Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

4 
Section 4.0 

Sustainability by 
Hazard Type 

This section suggests specific approaches to incorporating sustainable practices 
into recovery and mitigation planning for the following types of hazards: 

 Flooding 
 Earthquakes 
 Coastal storms 
 Tornadoes 
 Wildfires 
 Landslides. 
The hazard-specific discussions are followed by a relevant case study that provides 
one or more examples of sustainable mitigation processes. The Sustainability Planner 
new to emergency management should obtain background information on the 
particular hazards relevant to the disaster deployment. The FEMA document, Multi-
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment: The Cornerstone of the National Mitigation 
Strategy, provides an excellent overview on a broad range of natural hazards (see 
annotated reference in Appendix D). Understanding the anticipated intensity of a 
future disaster and the probable reoccurrence of the next threshold event that could 
trigger a disaster declaration is critical in identifying appropriate mitigation and 
sustainability approaches. 

The discussions below outline different approaches to incorporating sustainable 
practices into the disaster recovery and mitigation planning processes. The 
recommended approaches are not intended to be all-inclusive. The relevance of each 
approach varies depending on disaster damages, the history of past natural disasters in 
the area, the statistical probability of future disasters, and community interest and 
political realities. 

4.1 All Hazards 
Hazard mitigation specialists working out of a DFO are understandably focused 
on evaluating mitigation opportunities relevant to the natural hazard event that led to 
the disaster declaration. However, it is important that the mitigation staff and 

Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

Sustainability Planner step back at this point and evaluate mitigation and sustainable 
redevelopment opportunities from a multi-hazard perspective. Are there other hazards 
present that would leave reconstruction vulnerable to disaster? Some excellent examples 
of a multi-hazard approach come from recent hurricane disaster declarations in the 

U.S. Virgin Islands and in Puerto Rico. Mitigation activities following these 
declarations focused on repair and reconstruction of structures damaged or destroyed 
by high winds. Where feasible from a cost and engineering perspective, mitigation 
specialists also considered incorporating seismic strengthening of the structures in 
reconstruction because of the high seismic risk present in this part of the Caribbean. 
Many aspects of mitigation and sustainable redevelopment are common to all 
hazards. Therefore, if major reconstruction is part of the overall recovery effort, the 
following factors should be considered in addressing all hazard types: 

Extent of Damage 

Obviously, the more extensive the damage to a community, the greater the 
opportunity for incorporating sustainable redevelopment into the recovery effort. 
Following a major disaster, many communities may find it advantageous to reexamine 
how land uses can be rearranged and how the basic configuration of streets and utilities 
might even be altered to improve access and services. The first question for the 
Sustainability Planner is, How can the community avoid repetitive losses through the 
reconstruction process? If damage is extensive and the continued risk high in a 
particular area, alternative land uses such as open space or recreation may be 
appropriate. However, changing land use to avoid repetitive damages may not be a 
sound planning option nor politically feasible. 

Where the extent of damage is limited and replacement of previous uses is 
desirable, significant measures may be employed on a structure-by-structure basis to 
provide for increased disaster resistance, energy efficiency, and environmental 
sensitivity. 

Type and Age of Affected Facilities and Structures 

As a general rule, recently developed areas are more likely to consist of homes and 
businesses where the owners have adequate insurance or other financial means to 
restore their properties. In addition, recent developments should more closely reflect 
community needs and current planning standards. Unless these developments are 
located in an area that is highly vulnerable to natural disasters, it is probable that the 
development will be returned to predisaster conditions. In these situations, there are 
opportunities to promote sustainability by recommending the use of building materials 
and replacement equipment that are energy efficient and disaster resistant. 

In older disaster-damaged areas, other questions may be asked before the 
community embarks on reconstruction. Older residential or community areas were 
designed and built to meet community needs at that time. Does the community want 
things put back the way they were, or would another land use pattern better meet 
current needs? Housing needs today have shifted dramatically from the prevalent 
three-bedroom, single-family detached subdivisions built during the 1950s and 1960s. 
Based on an assessment of the communitys needs, it may be appropriate to provide a 
greater diversity of housing types in a typical reconstruction project. In these situations, 

Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 

Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

it may be appropriate for the community to consider initiating a long-term recovery 
planning effort to evaluate alternative reconstruction strategies. 

Environmental and Social Considerations 

The Sustainability Planner should help to ensure that community recovery plans 
and proposed mitigation measures are environmentally sensitive, respect cultural and 
historic resources, and contribute to the sustainability of the residential and commercial 
elements of the community. When Federal funds are used in the reconstruction effort, 
Federal environmental and historic preservation requirements such as NEPA, NHPA, 
CoBRA, and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) may become an issue in the overall 
recovery effort. The Sustainability Planner can help local communities by facilitating 
an expedited review process and helping to resolve review and permitting issues as they 
arise. 

Regulatory Controls 

Because there is typically pressure to rebuild as soon as possible, it is important to 
assess current regulatory controls to determine whether they promote commonly 
accepted sustainable building techniques and rational land use patterns. A 
Sustainability Planner might provide recommendations to modify or amend zoning 
regulations to allow a greater diversity of housing types or promote flexibility in the 
review process to expedite approvals for reconstruction activities. If regulatory controls 
are lacking and there is hesitancy on the part of property owners to voluntarily 
incorporate sustainable development measures, the community may consider a building 
permit moratorium. In this case, no building permits are issued for a specified time (30 
to 60 days) to allow time to identify and implement changes to relevant ordinances. 
Moratoriums are often controversial and may not be politically feasible; however, they 
can be crafted to apply only to substantially damaged structures. Another word of 
caution: moratoriums must be clearly justified and have the support of key local 
officials. 

Public Education and Outreach 

Community outreach is an effective sustainable redevelopment measure in almost 
all disaster declarations. Regardless of whether homes and businesses are only partially 
damaged or a substantial reconstruction effort is necessary, public outreach is crucial to 
provide timely information to the community. The Sustainability Planner needs to 
enroll people to help get the message out. Many people within the DFO organization 
and working at DRCs throughout the declaration area play important roles in bringing 
information to disaster victims. Prepare appropriate materials, hold briefings or training 
at the DFO or DRC, and enroll interested volunteers. Local officials  especially the 
building permit administrator, zoning inspectors, and planners  should be strong 
advocates in any outreach program. 

4.2 Floods 
Most disaster declarations are flood related. Hundreds of floods occur each year, 
making it one of the most common hazards in all 50 states and the U.S. territories. 

Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 

Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

Floods kill an average of 150 people a year in the United States. Property and flood 
damage losses amount to approximately $4 billion annually. Flood losses today are often 
the result of inappropriate development within the floodplain, filled wetlands, and 
extensive impervious surfaces. Together, these factors affect the functions and capacity 
of the watershed and drastically increase the risk of flooding. 

Mitigation and Sustainability Approaches 

Planning 

 Where appropriate, consider recommending development of a stormwater 
management plan. Extensive shallow flooding may indicate that stormwater 
facilities and storm drains or drainage ditches are inadequate. 
 Be cautious in recommending that a community develop a comprehensive 
watershed management plan, which requires considerable time and effort, 
during the initial stages of recovery. This is a long-term initiative that has 
particular relevance when the watershed draining to the affected community is 
not too large and falls within a limited number of political jurisdictions. 
 Coordinate with NFIP experts at the DFO or at the regional level to determine 
if the available flood hazard data is adequate to guide redevelopment. It may be 
necessary to develop additional flood hazard data quickly. Because flood hazards 
may change over time, it is critical to ensure that hazard data is current. 
Extent of Damage/Type and Age of Affected Facilities and Structures 

 Elevate older, nonconforming structures above the base flood elevation (BFE). 
 For older residential areas, repetitive damages are an excellent clue that hazard 
mitigation and sustainable redevelopment measures should be considered in the 
reconstruction effort. 
 Encourage use of the ICC coverage provision under the NFIP. ICC coverage 
provides additional funding for the cost to comply with state or community 
floodplain management ordinance for structures have been declared 
substantially or repetitively damaged. 
Regulatory Controls 

 Use zoning regulations to keep future development away from flood hazard 
areas, encourage cluster development, and require underground utilities (where 
feasible). 
 Amend subdivision regulations to minimize residential encroachments into the 
floodplain. 
 Strengthen floodplain regulations and enforcement. The CRS provides 
recommendations for measures beyond the model NFIP flood ordinances 
minimum requirements that local jurisdictions can adopt. An effective 
additional measure would be to require at least 1 foot of freeboard above the 
BFE. 
 Consider adopting a stormwater management ordinance for future development 
to minimize the potential for repetitive flood damages. Many states do not 
mandate minimum stormwater management requirements for local 
jurisdictions. 
Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

