and recover
after hurricanes and coastal storms. Activities include: providing
liaison teams to assist in the coordination of National Hurricane Center
advisories and emergency evacuation activities with Federal, state, and
local governments, and conducting post-flood evacuation studies.

***Planning and Preparedness***

Taking action to lessen the impact of hurricanes and coastal storms on
communities and their residents. Activities include: evaluating and
recommending improvements for emergency evacuation shelters, evaluating
and developing emergency evacuation plans, and increasing public
awareness of hurricane hazards through training and outreach programs.

***Mitigation**\
*

Reducing the damage caused by hurricane winds and flooding through
improvements in the built environment, including residential and
non-residential buildings and their utility systems. Activities include:
assessing building performance after significant hurricanes and coastal
storms, developing designs for hazard resistant construction in new
buildings and retrofitting techniques for existing buildings, and
recommending improvements in state and local regulatory programs.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

> Congress showed its ongoing support for reducing the rising cost of
> disasters through hazard mitigation when it passed the Disaster
> Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000).
>
> DMA 2000 amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
> Assistance Act (Stafford Act). The Stafford Act was signed into law in
> 1988 and amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. The Stafford Act
> provides the statutory authority for most Federal disaster response
> activities, especially as they pertain to FEMA and FEMA programs.
>
> DMA 2000 created an emphasis on hazard mitigation planning at the
> State and local levels of government and established a national
> program for pre-disaster hazard mitigation.

The DMA calls upon States to:

-   Coordinate State and local government activities related to hazard
    mitigation.

-   Prepare and submit a State Mitigation Plan and update every 3 years
    as a condition for receiving certain forms of disaster assistance.

-   Make available, from hazard mitigation grant programs, funds for
    assisting local jurisdictions with hazard mitigation planning and
    projects.

-   Provide technical assistance and training to local governments in
    developing hazard mitigation plans, and in applying for and managing
    hazard mitigation grants for planning and for projects.

    Local governments are asked to:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Prepare and adopt a jurisdiction-wide natural hazard mitigation plan
    as a condition of receiving post-disaster grants for hazard
    mitigation.

-   Review the hazard mitigation plan and, if necessary, update it every
    5 years.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Hazard Mitigation Best Practices                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Throughout the United States, individuals, businesses, and communities
have been taking action to reduce or prevent future damage from
disasters. The following are examples of hazard mitigation best
practices.

### 

########### Flood Mitigation: Rising Above the Flood  {#flood-mitigation-rising-above-the-flood .unnumbered}

### Belhaven, North Carolina

> The first thing that usually strikes visitors who enter the small
> harbor town of Belhaven (population 1,900) is that many of the homes,
> whether trailer or mansion, are elevated high enough to protect them
> from floodwaters. The town did not always look like it does now.
>
> As a coastal town in North Carolina, Belhaven has often been battered
> by severe storms and hurricanes. In the last 8 years alone, it has
> been flooded by seven named storms and hurricanes, which resulted in
> tens of millions of dollars worth of damages. The public buildings
> that were regularly hit included the town's elementary school and the
> beloved but low-lying town library.
>
> As far back as 1933, when children would be read to in the window of
> O'Neal's Drug Store, it was clear Belhaven needed a library. Still, it
> took almost two decades before a permanent library found a home on
> Main Street, just blocks from the picturesque Pantego Creek, which
> flows into the Pungo River. Because the town is located in the
> 100-year floodplain, the bungalow library remained in a vulnerable
> position for major flooding. "From 1996 to 1998 our former library
> flooded six times," said branch librarian Joan Bogun. "Since we had
> outgrown it anyway, it only made sense to rebuild to survive future
> floods."
>
> After the devastation of Hurricane Fran in 1996, Belhaven city
> officials were determined to take action. They started an aggressive
> mitigation campaign to elevate structures. They would use Federal and
> State grant money where they could, and private money when the grant
> money ran out. "Our plan was to keep everybody out of harm's way,"
> said Town Manager Tim M. Johnson.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Hazard Mitigation Successes (Continued)                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

########### Flood Mitigation: Rising Above the Flood (Continued) {#flood-mitigation-rising-above-the-flood-continued .unnumbered}

### Belhaven, North Carolina

> Federal, State, and town officials worked together on two projects in
> the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which is administered by
> the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management (NC DEM) and
> funded by FEMA. The first project elevated 232 eligible residences,
> and the second purchased Belhaven's old elementary school with the
> money going toward a new school out of the 100-year floodplain. The
> residential elevations accelerated after Hurricane Floyd in 1999. Both
> projects were completed before landfall of Hurricane Isabel in
> September 2003.