Land Management and Construction Practices 

 Consider a full range of structural and nonstructural measures, such as 
elevation, wet or dry floodproofing techniques, and acquisition. Provide 
technical or financial assistance to property owners to implement hazard 
mitigation measures. 
 Move all valuables and appliances out of the basement. Place main breakers/fuse 
boxes and utility meters above the anticipated flood level, and secure hot water 
heaters to walls instead of floors, with steel straps; in new construction, locate 
these components on upper levels. Consider elevation for residential properties 
located in minimal flood zone areas. 
 Consider elevation as a means of protection against future damage. The 
building permit administrator must consider the necessary level of flood 
protection required based on the potential velocity, level, frequency, and 
duration of future floodwaters. 
 A home must be elevated or relocated out of the floodplain if it has received 
substantial damage (50 percent of preflood market value). 
 Institute a maintenance program for stormwater detention basins, culverts, and 
storm drains to minimize future flooding events. 
 Use structural mitigation measures such as levees, floodwalls, and shoreline 
protection techniques as appropriate to minimize future flood damages. 
 Purchase or relocate flood-prone properties and utilize the most vulnerable part 
of the floodplain as a greenway, park, wildlife habitat, or other use not so 
vulnerable to flood damages. 
Public Education and Outreach 

 Create a public awareness campaign on the many benefits of floodplain 
preservation and restoration. 
 Develop an outreach program to increase property owner participation in NFIP. 
Flood Case Study: Hazard Mitigation Planning in Massachusetts 
Watershed Initiatives in the Upper Mystic Basin 
A Unified Initiative 
Nine municipalities in the Upper Mystic Watershed Basin (UMWB), northwest of Boston, Massachusetts, are 
working together to address hazard mitigation planning. Following significant flood events in 1996 and 1998, both 
resulting in Federal disaster declarations, the UMWB communities formed an alliance based on their watershed 
boundaries and informed by their recognition that flood mitigation planning cannot succeed if implemented only at 
the local level. 
By joining the alliance, these communities are participating in a unique statewide watershed initiative. This 
program was designed to collect and share resources and information, target present and potential impacts to natural 
resources, assess impacts to natural resources, and develop and implement activities to protect and improve the 
Commonwealths natural resources. The communities have organized flood hazard mitigation planning on the basis 
of this principle. UMWB has implemented three hazard mitigation grant projects, a drainage improvement project in 
Arlington, the Wrights Pond Dam upgrade in Medford, and a culvert/ drainage project in Winchester. Earlier this year 
FEMA designated UMWB as a Project Impact community. This recognition provides funding and resources to 
continue flood mitigation planning. 
Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

Watershed Initiative/Environmental Joint Powers Agreement 

The fact that flood mitigation planning must transcend political boundaries has long been recognized. However, 
the Massachusetts watershed initiative and the legal and institutional mechanisms that support it are far from 
commonplace. Following an October 1996 flood event triggered by 2 days of precipitation combining to exceed the 
100-year event, the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) and the Department of 
Environmental Management hosted a workshop to facilitate development of a coordinated watershed approach to 
flood hazard mitigation. Since that workshop, the original communities  Arlington, Medford, Winchester, and 
Woburn  expanded their defined boundaries to include the communities of Burlington, Lexington, Reading, 
Stoneham, and Wilmington. 

The mechanism that allowed the UMWB communities to receive Federal funding as a distinct, geographically 
delineated unit defined by watershed boundaries (drainage area) was twofold: 

 The statewide watershed initiative, a program of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. 
 The statewide legislation that set up an Environmental Joint Powers Agreement (EJPA). 
The Watershed Initiative has continued to evolve since its inception in 1993. It originally was designed to address 
water quality within the state and particularly to reorganize the procedures for issuance of wastewater permits; 
however, use of the initiative to address water quantity issues through flood mitigation planning represents a unique 
application. The creation of the Upper Mystic River Watershed Agency through the adoption of an EJPA is the first 
application of enabling legislation adopted by a state legislature. 

The legislation is intended to facilitate intergovernmental action on natural resource and environmental issues, 
though the originally defined objective is more narrow. The EJPA allows the communities to work jointly and 
cooperatively to reduce or eliminate the devastating effects of flooding and other hazards in the Upper Mystic River 
Watershed. It authorized the creation of the Upper Mystic River Watershed Agency, which consists of one voting 
representative and one nonvoting alternate from each participating community. The agency is entitled to receive and 
expend public and private funds to defray the operational, administrative, and contractual costs of this agreement, 
including, but not limited to salaries, wages, transportation, and administrative overhead. 
Summary 

Massachusetts has demonstrated a remarkable commitment to the initiative from the outset. Twenty full-time 
state employees were reassigned to the UMWB team. Community councils bring together a diverse array of 
stakeholders to assess watershed needs and establish consensus on proposed solutions. Furthermore, the state has 
developed watershed teams whose members represent seven state agencies and four Federal agencies (EPA, NRCS, 
USFWS, USACE). 

Statewide environmental regulations, including the Rivers Protection Act, serve as the foundation for the 
watershed initiative. The EJPA enabling legislation empowers regional coalitions to pursue public and private funding 
to support those environmental objectives that are valuable within the boundaries established by their encompassing 
watershed. Massachusetts has taken great strides in only a few years to radically alter the governmental approach to 
addressing environmental challenges. 

4.3 Earthquakes 
Earthquakes are abrupt movement of the Earths crust caused by the sudden 
release of accumulated tension between or within tectonic plates, which then causes 
violent ground motion or trembling. Tectonic plates are rigid, 50- to 60-mile-thick 
sections of the Earths crust that can move either slowly and continuously or suddenly, 
with resultant collisions or separations. Most earthquakes occur in areas where large 
plates collide or slide against one another, but others occur along fault lines on the 

Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

interior of a plate. The variables that characterize earthquakes are ground motion, 
surface faulting, ground failure, and seismic activity. Magnitude refers to the seismic 
energy released during an earthquake, which is measured on the Richter Scale. 
Intensity is a subjective measure of the strength of the ground shaking; it is based on 
observed damage and varies according to proximity to the epicenter of an earthquake 
(the point on the earths surface directly above the location of the rupture). Intensity is 
measured by the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale, which consists of 12 levels of 
intensity. 

Liquefaction is an earthquake phenomenon that occurs when ground shaking 
causes hydric or sandy soils to lose stability and behave as viscous fluids. This 
characteristic is one of the most damaging; it is prevalent in areas that were developed 
on filled wetlands or in hydric soils that have been drained to accommodate growth. 
The Sustainability Planner should consider alternative land use strategies in areas 
where liquefaction occurs and in other areas of severe seismic risk such as active fault 
lines. 

Damage from earthquakes includes settlement, impairment, or collapse of 
buildings, bridges, and dams. Underground infrastructure  such as tunnels, storm 
drains, water wells, water lines, sewer lines, gas lines, phone lines, and electric lines,  
is often damaged or destroyed. Transit systems, power, water, gas, telecommunications, 
and other basic services are disrupted. Deaths and injuries usually occur due to falling 
objects or the collapse of structures. 

Secondary earthquake hazards are common and result from a variety of sources. 
These hazards include landslides; fires from ruptured gas lines; flash or localized 
flooding from damaged water mains, broken dams, and seiches; tsunamis or tidal waves 
(from earthquakes originating at sea); and hazardous materials incidents that may 
release poisonous chemicals, radioactive materials, or biological waste. 

Mitigation and Sustainability Approaches 

Extent of Damage 

The first step for the community is to determine if damaged areas can be safely 
restored using earthquake-resistant building techniques and land development policies; 
if the area should assume a different development and land use pattern to address 
economic or social needs; or, perhaps, if the area should be redeveloped at all. 

By taking a broad view of geologic and topographic circumstances, communities 
can mitigate the factors that exacerbate the effects of earthquakes, such as liquefaction 
and attendant secondary hazards such as landslides and flooding. For example, 
communities might designate severe hazard risk areas  such as those with steep 
slopes, those that are highly susceptible to liquefaction, and those adjacent to active 
faults  and restrict future development. Sustainable development is further enhanced 
by proposing alternative land uses, such as open space designations, wetlands 
reclamation, or recreation. Outside of these areas of severe seismic risk, the adoption 
and enforcement of up-to-date building codes is critical to achieving a more sustainable 
future. 

Type and Age of Affected Facilities and Structures 

Following an earthquake disaster, communities should examine remaining older 
buildings, especially those that do not satisfy current code requirements or have not 

Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 

Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

been upgraded for earthquake resistance. Communities should be cognizant of the 
historical value of structures and neighborhoods, and the possible hazard effects on 
special populations such as the elderly or handicapped, they must recover with an eye 
to the future  the choices made today may greatly influence the extent of damages 
from a future seismic event. 