Not everyone waited for Federal money, however. For instance, the
often-flooded Belhaven public library was rebuilt and elevated through a
substantial donation from a local patron, community fundraising, and a
State disaster relief grant. Completed in November 2001, the new
structure is large enough to hold community meetings, events, and local
projects.

+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| ![]                      | After Hurricane Isabel passed through     |
| (media/image4.jpeg){widt | North Carolina, media and disaster        |
| h="2.5055555555555555in" | officials flocked to Belhaven as word     |
| height="1.65             | spread of the success of its mitigation   |
| 90277777777778in"}Photo: | efforts. The story in Belhaven was the    |
| Girl smiling in front of | damage that did *not* happen.             |
| her "still standing"     |                                           |
| Belhaven home.           | Property owners who had elevated homes    |
|                          | through HMGP funds experienced minimal or |
|                          | no flood damage from Isabel. The new      |
|                          | library was also among the survivors. At  |
|                          | the height of the storm, Belhaven's Main  |
|                          | Street was under 3 feet of water, but the |
|                          | library's artwork and books remained      |
|                          | above the surging waters.                 |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Hazard Mitigation Successes (Continued)                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

### High Wind (Tornado) Mitigation: Above-Ground Safe Room 

### Moore, Oklahoma -- New Home and Safe Room for Homeowners

Don Staley and his family are no strangers to storms and tornadoes.
Their first home was hit by a tornado in October 1998 and suffered minor
damage but was destroyed by another tornado on May 3, 1999. They rode
out both storms inside the house. "It was such a frightening sound," he
said. "We decided we weren't going to ride out another one inside the
house."

In December 2000, the Staley's new home was ready. Shortly after moving
in, they had an above-ground safe room constructed on the back patio.
The concrete room has 8-inch thick walls, an 18-inch thick ceiling, a
10-inch foundation, and a sliding entry door made of 12-gauge steel with
¾-inch plywood on each side. The safe room is equipped with
battery-powered lights and a battery-powered television.

When the warning sirens sounded on May 8, 2003, Don took shelter in the
safe room along with his dog and two cats to ride out the storm feeling
very protected and safe. "I was watching it on TV in there," he
recalled. "I could see it was coming my way and I could hear it coming.
I could hear the roar. That's a sound you never forget."

When he emerged from the shelter, he found his house in shambles with
the roof ripped off. Other houses on the street were also heavily
damaged or destroyed. The Staleys used their safe room following the
tornado to store and protect belongings they had salvaged.

The Staley's home was among the more than 300 homes destroyed in the
city that day. Whereas a severe tornado hit the city in May of 1999
claiming 44 lives, there were no deaths in the 2003 tornado. The absence
of fatalities is attributed to community preparedness, improved early
warning systems, and the many safe rooms and shelters that have been
built.

Staley sums it all up, "The safe room saved my life, it came through
with flying colors. It's worth a million bucks to me."

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Hazard Mitigation Successes (Continued)                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

### Earthquake Mitigation: Public School Retrofit Program 

### Lake Washington, Washington -- Efforts Prompted By Parents and Staff

It was April 29, 1965, when the last major earthquake struck western
Washington State. While aware of the possibility of another event,
locals had been lax in their efforts to take action. With population
growth over the years, and the building of more schools in the Lake
Washington School District, parents and district staff members began
vocalizing their concern about the risk of earthquake and what would
happen to their children in such an event.

In early 1992, local engineers assessed the safety of the school
buildings. Because schools did not have a lot of money, local funds
would be used, and a plan was developed. The plan would determine the
cost to complete structural and nonstructural projects for seismic
retrofit.

The school district including Kirkland, Redmond, and parts of King
County imposed a construction levy on the 1992 general election ballot
to raise funds for seismic upgrades, a safety program, and also an
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) program. A 2-year levy was
initiated in 1996 and a 4-year levy in 1998 with total funds, for
retrofit alone, in the amount of about \$6 million. Structural and
nonstructural retrofitting has been done.

On February 28, 2001, mitigation and safety measures in the Lake
Washington School District were tested when a strong 6.8 earthquake
struck the Nisqually Basin and Puget Sound area of western Washington.
Most of the schools in the district are built on a liquefaction zone
that caused the ground to "roll like jelly," said Forrest Miller,
Director of Support Services for the School System. "The buildings were
all tested and nothing failed. The only thing that fell was one light
fixture in the oldest building which was built in 1952."

There are several successes to this story. Mr. Miller stated he is "so
impressed with the people in this district who got things done!" Because
of their vision and perseverance, lives as well as millions of dollars
were saved. Due to their ongoing safety drills, the children and
teachers were well trained, and were actually training the adults on
what to do.

Custodians and other appropriate employees have received the Applied
Technology Council (ATC) Training, which teaches rapid visual assessment
of interior structures. Immediate inspection can be done after an
incident, which in this case was instrumental in allowing classes to
resume with minimal loss of time. Teachers and other school employees
were tested beforehand to determine responsibility during earthquake and
fire drills so every student would be accounted for and in their
pre-decided location.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Hazard Mitigation Successes (Continued)                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

### Earthquake Mitigation: Public School Retrofit Program (Continued)

### Lake Washington, Washington -- Efforts Prompted By Parents and Staff

The benefits are many. There are 25,000 students in the Lake Washington
School District, which is the fifth largest in the state of Washington.
There was no loss of life or injury, and 40 buildings in the district
were saved by either new construction or seismic retrofit. To construct
a new school building today would cost at least \$36 million, and to
find temporary housing for classrooms in case of damages would have cost
thousands.

########### Flood (Storm Surge) Mitigation: Community Rating System Helps  {#flood-storm-surge-mitigation-community-rating-system-helps .unnumbered}

####################### Key Biscayne, Florida -- Resulted From Hurricane Andrew  {#key-biscayne-florida-resulted-from-hurricane-andrew .unnumbered}

> In 1992, Hurricane Andrew swept through southern Florida. The
> resulting storm surge and flooding destroyed a large portion of the
> Village of Key Biscayne and demonstrated the need for a plan to cope
> with flood hazards. Since entering the Community Rating System (CRS),
> the Village has implemented flood mitigation programs that reduce the
> impact of flooding, making it a safer community, while residents enjoy
> discounted flood insurance due to participation in the CRS.
>
> The CRS has helped Key Biscayne to focus on systematic mitigation and
> has established an administrative link between the Village's and Dade
> County's mitigation activities. Three key activities promote hazard
> mitigation and inform the public about hazards and the benefits of
> flood insurance: the stormwater drainage maintenance program, an open
> space program, and the public outreach program. These three programs
> also helped the Village achieve a CRS rating of 6, giving residents
> outside the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) a 10-percent reduction on
> their flood insurance premium, and a 20-percent reduction to residents
> within the SFHA.
>
> Participation in the CRS has made Key Biscayne more vigilant in
> maintaining and improving the stormwater system. The Village is a
> co-permittee with Dade County and both have implemented a stormwater
> management program that reduces flooding and ensures that clean water
> is discharged into the waters of Dade County and the Village's deep
> well system.
>
> The Village conducts public outreach to inform citizens about ongoing
> hazard mitigation strategies, provide information on what to do in the
> event of a hazard and educate the public about why mitigation is
> important.

By participating in the CRS, Key Biscayne has reduced flood losses,
saving lives and property, and increased awareness of hazards and hazard
mitigation, while providing its citizens with discounted flood
insurance.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Hazard Mitigation Successes (Continued)                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

########### Wildfire Mitigation: Defensible Space Saves Home  {#wildfire-mitigation-defensible-space-saves-home .unnumbered}

####################### Novajo County, Arizona {#novajo-county-arizona .unnumbered}