Land Management and Construction 

 Designate areas of high seismic hazard for open spaces, such as parks or 
greenways. This is especially relevant for developed areas that have sandy soils 
or have been built on infill and are more vulnerable to the effects of liquefaction 
or areas vulnerable to landslides. 
 Prohibit construction of critical facilities in areas of high seismic risk. 
 Create guidelines for evaluating proposed projects in seismic hazard areas to 
minimize damage from earthquakes and landslides. 
 Implement programs such as density bonuses, transfer of development rights, 
and tax credits to encourage land developers to practice earthquake mitigation 
and sustainability. 
 Develop programs and financial incentives for seismic upgrade of buildings. 
 Consider local development standards for installation and construction of utility 
services and roads. 
Regulatory Controls 

 Update building codes to include the most current National Earthquake 
Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) recommended provisions. 
 The Sustainability Planner and local building officials should become familiar 
with and encourage the use of FEMAs Yellow Book series of publications 
dealing with the seismic safety of both new construction and existing buildings. 
 Some key manuals in this series include: 
-Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A 
Handbook (FEMA 154) and Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for 
Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation (FEMA 155) 

The Handbook presents a method for quickly identifying buildings 
posing risk of death, injury, or severe curtailment in use following an 
earthquake. Building inspectors are the most likely group to implement a 
Rapid Screening Procedure (RSP), although this report is also intended 
for building officials, engineers, architects, building owners, emergency 
managers, and interested citizens. The Supporting Documentation 

reviews the literature and existing procedures for rapid visual screening. 

-Establishing Programs and Priorities for the Seismic Rehabilitation of 
Buildings: Handbook (FEMA 174) and Establishing Programs and 
Priorities for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings: Supporting Report 
(FEMA 173). 

These two volumes provide the information needed to develop a seismic 
rehabilitation program, with particular reference to establishing priorities. 
The Handbook is intended to assist local jurisdictions in making 
informed decisions on rehabilitating seismically hazardous existing 
buildings by providing nationally applicable guidelines. It discusses the 
pertinent issues that merit consideration, both technical and societal, and 
suggests a procedure whereby these issues can be resolved. The 
Supporting Report includes additional information and supporting 

Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

Earthquake Case Study: California Seismic Hazard Mapping 
Seismic hazards can cause huge economic and physical impacts and force communities into a cycle of repetitive 
rebuilding. When compared to other hazards, seismic events are generally more difficult to predict, and their potential 
impacts more difficult to quantify. However, technology is available to help communities make the right decisions in 
building and adapting land uses to make their environment more sustainable. 
As a result of the October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the California legislature passed the Seismic Hazards Act 
of 1990 to identify and map the states most prominent earthquake hazards. The State Department of Conservation 
established the seismic hazard zone mapping program to chart areas prone to liquefaction (failure of water-saturated 
soil) and earthquake-induced landslides throughout Californias principal urban and major growth areas. The 
mapping program was originally funded by the Earthquake Insurance Fund and a portion of construction building 
permit fees. However, it is now supported by FEMA hazard mitigation funds. 
To produce the maps, Department of Conservation scientists and GIS specialists examine the latest information on 
surface and subsurface geology, historic groundwater levels and damage, and geologic effects of recent earthquakes. 
State-of-the-art GIS technology is used to integrate the information into a three-dimensional view of the ground. 
Each map covers an area of approximately 60 square miles. 
Californias seismic hazard maps offer: 
nA standardized method of hazard assessment to evaluate hazard potential. 
nIntegration of the latest geotechnical data with state-of-the-art computer technology. 
nA large scale (1:24,000) to provide a detailed look at a broad area. 
The first maps produced by the program were issued in fall 1996. As of spring 2000, 43 maps of 107 cities and 
unincorporated areas in Los Angeles, Orange, San Francisco, and Ventura counties have been published. 
A seismic hazard zone map does not show areas that should be excluded from development. Instead, it shows areas 
where the potential for damage is great enough so as to make it prudent to conduct geologic investigations to identify 
and mitigate the hazard prior to development. Mapping seismic hazards promotes the incorporation of hazard 
mitigation elements into structural design. 
Potential seismic hazards are unique to each site, and 
the multiplicity of structural configurations makes it 
impossible to predict mitigation costs. However, in 
some cases, it may be possible to adequately mitigate 
liquefaction hazard  for example-by strengthening 
the foundation to withstand displacements of 1.5 feet, 
at a typical cost of $3,000 to $4,000. Engineers indicate 
that in many locations this simple measure could 
reduce the repair expenses of liquefaction damage 
from an average of $70,000 to about $15,000  a 
substantial savings. 
In the past, land use planners have often assumed 
that only lower density developments are suitable in 
geologic hazard areas. However, planners may find 
that the high cost of mitigating liquefaction hazards 
along streams, bays, canals, and coastal zones requires 
a higher density of development. In situations such as 
this, for example, the seismic hazard zone maps 
provide another sustainability tool to guide decision 
making with regard to retrofitting existing buildings, 
building new structures, or rebuilding after a disaster. 
Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

documentation, annotated bibliographies, and reproductions of selected 
laws and ordinances that are presented in summary form in the 
Handbook. 

Public Education and Outreach 

The Sustainability Planner should encourage homeowners and businesses to use 
nonstructural earthquake mitigation techniques, such as anchoring bookcases to walls, 
applying safety film to windows, and securing masonry chimneys to roof framing. 

Some examples of education and outreach messages in seismic hazard areas: take 
such basic safety steps as bolting or strapping cupboards and bookcases to the wall, and 
keep heavy objects on lower shelves. To prevent gas line fires, secure water heaters with 
straps to a nearby wall using bands of perforated steel (commonly known as plumbers 
tape. Install anchor bolts every 6 feet around the perimeter of a home to prevent costly 
damage. 

4.4 Coastal Storms 
The coastal zone is a highly dynamic and ecologically rich environment that 
continuously changes under the influence of natural forces. Historically, people 
migrated toward the coasts because of trade, transportation, and economic 
opportunities. Today, as people continue to move to coastal areas for aesthetic and 
recreational reasons, the density of development increases  along with the risk to lives 
and property from tsunamis, hurricanes, tropical storms, noreasters, and storm surge 
flooding. 

A tsunami (harbor wave) is triggered by underwater earthquakes or landslides 
that push a fast-moving series of waves across the open ocean at speeds that can reach 
450 miles per hour (mph). The waves are barely noticeable as they travel across deep 
water, but can build up to significant heights as they near land. Tsunami heights over 
100 feet have been recorded. They are most common along the Pacific Coast due to 
seismic activity around the Pacific rim, but they can occur in the Atlantic as well. A 
noreaster is a coastal low-pressure system occurring along the Atlantic seaboard during 
winter months that can produce heavy amounts of precipitation, inland snow and ice, 
high surf, and coastal erosion. Another storm of great concern to coastal communities is 
the hurricane because of its severity, frequency, and the tremendous area that can 
sustain damage. A hurricane is a cyclonic tropical storm with winds that reach or 
exceed a constant speed of 74 mph. These storms bring torrential rains, high winds, 
and storm surges to the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and the western 
Pacific islands. Hurricane season extends from June 1 through November 30; on 
average, five hurricanes strike the United States every 3 years. 

Mitigation and Sustainability Approaches 

Planning 

In developing mitigation and sustainability development plans, local governments 
gather and analyze information about the suitability of land for development. A plan 
that effectively incorporates sustainable development concepts guides future 
development by balancing environmental protection, societal needs, and economic 
growth. The key tenet for sustainability planning in coastal communities is to avoid 
intensive development in areas of high vulnerability to natural hazards. 

Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 

Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

Land Management and Construction 

 Infrastructure  Government policies may seek to locate
infrastructure such as roads and sewer lines so that
development is steered away from hazardous areas. The
CoBRA is a Federal program that employs this unique, free
market approach to resource protection and hazard
avoidance (see sidebar).
 Engineering  Seawalls, groins, jetties, and other
engineering solutions are used to control the effects of
erosion and wave action. However, these types of
construction have the potential to increase erosion
downshore of the structures, so their impacts must be
carefully evaluated before they are recommended.
 Hurricane straps  Metal fasteners or hurricane clips
attach the roof to the walls of a building to reinforce its
ability to sustain severe winds. When adequately sized and
property installed, the straps enhance the structural integrity
of a building by providing a continuous load transfer path
from roof to foundation. Building codes may determine the
use of hurricane straps and require that they meet both
material and installation standards.
 Shutters  Storm shutters are one of the most basic methods 
for high wind protection. They are placed over windows and 
other glass areas on the exterior of a building to protect 
against flying debris. They are made of plywood, corrugated 
metal, or polycarbonates. Building codes may determine the use of shutters and 
require that they meet both material and installation standards. 
Coastal Zone Management Act 
CZMA, passed in 1972, is also designed to 
protect coastal resources, but it applies to the 
entire coastal zone, defined as coastal waters 
(including land under the water) and adjacent 
shorelands (including water under or on the 
land). The coastal zone includes islands, 
transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, 
wetlands, and beaches. CZMA provides grants to 
be used in maintaining coastal zone areas. It 
requires that Federal agencies comply with the 
enforceable polices of state coastal zone 
management programs when conducting or 
supporting activities that affect a coastal zone. 
For the past 27 years, CZMA has provided 
coastal states and territories with incentives to 
properly plan and manage coastal resources 
through the development of coastal management 
plans. More than 99 percent of the nations 
shoreline is currently covered under CZMA. The 
program is administered by the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 
 Elevation  Elevated buildings allow floodwaters to flow underneath and also 
make the buildings less susceptible to storm surge during a hurricane. Elevating 
utilities, such as hot water heaters, normally located on the ground floor or 
basement of a home to above expected flood or storm surge levels can prevent 
costly replacement after a flood. Roads, bridges, utility infrastructure, and transit 
facilities can also be elevated above expected flood heights. 
 Relocation  Structures that have suffered repetitive losses are favored
candidates for FEMA relocation
programs to move residents and
buildings out of the hazard zone. The
remaining property is typically acquired
and maintained as open space.
 Other measures  Other damage
prevention measures available to
property owners in coastal areas include
wind-resistant windows, wind- and
hail-resistant shingles, and hurricane-
resistant doors.
Coastal Barrier Resources Act 
In an effort to protect valuable coastal natural resources, to 
minimize loss of life and property, and to control the costs of 
Federal disaster relief efforts, Congress passed CoBRA in 1982. This 
Act prohibits most types of Federal assistance for development on 
designated barrier islands. Congress recognized that coastal barriers 
are unique ecosystems possessing great ecological value and subject 
to severe hazards  which make these locations inappropriate for 
development and Federal investment. The Act designated various 
undeveloped barriers for inclusion in a Coastal Barrier Resources 
System (CBRS). These areas are ineligible for most federal 
financial assistance that might support additional development. 
Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

Regulatory Controls 

 Zoning codes  These codes are a form of land use regulations that set specific 
controls on where and how development can take place. In coastal areas, these 
often take the form of required set-back from high hazard and 
environmentally sensitive areas such as dunes, wetlands, or actively eroding 
shorelines. 
 Building codes  These codes set construction standards for withstanding the 
unusual forces exerted in a hazard event, such as high winds in a hurricane. 
Post-disaster assessments have proven that, in most cases, the use and 
enforcement of stricter building codes produce buildings that are more resistant 
to disasters. FEMA supports strong state and local building codes and can 
provide technical assistance to evaluate building codes and practices. FEMA also 
encourages the adoption and use of the new International Building Code (IBC), 
which incorporates multihazard disaster-resistant standards for construction. 
Public Education and Outreach 

 Evacuation strategy  In recent years, hurricane warning systems have 
provided adequate time for people on barrier islands and the immediate 
coastline region to move inland. Devising and using an evacuation plan for 
communities in areas at risk is a necessary and vital exercise to safeguard lives. 
Due to rapid population growth, however, it is becoming more difficult to 
evacuate people from coastal areas because road improvements have not kept 
pace with development. Evacuation plans must be updated as needed and 
consider the capacity of the transportation infrastructure to move people away 
from the coast. 
 Warnings  Warning systems seek to reduce losses prior to the onset of a hazard 
event. An example is a system that automatically rings home phones to sound 
the alarm when floodwaters begin to rise. 
 Mapping  Maps that clearly delineate hazard zones are critical tools not only 
for local planners but also for residents, contractors, and engineers. For example, 
maps can identify high-risk areas that are prone to flooding or vulnerable to 
storm surge during a hurricane. 
 Disclosure  In real estate transfers, a standard notice can be placed in the 
written contract to warn all parties that a property is subject to natural hazards. 
 Education  Many people do not realize or understand the threat presented by 
hurricanes and other severe storms. The problem is further compounded by the 
fact that 80 to 90 percent of the population now living in hurricane-prone areas 
has never experienced a major hurricane. Many of these people have been 
through weaker storms. The result is a false impression of a hurricanes damage 
potential, which often leads to complacency and delayed actions that can result 
in the loss of lives in a more serious storm. Campaigns to inform citizens about 
areas that face the greatest risks from hazards, how to prepare for storms, and 
how to respond in a disaster can save lives and property. 
Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

Hurricane Case Study: River Communities in Recovery 
Hurricane Floyd and Livability 
The aftermath of Hurricane Floyd in September 1999 devastated the eastern third of North Carolina. As is typical 
for most hurricanes, it was not high winds or swelled seas that brought most of the damage, but flooding. Within just 
three of the states 17 watersheds, flooding resulted in 52 deaths, the loss of millions of livestock, and the loss of 17,000 
homes. Two-thirds of North Carolina counties were declared Federal disaster areas. An economic impact report 
prepared by FEMA and the EDA concluded that business and agricultural damage alone totaled $6 billion. 
Eastern North Carolina posed unique opportunities for creating a more livable environment in the aftermath of 
enormous destruction. Watersheds clearly defined the disaster area. Because of this geographic characteristic, hazard 
mitigation and livability planning had to focus on the entire watershed, not individual communities. This approach 
fostered consensus and collaboration among people with diverse interests. 
River Communities in Recovery 
Three months after the disaster, FEMA committed its support to the River Communities in Recovery project and 
began bringing together other agency representatives from Washington and the region. In addition to FEMA, the 
EDA immediately stepped forward as an equal partner in the project. 
The Governors advisor on long-term planning issues, an executive with the North Carolina Rural Development 
Center (the institution responsible for the recovery process), and a representative of the Conservation Fund with close 
ties to the foundation community formed the team that would outline local needs. FEMA, EDA, and USDA officials 
met with the team to plan the River Communities in Recovery project. 
Working with these state partners, FEMA established guiding principles for the project: 
1. Federal agencies should provide long-term support, in the form of funds and technical assistance, in addition 
to immediate disaster relief. The focus is on matching Federal programs with community needs. 
2. Federal agencies should be creative in finding ways to support local community needs. Community requests 
should not be rejected because they do not match Federal programs. 
3. River Communities in Recovery should build local capacity for both short- and long-term watershed planning. 
4. Federal support programs should focus on each river basin individually in accordance with jurisdictional 
boundaries to promote collaborative decision making. 
FEMA, working with North Carolina Emergency Management, developed a job description for a Recovery 
Manager. This individual is to be actively engaged in the redevelopment efforts for the county and surrounding areas, 
and direct the recovery work of rebuilding the communities In addition, he or she serves as a mentor to other 
communities in terms of technical assistance. 
Lessons Learned 
At this time, the River Communities in Recovery project is where it should be: in the hands of local and state 
officials who will return to the Federal government with a prioritized list of projects that require financial or technical 
support. 
There are many lessons to glean from the experience of launching River Communities in Recovery, including: 
nThe requirement for a broad community-based approach to include long-term recovery planning. 
nThe location of key Federal participants in the state or region, not in Washington, to facilitate the coordination 
of schedules and to improve long-term effectiveness. 
nThe need to build support for the initiative at all levels including Federal agencies, the state, and local leaders. 
This is especially important at the local level, where consensus must be built to establish and implement 
mitigation priorities and smart growth practices. 
nThe need to invite existing Project Impact communities to serve as mentors for other communities. 
Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

 Political subdivisions matter in disasters and sustainability if they get in the way of effective long-term 
sustainable redevelopment. Watersheds can break down these artificial boundaries, and Sustainability Planners 
should take a broad, inclusive approach to working with state and local officials both before and after disasters. 
(This same principle holds true for hazards other than flooding, e.g., consider forest ecosystem areas in wildfire 
mitigation planning and recovery.) 
Coastal Storms Case Study: Project Impact Success Stories 
Deerfield Beach, Florida, Wilmington, North Carolina, and Sanibel Island, Florida 
The damage caused by coastal storms such as hurricanes has increased dramatically over time. Because this trend 
is expected to continue, it is important for those in harms way to follow the lead of pioneering coastal communities 
that have already adopted risk reduction measures. 
Two of these communities  Deerfield Beach, Florida, and Wilmington, North Carolina  are active 
participants in FEMAs Project Impact: Building Disaster Resistant Communities. Project Impact is a nationwide 
initiative that challenges communities to take proactive steps to reduce future disaster damages. It focuses on taking 
action in anticipation of disasters rather than just responding to disasters. The third community  Sanibel Island, 
Florida  illustrates the benefits of sustainable land use planning. 
Deerfield Beach, Florida 
Deerfield Beach is located on the southeast coast of Florida, in Broward County, 16 miles north of Fort 
Lauderdale. It is home to approximately 50,000 year-round residents. As one of Floridas low-lying oceanfront 
communities, the Deerfield Beach area is always susceptible to hurricanes, tropical storms, and flooding. Within the 
last 75 years, it has been hit by at least seven major hurricanes, including a 1928 hurricane that killed more than 2,000 
people in the Lake Ockeechobee area. 
In August 1997, FEMA and the State of Florida selected Deerfield Beach as a pilot community for the Project 
Impact campaign. As a pilot community, Deerfield Beach received technical and financial support to encourage efforts 
to create a disaster-resistant community. FEMA gave the city a grant of $1,000,000, and the local government 
committed $125,000 as a match. 
Local and national businesses have pledged to join the city and FEMA in building a disaster-resistant community. 
The city organized a business alliance that invites businesses to meet monthly to discuss public/private partnerships in 
long-term mitigation strategies. Corporate partners including Home Depot, State Farm Insurance, Florida Power and 
Light, the Promous Hotel Corporation, and the Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel are participating in the citys Project 
Impact initiative. In its Deerfield Beach store, for example, Home Depot created a display on disaster resistance and 
offers short courses for local homeowners on steps to protect against future storm damage. 
Specific accomplishments and projects include the following: 
nState Farm Insurance funded and designed the Good Neighbor House which was constructed to withstand a 
Category 5 hurricane with 156 mile-per-hour (MPH) winds. The model house demonstrates how commonsense 
building materials and techniques can protect a structure from hurricanes. Before Hurricane Floyd hit 
North Carolina in 1999, between 40 and 50 people toured the Good Neighbor House in Deerfield Beach every 
week. After Floyd, more than 100 people arrived on a single Saturday to view the 100-plus safety features. State 
Farm estimates that many hurricane-proofing measures, such as impact-resistant windows and properly nailed 
shingles, can be added to a house for an extra 5 percent of the total cost of the structure. The model house 
builds awareness in the community of materials and techniques that can be used to build stronger homes and 
demonstrates that hurricane-resistant construction is not as difficult or expensive as many believe. 
Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

 Marina One, a developer, broke ground in 1999 on the Marina One Yacht Club, which can house more than 
200 boats in a steel and concrete structure designed to withstand winds of up to 125 mph. The new facility is 
the first of its kind in the marine industry, offering 2,600,000 cubic feet of hurricane-resistant marine storage. 
 The Deerfield Beach Chamber of Commerce building was retrofitted with hurricane-resistant windows 
provided by Solutia, Inc., which became a Project Impact corporate partner in 1999. As part of Solutias 
partnership, the company made a commitment of $200,000 in materials and labor toward the retrofitting of 
commercial and residential structures in hurricane-prone communities nationwide. Solutia is providing its 
hurricane-resistant KeepSafe Maximum glass along with technical support. The special glass is an impact-
resistant laminated glass that meets the most stringent building code requirements, including those mandated 
by the State of Florida. It is formed by bonding two pieces of glass to a hardy polyvinyl butyrol (PVB) plastic 
interlayer, which is produced by Solutia. This product will not shatter and fall out upon impact. 
 Deerfield Beach is a partner with Broward County in the development of a Broward County Community 
Emergency Response Team (CERT). To date, 75 residents have completed the CERT Training Program. 
 Deerfield Beach is taking an active role in public outreach and education. Project Impact funds ($150,000) were 
used to put hurricane straps on the auditorium and cafeteria of the local high school, which also serves as a 
shelter during disasters. Wind shutters are to be installed on all the windows in the high school as well as those 
in the Deerfield Beach City Hall. 
 The City of Deerfield Beach, Broward County, and the State of Florida are each hosting a Preparedness 
Week in late spring just before the hurricane season begins. The three-week program includes technical 
conferences as well as public events designed to raise awareness of mitigation strategies. The Corporation for 
National Service is helping to organize a Spring Break  a week for volunteer participation in Project Impact 
activities. The community designated a full-time staff member as a hazard mitigation coordinator for Project 
Impact. 
 Construction in Deerfield Beach is already regulated by the states building codes which are among the most 
stringent in the country. Deerfield Beach is also in the process of developing a citywide storm drain system to 
provide protection from the damage associated with hurricane flooding. 
Deerfield Beach has outlined several major goals still to be accomplished as part of its Project Impact program. 
These include: 

-Retrofit of all public buildings and critical facilities against hurricane and flood hazards. 
-Development and implementation of a home retrofit program. 
-Identification of incentives for residents to pursue mitigation measures. 
-Improvement of the efficiency of building and land development regulatory systems. 
-Development of a comprehensive all-hazard education and outreach program. 
-Creation of a marketing strategy to showcase disaster resistance. 
This area boasts a history of strong building codes and engineering and enjoys the support of community 
residents and businesses in promoting sustainability. City, county, and state officials continue to create and implement 
effective mitigation strategies that will benefit the entire Deerfield Beach community. 

Wilmington, North Carolina 

Wilmington is located approximately 30 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, at the junction of the northeast and 
northwest branches of the Cape Fear River. It is the largest city in New Hanover County and home to approximately 
148,000 people. Many of its residents are retired. 

Wilmington is frequently hit by severe coastal storms. Hurricane Bertha, which struck in 1996, caused an 
estimated $17 million in damage to homes, businesses, and utilities in New Hanover County. Eight weeks later, 
Hurricane Fran, which also ravaged counties far inland with its destructive winds and rain, caused an estimated $240 
million in damage. 

Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

FEMA also selected Wilmington and New Hanover County as a pilot community for the Project Impact 
campaign. Partners in the Project Impact program include FEMA, the North Carolina Division of Emergency 
Management, New Hanover County Emergency Management, the City of Wilmington, and private-sector entities 
such as General Electric, Lowes Hardware, Barnes and Noble, and WGNI-FM Radio. 

The devastation from Hurricane Hugo in 1989 created a push in North Carolina for more stringent building 
codes. In 1996, the state promulgated and began enforcement of a new set of regulations that require stronger and 
safer construction. In 1997, Wilmington launched its Project Impact campaign to reduce the effects of natural disasters. 
The campaign included an ordinance that required propane tanks to be anchored to prevent them from floating free 
in floodwaters, beach stabilization, and dune renourishment to protect against storm surge. 

Among Wilmingtons accomplishments are the following: 

 Hurricane Bonnie hit Wilmington in 1998. Officials believe that efforts to make the community more disaster 
resistant demonstrated that Project Impact produces positive results. Although hurricane winds pounded beach 
communities for as long as 13 hours, homes elevated after Hurricane Fran in 1996 and rebuilt using hurricane 
straps survived Bonnie without major damage. The benefits of elevation were apparent at Wrightsville Beach, 
where 80 new or elevated homes escaped damage. Many older structures, in contrast, lay partially submerged 
under 2 feet of water. The public safety communications tower that went down during Hurricane Fran was 
retrofitted to be flood and wind resistant. The new tower easily switched to generator operations, and all 
systems stayed on line during Hurricane Bonnie. 
 Nearby Wrightsville Beach initiated an LP gas tank ordinance, requiring that all tanks be dropped and secured 
to eliminate potential floating problems. This preventive action eliminated possible explosions and fire damage 
when Hurricane Bonnie hit. 
 Lowes, a Project Impact partner, distributed hurricane season preparedness brochures in its 90 stores located in 
coastal states. It also developed in-store displays to educate customers about home damage prevention 
measures. 
 New Hanover County Emergency Management (NHCEM) supports training exercises and drills, participates 
in county disaster awareness programs, and staffs the emergency operations center. At its own expense, 
NHCEM installed an 800-MHz two-way radio communications network to mitigate against the breakdown of 
communication across jurisdictional and agency boundaries. 
 Wilmington also renovated its Sweeney water plant. The plant is now located out of the 100-year floodplain 
and is designed to withstand 120 mph winds. It also has two 1,250-KW diesel generators, which supply all of 
the power needed in the event of an emergency. 
The sustainability initiatives and community partnerships described above demonstrate Wilmingtons 
determination to bolster itself against future disasters. The promotion of safety measures, such as elevating homes, 
contributed to property owners increased interest in storm protection. Hurricane Fran was a bitter lesson for many 
residents of North Carolina. Wilmington took action by implementing damage reduction measures. It has realized the 
benefits of mitigation in the wake of Hurricane Bonnie. Other communities in the coastal region have expressed 
interest in the education programs of Project Impact. 

Sanibel Island, Florida 

The Town of Sanibel Island is a barrier island located in Lee County on the west coast of Florida. A causeway 
connects the island to the City of Fort Myers on the mainland. Sanibel Island, about 12 miles long and 3 miles wide, 
has a permanent population of 5,700 and a seasonal population of more than 20,000. 