> The home of Lois Trimble is located in the Pinedale area, Navajo
> County, Arizona, just 10 miles northwest of Show Low. They built their
> house over the years and it became their primary residence in 1981.
> The entire area around this home was burned by the Rodeo-Chediski Fire
> that swept through the community in late June 2002. However, the
> Trimble home was unscathed.
>
> Mrs. Trimble explained, "The fire started on Monday. On Tuesday we
> were told that the fire was out. Wednesday morning, ash was raining
> down all around us. My son called and told us that the fire had
> exploded; we looked and saw it coming over the ridge. We were told to
> evacuate. We had 1 hour. Because we had experienced this before 5
> years ago, we knew exactly what to grab -- important papers, some
> food, clothes, and photo albums. My husband is an invalid so my
> daughter and I had to do it all." They were evacuated to the town of
> Eager and sheltered there until it was safe to return. The only
> building that survived the fire was their home.

### 

> Their home, while not damaged by fire, had smoke and soot inside and
> was not immediately habitable. During the previous few years, Mr.
> Trimble spread decomposed granite approximately 30 to 50 feet around
> his home. He keeps the pine needles clear because of the fire hazard
> they pose to their home. The decomposed granite also helps to keep the
> area clean after rain and absorbs any runoff. The Trimbles, in effect,
> created a defensible space. Trees, shrubs, and a garden area close to
> the house and within the cleared area did not burn. The fire leveled
> all of the neighbors' homes and outbuildings as well as burning the
> trees in the forest.
>
> The current market value of the Trimble property is approximately
> \$200,000. The cost of one dump truck load of decomposed granite is
> \$120. Mr. Trimble has used four truckloads of material at a cost of
> less than \$500. Clearly, the low investment of time and materials was
> proven very effective to protect their home from this devastating
> wildfire.

Read more Mitigation Best Practices on FEMA's website at
http//www.fema.gov/fima/bp.shtm

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Summary                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

> This unit underscored how devastating and costly disasters can be.
> Unless the Nation, especially at the local level, changes the way it
> builds communities, the cost of disasters will continue to rise.
>
> Lesson 1 also covered concepts of sustainability, disaster-resistant
> communities, emergency management, and mitigation, and how they relate
> to each other. With well-thought-out and sound hazard mitigation
> planning, communities can become safer, stronger, and more sustainable
> for future generations. Federal hazard mitigation initiatives provide
> technical and financial assistance to these efforts.
>
> DMA 2000 further empowers local governments and communities to strive
> for sustainability through jurisdiction-wide, all-hazard mitigation
> planning.
>
> The next lesson will describe the steps a community needs to take to
> begin to build a sustainable community through mitigation planning.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Hazard Mitigation in Your Community                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

> This lesson underscored how devastating and costly disasters can be.
> Unless the Nation, especially at the local level, changes the way it
> builds communities, the cost of disasters will continue to rise.

1.  What are some examples of sustainable development in your community?

2.  What are examples of disaster-resistant planning or
    disaster-resistant construction in your community?

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Test Yourself                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

1.  Annually the dollar cost of disasters in the United States is:
    (*select one*)

> a.) thousands b.) millions c.) billions

2.  In sustainable communities, decisions made by the present generation
    will: *(select one)*

    a.  Reduce the options of future generations.

    b.  Not reduce the options of future generations.

    c.  Eliminate the options of future generations.

    d.  None of the above.

3.  Three ways to reduce the risk of future hazard damages to new
    development are:

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

4.  Mitigation is defined as: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
    actions taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and
    property from hazards and their effects. (*select one*)

> a\) fast
>
> b\) legal
>
> c\) sustained
>
> d\) construction

5.  One example of a State responsibility under the Disaster Mitigation
    Act of 2000 is:
    \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.

6.  One example of a local government responsibility under the Disaster
    Mitigation Act of 2000 is:
    \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.

7.  Match the mitigation program with the appropriate description below:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  NEHRP

b.  NDSP

c.  NHP

d.  NFIP

> \_\_\_\_\_ Goal is to reduce future flood damage through floodplain
> management and to provide flood insurance.
>
> \_\_\_\_\_ Includes grants to state dam safety programs and train dam
> safety staff.
>
> \_\_\_\_\_ Long-term nationwide program to reduce risk to life and
> property from earthquakes in the U.S.
>
> \_\_\_\_\_ Supports projects and activities to protect communities
> from hurricane hazards.