Sanibel Island is a successful model for environmental concern and sustainability planning. Wildlife refuges and 
other natural areas, including the Darling National Wildlife Refuge, protect much of its landmass. The remainder of 
the island is subject to carefully controlled development. Stringent zoning codes and a comprehensive land use plan 
ensure that no high-rises, traffic lights, or multilane roads mar the islands natural beauty. 

Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

Concerned about uncontrolled development, island residents incorporated the island as a township in 1974. The 
town convened a panel of scientific and technical experts to explore the relationships of the islands resources to the 
larger ecosystem and to recommend specific controls. In 1976, the town devised and adopted its first plan and 
development regulations. 

A principal goal of the town was to conserve its natural resources. One of the major habitats targeted for 
protection was a large area of freshwater wetlands threatened by physical disruption and drainage. Protecting the 
wetlands would provide habitat for wildlife, aesthetic and recreational pleasure for people, and flood control for the 
community. The town used municipal land use ordinances and prevailed on state and Federal authorities to use the 
most restrictive environmental standards possible to prevent development of the wetlands. The community eventually 
purchased much of the wetlands area outright. Today, a large part of Sanibel remains free of development and in a 
pristine state. 

On the remainder of the islands land, the size and character of development are strictly controlled. Building 
height is limited to three stories, or 45 feet. All floors must be above base flood elevation (BFE). No more than three 
units can be built on 1 acre. To minimize the threat posed by storm surge and coastal flooding, the island imposed a 
minimum setback line for all development along the waterfront. The town has also encouraged the relocation of 
buildings threatened by the encroaching ocean. In several cases, residents have engaged in roll-back activities by 
having their houses lifted and moved farther from the water. 

In 1980, Sanibel instituted a cap on growth to maintain a more manageable set of infrastructure and service 
obligations, to prevent excessive demands on the natural environment, and to preserve the islands quality of life. 
Although caps on growth are typically difficult to implement and even more difficult to defend in court, Sanibel Island 
devised a unique and defensible solution. It hired land use consultants to calculate the number of people that could be 
safely evacuated from the island. Reasoning that it would be irresponsible to allow more inhabitants than could be 
moved safely in the event of a storm, this number became the basis for the growth cap. Sanibel recognized the threat 
posed by coastal storms, determined a safe carrying capacity, enforced a growth cap, and reduced its vulnerability to 
future disasters. 

As a result of these measures, Sanibel Island has avoided the mass of high-rise condominiums and commercial 
establishments that typified development in much of coastal Florida during the 1980s and 1990s. Instead, it is 
following a more sustainable path. It has set aside large natural areas for protection and guided development in a way 
that maintains the historic and natural character of the island environment and lessens the threat posed by coastal 
storms. 

4.5 Tornadoes 
A tornado is a rapidly rotating funnel of air extending from a thundercloud toward 
the ground. Most of the time, these funnels do not touch down, but when they do 
they can last for a few seconds to several minutes, and cause severe damages. Tornadoes 
usually are accompanied by heavy rain, hail, and lightning. The most violent tornadoes 
are capable of tremendous destruction, with wind speeds of 250 mph or more. Because 
the geographical scope of damage is usually narrow (i.e., less than 1 mile in width and 
several miles in sustained path length), a tornado is typically not a Federally declared 
disaster. Tornadoes can occur in any state, but are more frequent in the Midwest, 
Southeast, and Southwest. Tornado season ordinarily runs from March through 
August; however, tornadoes can strike at any time of the year. 

The impact of a tornado varies with its strength, the duration of touchdown, and 
the physical integrity of the buildings or other structures in its path. Tornadoes can 

Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

uproot trees and damage structures even at wind speeds of 100 mph. Much of the 
damage results from high-velocity flying debris. Inadequately built structures, 
manufactured homes, and mobile homes are the most vulnerable to substantial damage 
from tornadoes. The intensity of tornadoes is measured by the Fujita Scale, from less 
severe (F1) to the most severe (F5). 

Mitigation and Sustainability Approaches 

Extent of Damage 

In many cases, the tornado path is narrow enough that restoration of the damaged 
areas to predisaster conditions is the most appropriate planning strategy to preserve 
coherent land use patterns. In other situations, tornadoes have been known to destroy 
considerable portions of communities, resulting in significant opportunities for 
sustainable redevelopment (see Arkadelphia Case Study). 

Type and Age of Affected Facilities and Structures 

 In cases where predisaster conditions will be restored, there is significant room 
for improvement by recommending the use of more effective wind-resistant and 
energy-efficient building materials. 
 In recovery situations where extensive damage occurs in older residential 
neighborhoods, the Sustainability Planner should consult with local officials to 
determine community interest in evaluating alternative reconstruction 
strategies. Current housing needs should be evaluated to guide reconstruction 
efforts. The zoning code should be reviewed to determine if a greater diversity 
of housing types is possible. 
Land Management and Construction 

There are a variety of techniques that can help reduce losses from tornadoes: 

 Using inexpensive metal connectors or strapping to strengthen the connection 
between the roof and walls, and walls to foundation, to reduce the uplift effect 
of strong winds. 
 Reinforcing or replacing garage and double entry doors. 
 Removing trees and yard materials that, in a storm, could become windborne 
missiles. 
Regulatory Controls 

The Sustainability Planner should check current building codes to see if they 
require commonly accepted wind-resistant building techniques, such as: 

 Anchoring of walls to foundations and roofs to walls. 
 Reinforced walls, floors, and ceilings. 
 Tornado safe rooms in new construction and the retrofitting of existing 
structures to provide the most complete protection from extreme wind events. 
 Community tornado shelters for mobile home communities. 
The exact location where a tornado touches down is one of natures most random 
events, and the probability of future occurrences in the same area is difficult to 
estimate. Recommending regulatory controls as a sustainability initiative should be 
considered only in those portions of the country with the highest potential risk. 
However, as Xenia, Ohio illustrates, tornadoes can strike the same place more than 

Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

once. Xenia, struck by an F4 tornado on September 20, 2000, has suffered four major 
tornadoes in the last 80 years, including an F5 storm in 1974. 

Public Education and Outreach 

 Safe rooms and other wind-resistant construction techniques should be 
promoted through community meetings, workshops, and exhibits at local 
businesses. Consult FEMAs Mitigation Outreach Branch for assistance. 
 Special efforts should be made to inform mobile home residents about the 
effects of tornadoes and the location of safe shelters. 
Tornado Case Study: Arkadelphia Recovery Plan, City of Arkadelphia, Arkansas 
At approximately 2:45 pm on March 1, 1997, a tornado touched down just southwest of the City of Arkadelphia, 
Arkansas. It caused extensive damage to residential areas and the downtown business district. The National Weather 
Service classified the tornado as an F3 to F4 storm event on the Fujita Scale. The funnel was just one of a series of 
tornadoes that resulted in significant damages along a 260-mile corridor through the central portion of the state. 
Preliminary estimates indicated that at least 256 single-family homes, mobile homes, or multifamily units sustained 
major damage and 117 were destroyed; 46 businesses and 16 public buildings were damaged or destroyed. 
The City requested FEMAs assistance in evaluating reconstruction strategies and preparing a Disaster Recovery 
Plan. Through HMTAP, FEMA provided direct technical assistance to the City. The project planning team included 
planners with national experience in disaster response and recovery, together with local experts in planning, urban 
design, and economic development. 
Within days of the tornado, Arkadelphia established a recovery task force, and committees for housing, 
transportation, unmet needs, and media coordination were quickly formed. A smaller subcommittee of the recovery 
task force, limited to 8 to 10 members, was established to work closely with the project planning team. 
Within 2 weeks of the disaster, the project team conducted what is known in the architectural and urban design 
profession as a charrette  an intensive urban design and land use planning exercise. During the day, project team 
members developed base maps, obtained background information, and developed alternatives for the recovery effort. 
Committee meetings were held in the late afternoon to develop goals and objectives. 
A draft recovery plan was prepared within 1 month, and it was presented to the broader community at several 
public meetings. The final recovery plan was completed within 2 months of the tornado and was formally adopted by 
the City Council. The reconstruction master plan included an assessment of disaster damages, presented 
reconstruction design principles for housing and for the downtown business district, recommended changes to the 
zoning ordinance and building code, and included economic analysis and summary recommendations for immediate, 
short-, and long-term recovery. 
The recovery plan included the following sustainable redevelopment elements: 
nAdoption of the latest version of the Southern Standard Building Code and bringing all other applicable 
construction and fire safety codes up to date. 
nNew urbanism principles, emphasizing mixed-use development downtown to include housing and to foster 
new economic growth and revitalize residential neighborhoods. 
nRecommendation of changes in zoning ordinances to allow a greater diversity of housing types and to maintain 
the historic character of the downtown business district. This was accomplished, in part, by a disaster overlay 
district and by urban design guidelines. 
nIncorporation of energy efficient materials promoted by DOE into the reconstruction of substantially damaged 
homes. 
nImplementation of an innovative equity buy-down program promoted by HUD to finance single-family home 
construction. 
Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

4.6 Wildfires
Several lessons learned during this long-term recovery planning 

effort are worthy of note: Wildfires can be devastating in terms 

 There should be a clear understanding of what a FEMA-of geographic scope. Contributingfunded recovery planning effort can accomplish considering conditions such as climate, fuel, and rural 
time and resource limitations. In Arkadelphia, some key local development in remote mountainous orofficials expected a detailed block-by-block master plan. forested areas make some states more 
FEMA provided a broad framework for recovery planning. vulnerable than others at different times. 
Detailed program and engineering design were to follow. The key issue for the Sustainability 
 The recovery planning process provided an effective Planner is the urban-wildfire interface  a 
mechanism for bringing in other Federal agencies to boundary zone between developed areasparticipate in long-term recovery. The HUD representative and surrounding forests or chaparral. Landfor Arkansas participated in the charrette and worked closely management and regulatory programs towith the community to target HUD resources to community minimize future disaster damages shouldneeds. Following the initial recovery planning effort, HUD 
focus on the urban-wildfire interface. As 
used Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds the Wildfire Case Study illustrates, public

to support development of a comprehensive 1-year master education and outreach programs are an

plan. effective mitigation measure for residents 

 National experts on disaster recovery must work hand-in-in high fire hazard areas.
hand with local planning and urban design specialists. Damages include disruptions to 
 A construction moratorium can be effective in providing the electric, water, sewer, and 
necessary time to develop a reconstruction strategy. The telecommunications utilities; destruction 
recovery planning team worked closely with the local or damage to valuable environmental,
government to enact a 30-day moratorium, which was economic, and historical resources; 
carefully crafted to permit necessary repairs and applied only roadway blockage; disruption ofto substantially damaged structures. community services; devastation of 
agricultural/fishery economies; and human 

loss and suffering. Additionally, water 

absorption and retention are significantly reduced when the majority of plant cover is 

removed by fire, thus creating the potential for future floods or landslides. 

Mitigation and Sustainability Approaches 

Land Management and Construction 

 Create a fuel management program to reduce available fuel, establish fire-
resistant vegetation, and construct fuel breaks and firebreaks in the urban-
wildfire interface. 
 Use nonflammable building materials (especially roofing)  tile, stucco, metal 
siding, brick, concrete block, and rock  and plant fire-resistant shrubs and 
trees. 
 Create 30- to 100-foot safety zones around homes by raking leaves, dead limbs, 
and twigs. 
Regulatory Controls 

In selected geographic areas of the country and in special ecosystems such as pine 

barrens or chaparral along the southern California coast, communities may consider 

zoning regulations to reduce residential densities in high hazard areas, encourage 

Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

cluster development, and delineate urban-wildfire interface zones. Urban growth 
boundaries tied to the concept of urban-wildfire interface designations is a planning 
approach that may merit consideration by the Sustainability Planner. 

Public Education and Outreach 

Public outreach programs are probably the most effective sustainability initiative in 
most fire disaster declarations. The Sustainability Planner should consider developing 
educational materials to encourage residents to: 

 Store gasoline, oily rags, and other flammable material in approved safety cans 
away from the base of buildings; dispose of newspapers and rubbish at approved 
sites; and prune tree branches and remove vines from walls. 
 Stack firewood at least 100 feet away and uphill from homes; place stove, 
fireplace, and grill ashes in a metal bucket, soak in water for 2 days, and then 
bury in mineral soil. 
 Regularly clean roof and gutters, inspect chimneys, and equip chimneys and 
stovepipes with spark arresters. 
 Identify and maintain an adequate outside water source such as a small pond or 
swimming pool; have a garden hose long enough to reach any area of the home 
and other structures on the property. 
Wildfire Case Study: Measures of Mitigation Success  New Mexico 
The Cerro Grande fire began in the late evening on Thursday, May 4, 2000, when a prescribed burn to reduce 
fuel loads ignited. Sporadic wind changes caused spotting over the fireline. By early afternoon on the following day, 
the prescribed burn was declared a wildfire. The fire spread rapidly over the next few days through the Ponderosa 
pine, mixed-conifer, and aspen forest on public, private, and Pueblo lands. By May 10, the wildfire  carried by very 
high winds  reached the community of Los Alamos, New Mexico. Approximately 18,000 people were evacuated 
from the towns of Los Alamos and White Rock. The fire continued to spread to the communities of San Ildefonso and 
Santa Clara Pueblo, encompassing a total area of approximately 42,900 acres. A total of 235 residences and an 
assortment of other structures were damaged or destroyed. 
The Miracle House 
Although wind-swept 
flames quickly engulfed many 
residences and structures, a 
3,300-square-foot wood frame 
house in Los Alamos, owned 
by Thomas and Myrna 
McDonald, escaped with only 
a moderately singed west side. 
Their home now has a 
name the Miracle 
House which it well 
deserves. 
There are 25 homes on 
the north side of Ridgeway 
Drive. The fire approached 
Myrna McDonald holds open the severely singed 
solid core door that prevented flames from 
entering the interior. 
The damages sustained by the McDonald 
residence in Los Alamos, NM were limited to 
the west end of the home. 
Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

from the west and quickly spread eastward, destroying all but three 
homes before it was contained by firefighters. One of the three that 
escaped the blaze was the McDonald residence. The street itself 
acted as a firebreak that saved homes on the south side from the 
flames. 

The McDonalds began practicing a mitigation program of 
proactive grounds maintenance when the house was built 25 years 
ago. They work steadily to keep their property free of ground fuel, 
underbrush, and low tree limbs. I rake up and cart off the pine 
needles that fall from the trees on a regular basis, said Myrna. The 
last time I did so, which was a week before the fire on the front side

Part of the ongoing maintenance at the McDonald 
residence included the regular removal of pine needles and 2 days before in the back and side yards, proved to be the most 
and other ground debris from around the house. important thing we did that saved our home. They also pay close 
attention to the trees themselves, and regularly prune off branches 
that could make contact with the house and provide a fire with a 
bridge to the structure. 
When designing their home, the McDonalds included several 
items that helped save it from major damage during the fire. They 
installed double-paned windows and solid core doors. The flames 
that destroyed the home to our west were extremely fierce. They 
melted its chimney lining, which fire fighters say need to exceed 
2,500 degrees. Flames shattered the outer layer of glass in our 
windows, but did not break the inner layer. Our home did not suffer 
any major smoke damage because of this. Also, the small side porch 
was burned, our west wall singed, and our entry door was severely 
scorchedbut the flames did not get through it. Had this door not 
been solid wood, I feel that our house would also be listed among The McDonald home had only minor exterior 
those that were lost to the fire. damage. Homes on both sides were completely 
destroyed by flames.

Thomas and Myrna McDonald credit the Los Alamos Fire 
Department for their homes survival. We evacuated the afternoon 
of the (May) 10th, and the fire struck our street around 3 a.m. on 
the 11th. When the fire department arrived and saw our home still 
standing while those on both sides were already going up in flames, 
they took immediate action to save it. They sprayed the sides and 
roof with (fire retarding) foam, which prevented major damage to 
and possibly even the loss of our home. 

Positive action by the McDonalds paid off. Because of choosing 
appropriate building materials, and instituting a conscientious 
program of regular upkeep and maintenance, they did not become 
victims of the Cerro Grande fire. The damage to their home was 
limited to a burned porch, a singed wall, and a scorched door that 
can be repaired or replaced. The home itself a place filled with 
memories still stands. 

The McDonalds credit the use of double-paned 
windows as one of the construction barriers that 
prevented the fire from entering their home. The 
outer layer absorbed the fires force and shattered. 

Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

A mitigation plan Residential Mitigation Planning 
and measures 

undertaken by Transforming a 3-acre wooded lot from a 
Harold and Joyce rambling array of overgrown undergrowth and 
Cady helped save saplings into a fire-mitigated wooded area helped 

their home from 

save Howard and Joyce Cadys home during the

destruction by the 
Cerro Grande. devastating Cerro Grande fire. This wildfire 
destroyed more than 200 homes in Los Alamos 
on May 11 and 12, 2000. A long-term mitigation 
plan, begun in the spring of 1998 when they 
purchased the home on 47th Street, involved a lot 
of work  and very little money. 
When we bought this 55-year-old wood 
frame house 2 years ago, we knew it would be 
susceptible to destruction by fire, said Howard, 
so I contacted the United States Forest Service 
(USFS) district office in Santa Fe for a professional assessment. A ranger came out, inspected our land and made 
several valuable recommendations. The first was to remove the tangled vines and brush that grew thickly throughout 
the acreage. Working five to six hours daily, he made progress cleaning up the area. Soon, Harold had a fire 
mitigation zone that was free of ground fuel. 
Total cost: a chain saw, hand tools, and 

An 8-foot-wide 
dedication. firebreak prevented the 
Once the undergrowth was removed, flames from getting to 

Harold set about on the next task: cutting the Cady home. Note 

saplings, thinning out medium-sized trees to the fire-ravaged trees 

to the left of the break 

remove the ladder system leading to the and the healthy, 
crowns of mature trees, and pruning all untouched vegetation 
branches to a point about 10 feet off the to the right. 
ground. The ranger marked the trees that 
were most likely to fuel a fire in the tops of the 
large trees. An added benefit of all this thinning 
and pruning was an ever-expanding woodpile, 
stacked and ready to provide us with fuel for the coming winters. A 
regular work schedule brought about the intended results. 

A third area of consideration was access to the rear of the 
property. With the help of the USFS, Harold mapped out fire roads 
that encircled all sides of his home.  First, we removed all plant 
growth and then kept these areas cleared year-round, Harold said. 
This created a series of natural fire breaks, about 8 feet wide, that 
helped to separate our home from potential fire hazards. 

Their efforts proved valuable when a section of the Cerro 
Grande fire swept down a hillside into Los Alamos and destroyed 
homes beginning at 47th Street and continuing down Ridgeway 
Drive. When the Los Alamos Fire Department and the Forest Harold Cady points out one of the many areas on his 
Service arrived, a number of homes in the subdivision were already property where clearing out the undergrowth and 

continual maintenance helped protect his home from 
the Cerra Grande fire. 

Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

engulfed in flames.
Although the fire
burned many trees
that surrounded the
Cady home, the
house itself was
spared.

The firefighters
knew where our

A hunting camp in the mountains above Ruidoso 

survived the Cree fire, though several nearby 
retreats and year-round homes were destroyed. 

roads were, so they 

were able to enter the 

Mitigation measures taken by the owner, the

woods surrounding 

Ruidoso Fire Department Chief, proved 

our house and control 

successful. He had cut a wide firebreak between 

the forest and his cabin, and removed the 
underbrush and lower branches on the trees. The 

the burn. They 

foamed the house 

fire came within 15 feet of the sructure, but was

with fire retardant 

effectively halted in its path by the lack of ground 

chemicals and kept 

and ladder fuel. 

the flames from
jumping our
firebreak. When we
thanked the crews for
saving our home,
they told us that what
we had donethe cleaning, the thinning, the pruning, the fire breakhad made our house defensible.

A look at the Cady property reveals several mitigation measures. Although the woods surrounding the home
suffered burn damage, the Cady home was made defensible by creating a firebreak, removing undergrowth and
vines, cutting down small and moderate-sized trees, and pruning limbs to about 10 feet off the ground. The woodpile
was located about 30 feet from the house.

4.7 Landslides 
Landslides occur when masses of rock, earth, or debris move down a slope. They 
are influenced by human activities or natural factors, such as geology, precipitation, and 
topography. Landslides occur all over the United States, but are most common in 
California, Colorado, and the Appalachian Mountains. They may account for a few 
cubic yards or extend hundreds of feet and include entire hillsides. A debris flow is a 
type of landslide where rapidly moving slurry masses consisting of soil, rock, water, and 
vegetation take on the consistency of mud and reach high velocities as they flow 
downhill. Debris flows are usually induced by rainfall and tend to recur in the same 
drainage areas. Landslides can be triggered by heavy rains, floods, earthquakes, and 
volcanic activity. 

Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

Mitigation and Sustainability Approaches 

Land Management and Construction 

Land use planners should consider the history of past landslides; bedrock type; 
slope; the presence of sandy soils; and hydrologic factors, such as high water tables and 
frequent freezing and thawing cycles. Some specific mitigation measures are: 

 Install catchment basins to control runoff in landslide hazard areas. 
 Plant ground cover and install riprap to hold soil in place on hillsides or slopes. 
 Build retaining walls along essential evacuation routes. 
Regulatory Controls 

In areas highly susceptible to landslides, the following regulatory controls should 
be considered: 

 Adopt a grading ordinance that requires geotechnical investigations in 
designated high hazard areas to analyze slope stability, provide surface/ 
subsurface drainage specifications, and develop detailed design for fill placement 
and excavation. 
 Use zoning to control maximum density, minimum lot size, road width, and 
setbacks in areas of high or severe landslide risk. 
 Adopt soil conservation, slope stabilization, open space dedication, or steep 
slope ordinances. 
Public Education and Outreach 

 Provide information to homeowners on the benefits of installing flexible 
pipefitting to avoid gas or water leaks, and improving drainage around 
structures and property. 
 Post community warning signs of potential landslide hazards. 
 Map areas susceptible to landslides and post these maps on a community 
website and in the local planning or building permit office. 
 Advocate early disclosure of hazard in real estate transfers. 
Landslide Case Study: Multihazard Risk Assessment for Rural Municipalities 
Puerto Rico 
Puerto Rico has been struck by five natural disasters since 1989. The extent of damages to homes, businesses, and 
public infrastructure, and the corresponding disruption to the local economy, are strong arguments for a new 
approach to land development. FEMA Region II used HMTAP resources to assist seven rural municipalities 
devastated by Hurricane Georges in 1998. 
This local planning effort involved developing a multihazard risk assessment for each community and holding a 
series of public meetings to identify and prioritize recommendations to create disaster-resistant communities. Existing 
GIS data on topography, floodplains, geology, and soils provided the foundation for the natural hazards analysis. The 
risk assessment involved mapping physical and land use data, and then evaluating opportunities and constraints for 
both reconstruction and future development. In addition to landslide hazards, flood, high wind, and earthquake 
hazards were analyzed. The risk assessment was then linked to a land suitability analysis to identify future growth 
areas, areas where new development should be discouraged, and areas where specific engineering design or Best 
Management Practices (BMPs) should be implemented. Several communities have already required that the findings 
of the multihazard risk assessment be incorporated into their comprehensive plans. 
Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework 


Section 4.0 
Sustainability by Hazard Type 

Local government representatives, planning commissions, and interested residents participated in three rounds of 
community meetings. The first meeting focused on public concerns; the second, on the multihazard risk assessment 
methodology and prioritization of planning recommendations; and the third, on those measures the community can 
readily adopt to institutionalize hazard mitigation at the local level. 

Landslides can vary in size from a few cubic yards of soil to entire hillsides hundreds of feet long. Puerto Ricos 
steep topography  combined with shallow, fine-grained soils over bedrock  increases its susceptibility to 
landslides. Many of the landslides during Hurricane Georges occurred along road cuts or fills. An island-wide 
landslide susceptibility map prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) delineates much of the central volcanic 
portion of the island as being prone to landslides. 

As stated in FEMAs Building Performance Assessment Report (BPAT), prepared in the aftermath of Hurricane 
Georges, Landslides will become a greater problem in the future as more developments and houses are constructed in 
regions prone to such risks. To address this concern, project team geologists and geotechnical engineers conducted 
fieldwork and reviewed past technical studies to develop a landslide susceptibility methodology for use in the 
multihazard risk assessment. 

This susceptibility analysis focuses on the risk of landslides caused by cutting and filling on natural slopes. Slope 
and bedrock geology are the two major determinants of susceptibility to landslides. A slope map derived from Digital 
Elevation Model (DEM) data combined broad slope classes with data on geologic formations to identify areas prone to 
erosion. 

The following landslide mitigation recommendations were included in the final reports for the seven rural 
municipalities: 

 Avoid intensive development in areas of historical landslide deposits. 
 Discourage development in areas with natural slopes steeper than 50 percent. Consider limiting the number of 
times that property can be subdivided or limiting the density of development. Do not allow the construction of 
private roads in areas with slopes greater than 50 percent. 
 Encourage future development where natural slopes are flatter than 35 percent; stable cut-and-fill slopes can be 
economically constructed in such areas, and the risk of slope failure is low. 
 To limit contact with debris flows, avoid development within and directly below steep-sided drainages that 
extend up hillsides. 
 Design all major cut-and-fill slopes in accordance with standard engineering practice. Consider adopting a 
hillside grading ordinance that requires a geological risk assessment report, a geotechnical engineering report, 
compaction specifications, suitable fill material, surface and subsurface drainage, maximum default cut-and-fill 
slope inclinations, and procedures for inspection and enforcement. 
Edition 1 b November 1, 2000 
Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework