fire department hazard mitigation planning
TRANSCRIPT
FIRE DEPARTMENT HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING
EXECUTIVE ANALYSIS OF FIRE SERVICE OPERATIONS
IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
By: Jerry E. Thorson Federal Way Fire Department Federal Way, Washington
An applied research project submitted to the National Fire Academy as part of the Executive Fire Officer Program.
October 2002
2
ABSTRACT
Fire departments are impacted by the same disasters that affect their community. Floods,
earthquakes, hazardous materials spills, terrorist attacks, and others can have a devastating effect
on departments. The impacts are reduced or eliminated through a process called hazard
mitigation planning.
The problem was that the Federal Way Fire Department didn’t have a hazard mitigation
plan. Development and implementation of a hazard mitigation plan will reduce or eliminate
potential damage to the department. Federal Way didn’t know what risks it is facing, and hasn’t
done anything to reduce the impacts of those risks.
The purpose of this research was to identify the benefits and components of a hazard
mitigation plan. It was anticipated that the Federal Way Fire Department would develop a plan,
improving the department’s ability to survive the next major incident. Other fire departments
may utilize this format to develop their own hazard mitigation plans.
Action research methods were used to answer the following questions:
1. What is a hazard mitigation plan?
2. What are the benefits of having a hazard mitigation plan?
3. How are the appropriate hazards identified for inclusion into a plan?
4. What elements should be included in a hazard mitigation plan?
Procedures used in this research included a literature review, fire department survey, and
study of applicable standards, laws and other guidelines.
The results of this research included confirmation that mitigation planning has many
benefits to fire departments. Mitigation planning reduces the impacts from natural, and man
3
made disasters, and ensures fire departments are eligible for federal reimbursement for response
and recovery.
It is recommended the Federal Way Fire Department develop a hazard mitigation plan for
its facilities, properties and personnel. The department should follow the requirements outlined
in Appendix A as it develops the hazard mitigation plan.
.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………2
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………..4
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………….6
BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE……………………………………………………....7
LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………………………...10
PROCEDURES…………………………………………………………………………………16
RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………………….18
DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………………...24
RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………………………………….28
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………….30
APPENDIX A FEMA Mitigation Plan Requirements………...….………..………………...32
APPENDIX B Hazard Mitigation Survey Letter ….................................................................35
APPENDIX C Hazard Mitigation Survey................……….....................................................36
APPENDIX D Hazard Mitigation Survey Results....................................................................38
5
TABLES
TABLE 1 Risk Rating Matrix.....................................................................................................21
TABLE 2 FEMA Minimum Requirements for a Mitigation Plan ..........................................22
TABLE 3 Area Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................24
6
INTRODUCTION
Every region in the country is at risk for some type of natural or man made disasters.
These include earthquakes, windstorms, bombings, floods and many others. In some cases fire
departments are at greater risk than the rest of the community, as they may be targets of a
secondary device at a terrorist event. In order to serve the citizens, firefighters must first survive
the incident, and then respond to the emergencies as needed. Just as fire departments throughout
the country work to reduce the risks from fires, they must also work to reduce the risk from
disasters.
What would happen if a citizen was trapped in a flooded house, but the fire department
couldn’t respond because all their fire stations were also under water? A similar situation may
occur if fire departments don’t prepare for emergencies such as earthquakes, or floods. Fire
departments must take the steps needed to survive the incident if they are to carry out their
mission after the event. The Federal Way Fire Department has not adopted a hazard mitigation
plan.
The problem is that the Federal Way Fire Department hasn’t adopted a hazard mitigation
plan. Without a hazard mitigation plan the fire department is vulnerable to the same natural and
man-made risks that may devastate the local community. Fire departments that develop and
implement hazard mitigation plans can reduce or eliminate the damage from disasters. This risk
reduction should improve a fire department’s operations ability after the event.
A hazard mitigation plan evaluates the potential risks, both natural and man-made, and
lays out the steps necessary to reduce the risk, or impact from those hazards. Common examples
would be reinforcing the foundation of an older structure located in an earthquake zone, or taking
7
steps to make a building less prone to a car-bombing incident. Mitigation planning normally
focuses on potential future events.
The purpose of this research is to identify the benefits and components of a hazard
mitigation plan. The research is also used to identify the process for determining which hazards
should be included in the plan. Once the process is identified it is anticipated that the Federal
Way Fire Department will develop a hazard mitigation plan. Other fire departments should also
be able to utilize this format to develop their own hazard mitigation plan.
Action research methods are used to answer the following research questions:
1. What is a hazard mitigation plan?
2. What are the benefits of having a hazard mitigation plan?
3. How are the appropriate hazards identified for inclusion into a plan?
4. What elements should be included in a hazard mitigation plan?
BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE
Western Washington has a history of natural and man-made disasters. These events
include earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, windstorms, tsunamis, landslides, and severe
winter weather. The Federal Way area is currently classified at a seismic hazard zone three on a
scale of zero to four, with four being the highest hazard. The man-made events have included
hazardous materials releases, attempted terrorist attack, and mass casualty incidents.
There have been several events in Washington State featured on the national news
recently. A 6.8 magnitude earthquake in the Nisqually river delta on February 28, 2001 caused
extensive damage to the area. In 1996 the area experienced a severe winter storm with freezing
temperatures and widespread power outages. Federal Way opened emergency shelters for those
8
without heat or power. As the snow melted urban flooding forced evacuations due to rising
water levels. Major wildland fires in the urban interface area have also forced major actions by
communities causing activation of the fire mobilization plan statewide. In 1999 United States
border agents arrested a man smuggling bomb components across the US/Canadian border with
the suspected intent to set it off at a Seattle New Years Eve Celebration.
It is important to keep in mind that for each of these major emergencies or disasters there
are multiple impacts. Not only are people frequently killed or injured, but also buildings,
bridges, and other structures may be damaged, critical systems may go off line with negative
impacts on the local economy.
The Federal Way Fire Department is in a position where any of these natural or man-
made hazards could impact the fire stations. The question is which hazards impact each station?
Another concern is how high the risk is of the various hazards. When considering these hazards
it is also important to include secondary effects on the community. In other words, if a terrorist
event occurred at the Weyerhaeuser King County Aquatics Center (a world class competition
swimming complex) what impact that could have on the nearby fire station, and its personnel.
Until the department considers the hazards and develops a mitigation plan it is just as vulnerable
to a major event, such as an earthquake, as the rest of the community.
The city of Federal Way is located in western Washington, approximately 20 miles south
of Seattle on the shores of Puget Sound. The fire department covers 34 square miles with a
population of approximately 105,000. The area is primarily residential with significant retail,
and general business areas. There is some limited manufacturing within the district’s
boundaries. The city is home to several national headquarters for businesses such as
Weyerhaeuser, World Vision, and several other regional offices, as well as hosting international
9
swimming events. The proximity to both Seattle and Tacoma may make it a target of terrorism
in the future.
While it is true that the area may experience any of the natural and man-made disasters
that impact communities throughout the country, without a hazard vulnerability analysis, the
department has no idea, which poses the greatest risk. How will the fire stations hold up during
the next earthquake? Will our storage and furnishings injure firefighters so they are victims, not
rescuers after the next quake? Can we afford to mitigate all possible hazards, or only the most
likely ones? Are we prepared to survive the next severe windstorm? These are questions that a
hazard mitigation plan can help address.
During the Executive Analysis of Fire Service Operations in Emergency Management
course, the focus was on management of major emergencies such as tornadoes, floods, and train
derailments. It also specifically trained the students to perform hazard analysis so those hazards
could be mitigated. The course specifically taught students to focus on hazard identification, and
department capability. By completing both, the Federal Way Fire Department will be able to
identify the hazards the community faces, and then look at the capabilities of the department.
This should help with the planning process, and ensure the department is ready to respond to its
citizens needs. It may also identify areas where the department faces hazards that reduce their
ability to respond. The risk assessment not only evaluates the risks the community could expect,
but also the occupancies that are in that community.
This research also focused on the United States Fire Administrations operational
objectives by attempting to promote a comprehensive, multi-hazard risk reduction plan led by the
fire service. Federal Way Fire Department will set the example for the rest of the community
with its hazard mitigation plan. Once the fire department plan is in place, it can use the plan as
10
an example for the business community to help them prepare for the hazards they face. It can
also use that experience with the neighborhood groups that are working to become more self-
sufficient.
This effort is significant to the local community, regionally, and on a national level, as it
will likely reduce the costs, both financially, and in lives when the next major disaster occurs.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review began at King County’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) with
study of the documents on hand. The review continued at the National Fire Academy’s Learning
Resource Center. Literature was also obtained from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency’s (FEMA) resource files. The literature ranged from public laws such as the Stafford
Act, to reports on the success of other mitigation plans, and to journal articles describing the
benefits of planning.
The research started with an attempt at identifying exactly what a mitigation plan should
accomplish for a community. According to John D. Seyffert (1998) “Hazard mitigation is a
management strategy, in which current actions and expenditures made to reduce the occurrence
or severity of potential natural disasters are balanced with potential losses from future events”.
Mr. Seyffert makes the determination that not all hazards can be mitigated away; some will not
make sense to complete based on the cost to implement and the level of risk. While his
description is focused on natural events the same is true for man made events. Fire departments
will have to prioritize which risks to address.
One crucial step to the success of a fire department mitigation plan is to identify the
benefits of that planning effort. The literature review went on to examine the reference materials
11
for benefits of mitigation planning. A very clear example of those benefits was found in a
FEMA report. It described the reinforcement of highway bridges in earthquake prone California.
Since 1971 California’s Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has retrofitted over 1,305
bridges, making them more likely to survive the next earthquake. “The average cost per square
foot for retrofitting is $31.71. By contrast, if a bridge were to be destroyed in an earthquake, a
new bridge would typically cost between $90-$120 per square foot,” (1997). The report goes on
to identify that “this infers that the average bridge retrofit cost is about 22.7% of the replacement
cost,” (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 1997). When one considers the long
term impacts of the loss of a major freeway bridge, this appears to be a very wise investment.
One of the reoccurring themes found in the journal articles was the need to motivate both
the public and private sector. Vincent Montane (1990) describes it this way, “the philosophy in
business today must be that if you can’t take care of yourself during and after disasters, you
cannot take care of your customers.” He goes on to state, “it is crucial for the survival of
business to focus on the steps to take for training employees, protecting property and facilities,
and maintaining, as well as revising your recovery plan.” If these statements are true for private
business, then they are vital for fire departments.
It became clear very quickly that response and recovery from disasters has become
increasingly expensive over the last several years. Ross T. Newkirk (2001) describes the costs
very succinctly:
From 1989 to 1993 the average (US) annual losses from disasters were 3.3 billion.
During the last four years [1993-1997] the average annual loses increased to $13 billion.
On the federal side alone, disasters have cost a total of more than $20 billion in public
12
funds that could have been used for public education, job training, and health care for
investments in our children and our nation’s future.
With the costs of response and recovery escalating government agencies must encourage the
local communities to become more resistant to the effects of disasters.
Several researchers attempted to motivate emergency planners by describing how
significant the problem is worldwide. “Over the last 20 years natural disasters have claimed 2.8
million lives worldwide,” (Housner, 1988). He goes on to make the connection between the
dangers and risk of disasters and also introduced mitigation as a viable option. “It may not be
possible to prevent the occurrence of an earthquake or landslide, but the disasters such hazards
generate can often be lessened or avoided,” (Housner, 1988).
The research to this point shows a need for mitigation planning but it leaves out the
question of why aren’t more mitigation plans in place? This prompted additional research into
what are the inhibitors for mitigation planning. The answer came in an article by Richard T.
Moore (1994) who advocates a national mitigation strategy. “Mitigation planning isn’t
implemented for a variety of reasons:
• Ignorance of mitigation
• Perception that mitigation measures are unaffordable
• There is no incentive to do mitigation
• Building professionals, in general do not have the know-how to put mitigation measure
into place.”
Another idea that Moore suggests is the concept of government incentives to motivate
others to plan ahead. Since FEMA often issues grants to cover the costs for state and local
governments to respond and clean up after a major disaster, the federal government decided to
13
attach requirements for pre-incident mitigation planning. Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act placed new requirements on public agencies
expecting reimbursement from FEMA.
“States with existing mitigation plans, approved under former section 409, will continue
to be eligible for the 15% Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding until November
2003, when all state mitigation plans must meet the requirements of the regulations. If
state plans are not revised and approved to meet the Standard State Mitigation plan
requirements by that time they will be ineligible for Stafford Act assistance, excluding
emergency assistance,” Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
(2002).
In other words if a public agency such as a fire department doesn’t have a hazard
mitigation plan approved before November 2003 they won’t get any FEMA money to repair their
damaged facilities. They also will be unable to recover their overtime costs incurred responding
to a flood or other disasters. The Stafford Act continues with the justification “This requirement
is to encourage the development of comprehensive mitigation plans before disaster events,”
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (2002).
The federal government has identified mitigation planning as a priority for all
government agencies. To encourage this planning they will withhold federal assistance money
from all agencies that fail to take steps to reduce those risks. This federal requirement is perhaps
the best motivator of all. Many jurisdictions will seek both reimbursement for their costs but
also seek federal dollars to mitigate future problems.
Mitigation efforts can be costly and time consuming. Considering the public sectors
limited resources it is important for any agency to prioritize which hazards are included in a
14
mitigation plan. The challenge is determining which hazards to include in the planning process.
By identifying the hazards that affect a community, and determining the jurisdictions
vulnerability to those hazards, the need becomes apparent. FEMA (1990) describes it as such:
“For example, if the identification indicates that the area is susceptible to floods and earthquakes,
and that they can be expected to occur with a certain degree of probability, there would be a clear
need to take some mitigation actions.”
Washington State (2000) identified how hazard mitigation can be accomplished in a
comprehensive booklet. “Hazard mitigation can be accomplished in a number of ways and can
generally be broken down into the following strategies: alter the hazard, avert the hazard, adapt
to the hazard, avoid the hazard, acquisition, and relocation.” By using these strategies a fire
department has multiple methods for reducing the risks. Examples to reduce the risk of flooding
could include improvements to a river channel, or relocating fire stations away from the flood
plains. While these items appear costly, it may prove to be cost effective for certain critical
buildings.
FEMA describes what elements should be included in a mitigation plan in its Post-
Disaster Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance for State and Local Governments booklet. The
document suggests an evaluation of natural hazards, a description and analysis of state and local
hazard management polices, and the capabilities to handle those hazards. The booklet goes on to
suggest methods to reduce or avoid long term vulnerability to those hazards. Finally it
recommends a regular evaluation and updates to the plan. A complete list of the FEMA
mitigation plan requirements is included as Appendix A.
Mitigation works for all types of hazards. In a comparison of two similar floods in
Missouri, FEMA (1997) evaluated the mitigation efforts in the flood plane,
15
In Arnold Missouri, the total amount of Federal Disaster assistance granted after the 1993
floods was over $2 million dollars. After the floods of 1995, the forth-largest flood in
Arnold’s history, the damage was less than $40,000 as a result of non-structural
mitigation.
The examples listed above describe major projects worth large sums of money, but the
research found smaller projects that benefited from mitigation efforts as well. In their efforts to
protect structures from hurricane force winds, Dade County, Florida realized substantial savings.
“For every $1 invested in wind shutters at the Emergency Service Center South, at least $5 is
saved in mitigated interior damages,” (FEMA, 1997).
The literature review found that mitigation planning is now part of the national strategy
for dealing with natural and man-made disasters. It also revealed how costly is has become to
ignore the fact that we are continuing to face these disasters. Mitigation planning is very often a
cost effective tool for reducing the high costs of those emergencies. One of the surprises found
during the literature review was that much money that can be saved from business interruption
factors costs.
In July 1993 a levee that protected the Des Moines Water Works facility was over-topped
allowing flood waters to enter the facility. Since the treatment plant couldn’t be operated, over
250,000 customers were without water service for 11 days. According to FEMA’s Report on
Costs and Benefits of Natural Hazard Mitigation (1997) “the direct costs of damage to the Des
Moines Water Works treatment plant was approximately $14 million, while cost associated with
the interruption of business was over 200 million.” This is just one example that shows that the
cost for business interruption may exceed the direct damage from the incident itself.
16
During the literature review this research was influenced by the fact that other researchers
have documented many success stories of mitigation planning. Not only have other communities
reduced damages to structures and businesses, but these efforts have saved many lives. The
research focused the efforts of this research to develop an easy guide for the fire department to
follow in the adoption of an all hazard mitigation plan.
PROCEDURES
Definition of Terms
Hazard mitigation: includes any action taken to eliminate or reduce the long-term risk to human
life and property from natural or man-made hazards. They are actions taken to eliminate or
reduce the degree of long-term risk to human life and property from natural and man-made
hazards such as floods, earthquakes, landslides, etc.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): This federal program provides grants to states
and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster.
The purpose of the program is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and
to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster.
Stafford Act: Also known as the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. This federal requirement
provides new and revitalized approaches to mitigation planning. It includes a requirement for a
standard state mitigation plan as a condition of disaster assistance. States and local public
agencies must have in effect a FEMA approved Enhanced State Mitigation Plan that meets the
factors of the Act in order to receive funding for response and recovery efforts.
Tsunamis: are large water waves, typically generated by seismic activity that have historically
caused significant damage to coastal communities throughout the world.
17
Research Methodology
Action research methods were used to determine what elements should be included in a
hazard mitigation plan. This was also used to determine what the benefits of having a plan
would be to the jurisdiction that considers the need for implementing such plans. Another step
of the research was determining how those hazards should be identified. By identifying and
selecting the hazards to include, and what elements go into the plan, an agency can begin the
mitigation process.
A survey instrument was used to determine how many fire departments in the area
surrounding Federal Way have current plans, and what the benefits are to mitigation planning.
This part of the study also evaluated whether the fire departments included in the survey would
be interested in a regional mitigation plan. The survey included 15 departments in King County,
Washington. They were chosen due to their similarity in size and capabilities to Federal Way.
Nearly 50% of those selected chose to participate in the study. This was considered a
representative sample for the departments in King County. This survey is included as
Appendix C.
It is intended that this research will be used to develop a hazard mitigation plan for the
Federal Way Fire Department. This research could also be used by any other fire departments to
develop their own mitigation plan.
Literature Review
There is much literature available on the topic, the challenge is identifying the sources
and selecting those relevant documents. Literature was obtained both locally at the King County
Office of Emergency Management and at the federal level at the National Fire Academy’s (NFA)
Learning Resource Center. The research continued with a review of FEMA publications. State
18
laws were also included in this research. Journals that include emergency procedures were
helpful as well. It is interesting because they often look at the mitigation efforts from a business
perspective rather than the traditional fire service viewpoint. Finally student manuals from the
NFA are included. These documents are helpful because they are very focused on the topic and
offer very detailed steps to be followed.
Assumptions and Limitations
It is assumed that the Federal Way Fire Department and others will be motivated to adopt
mitigation planning as a way of surviving the incident and reducing the cost of recovery. It is
also assumed that the department will make the investment in time and personnel to reduce the
risks identified in that effort. A limitation on this research was its focus on available documents
and other references, none of the sites with successful mitigation strategies were visited for
interviews with those involved. It is likely that the motivators would be changed, either better or
worse, due to the additional information available from first hand sources.
RESULTS
1. What is a hazard mitigation plan? A hazard mitigation plan directs actions to either prevent
the occurrence of an emergency or reduce the vulnerability in ways that minimize the
adverse impact of a disaster or other emergency. The planning process attempts to reduce
the degree of long term risk to human life and property from natural and man made hazards.
In other words a mitigation strategy for an area that experiences flooding might be to change
the zoning of that area so additional properties aren’t developed in that flood plain. Hazard
mitigation plans normally focus on some future event, however it is not uncommon for
recovery efforts to be combined with future mitigation.
19
2. What are the benefits of having a hazard mitigation plan? Quite simply, a reduction of the
cost of lives lost and property damaged. Mitigation planning also places fewer constraints
on time and resources since the scope of the repairs or modifications to structures are less
impacting before the event. It also minimizes controversies that often arise after a disaster.
In other words, mitigation planning capitalizes on opportunities.
In FEMA’s Report on Costs and Benefits of Natural Hazard Mitigation (1997) it
finds that “investing in mitigation actions targeted at high-risk areas before disaster strikes
can pay dividends.” The report goes on to describe many cases showing the benefits to
hazard mitigation planning. “FEMA is confident that the 800,000 school children of the
LAUSD are in a much safer environment and have much less chance of injury or disruption
of their education should another earthquake occur,” (1997). This is a good example of how
recovery efforts that include mitigation planning can reduce future impacts. Following the
1994 Northridge, California earthquake, about $162 million was allocated by FEMA to
upgrade the damaged structures to current building code standards. A motivator for
mitigation planning is that to receive federal reimbursement for future disasters, government
agencies are now required to have a mitigation plan in effect by November 2003. This
reimbursement will be critical to any community’s recovery from a major disaster.
3. How are the appropriate hazards identified for inclusion into a plan? When one begins to
add up all of the possible events that may occur in a community, the list rapidly becomes
overwhelming. Communities must conduct some form of risk assessment or hazard
vulnerability analysis. “Risk assessment of the nature, extent, and consequences of the
hazards lie at the core of adopting efficient and economic actions to lesson the effects of a
natural hazard,” (Housner, 1988).
20
Not only did Housner point out that risk assessment was an important part of a
mitigation plan, he also determined that the assessment process involves three essential
features, “determination of the hazard; determination of the vulnerability of the structure and
facility exposed; and determination of the significance of the impacts,” (1988). The latter
feature was not expected in this research. A community must evaluate what the impact on
the region would be if the hospital was closed for three months due to windstorm damage.
When that type of damage is considered it makes it a higher priority to mitigate the hazards
for the hospital. Risk assessment provides the factual basis for all activities proposed in a
hazard mitigation plan. Without the risk assessment a jurisdiction has no real basis for the
efforts and may in fact be spending money on the wrong projects.
The NFA’s Executive Analysis of Fire Service Operations in Emergency
Management Course recommends a four-step process to rate or prioritize the hazards a
community may face. (See Table 1 for an example of the recommended process). In the
NFA student manual Executive Analysis of Fire Service Operations (2001) it states, “Risk
assessment in any modern community is holistic, multidisciplinary, community oriented, and
is mission oriented. These priorities can help the fire department as well as the community
focus it’s energy where it will be most effective.” The first step in the process is to simply
list all of the hazards that a community may face. This should include both natural and man-
made hazards. Next agencies should rank the perceived probability of occurrence for each
hazard. This is determined in part by a historical look at the past history of the risks
identified. Then a vulnerability assessment is made for each hazard. For the same flooding
example, if the river does exceed the riverbanks, how vulnerable is the community to
damage? The final step is to multiply the scores for probability and vulnerability and arrive
21
at a risk rating. Once this is achieved, the community has a better idea of which risks to
focus their mitigation efforts on.
Table 1: Risk Rating Matrix
Hazard
Probability of Occurrence
Vulnerability
Danger Factor
Risk
Disaster Rating(probability x
Likely (3)
Possible(2)
Unlikely(1)
High (3)
Average(2)
Low (1)
Danger)
Wildland Fire X X 1 Conflagration X X 6 Civil Disturbance X X 9 Tornado X X 6 Flood X X 4 Hurricane X X 1 Earthquake X X 6 Volcano X X 1 Chemical Spill X X 9 Industrial Disaster X X 4 Nuclear Attack X X 6 Terrorist Attack X X 4 Other
When considering the table above it provides a very clear example of which hazards
should be included in a mitigation plan. The sample lists 12 possible hazards to be
considered. The community appears to be most at risk from a civil disturbance and a
chemical spill. The least risk is from wildland fire, hurricane and volcano. The items
included in the plan can now be based of the level of risk and the amount of resources an
agency is will to devote to the mitigation planning process.
4. What elements should be included in a hazard mitigation plan? There are many ways to
write a hazard mitigation plan and many criteria an agency could select. For the purposes of
this research it was considered imperative to follow the FEMA requirements in order to
22
qualify for recovery money from FEMA. Therefore the FEMA publication, Post Disaster
Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance (1990) was utilized to determine what elements
should be included in a hazard mitigation plan. The requirements are included in Table 2.
Table 2: FEMA Minimum Requirements for a Mitigation Plan
However at a minimum each plan shall include the following:
1. An evaluation of the natural hazards in the designated area.
2. A description and analysis of the state and local hazard management policies, programs, and
capabilities to mitigate the hazards in the area.
3. Hazard mitigation goals and objectives and proposed strategies, programs and action to
reduce or avoid long-term vulnerability to hazards.
4. A method of implementing, monitoring, evaluating and updating the mitigation plan. Such
evaluation is to occur at least on an annual basis to ensure that the implementation occurs as
planned, and to ensure that the plan remains current.
The list above describes the minimums that must be included in a mitigation plan to
receive approval from FEMA. It went on to suggest an outline for meeting mitigation plan
requirements. A complete outline is included in this document as Appendix A. The outline was
identified as a result of the action research and details the elements that should be included in a
hazard mitigation plan.
A survey was sent to 15 departments in the King County, Washington area. These
departments were chosen because of their similarities to the Federal Way Fire Department in size
and staff. Of the 15 surveys sent out, seven departments responded to the request. This was
23
deemed sufficient to be an accurate representation of the departments located in King County
Washington.
The complete results of the survey are included as Appendix D. The responses on the
returned surveys are recorded as accurately as possible.
The respondents appeared to have a good grasp of the goals for mitigation planning.
Many of the responses carried a theme of reducing the risks or preventing the hazards from
occurring.
It also became clear that most respondents felt that they currently have a hazard
mitigation plan. Six out of the total seven departments indicated that they have a mitigation plan.
Only one stated that they have part of a plan. It appears that while many departments believe
they have a mitigation plan the fact that only one department was aware of the federal
requirement leads one to believe that they haven’t submitted their plans for FEMA approval.
One fact that was very clear is that the departments included in the survey believe they
were vulnerable to a wide range of hazards. Earthquakes, floods and winter storms were very
common with all of the surveys responses. It was also apparent that fire departments throughout
the county face different hazards based on their location, terrain and geography and types of
businesses. A summary of the frequently stated vulnerabilities is listed in the surveys, and is
included as Table 3.
24
Table 3: Area Vulnerabilities
Earthquake 6
Winter storm 6
Flood 5
Hazardous Materials
Incident
5
Terrorist Attack 4
When asked what elements should be included in a fire department mitigation plan the
response was less clear. Based on the survey responses it appears that the departments in King
County did not follow a standard format and developed their plans based on some other criteria.
It should be noted that this conclusion is based on the survey responses not on evaluation of the
actual documents.
The survey instrument was intended to identify the status of mitigation planning in King
County Washington, so that Federal Way’s planning efforts could be compared to the
surrounding fire departments. The survey showed that while the departments are at various
stages of mitigation planning there is very little commonality of those plans.
DISCUSSION
By their very nature fire departments must be able to respond under any condition to
serve the public. This means that they must survive whatever disaster impacts the community.
The September 11th incident at the World Trade Center is a very graphic example, despite the
enormous losses that the fire department sustained; they continued to operate both at the World
25
Trade Center, and throughout the city. Fire departments must look to the future and reduce the
hazards that can be predicted and addressed.
The primary reason for mitigation planning is to reduce the risk to life and property from
predictable hazards. If a fire department can identify the hazards, and reduce or eliminate the
dangers from those risks, it improves the ability to respond to others that have been injured or
suffered damage. Since the mitigation plan reduces the risk, it helps to ensure the firefighters
can respond to the community’s needs after the event. A good example of this is a fire station
that is retrofitted to be more earthquake resistant will allow the firefighters to survive the quake
to respond to emergencies.
This research revealed that most of the departments have disaster response plans. Out of
the departments surveyed only one responded Yes to the question of, does your department have
a hazard mitigation plan? The rest of the respondent’s believed that their disaster plan performs
the same function, or they referred to their emergency plan. Another concept was simply
following the county emergency operations plan. While it is important to have an emergency
response plan, a response plan is very different from the focus of a mitigation plan. Emergency
response plans outline how a fire department will respond to emergency calls after the disaster
hits. A mitigation plan attempts to minimize or eliminate the impacts of the disaster before it
hits, therefore reducing the loss of life and property.
As the research probed deeper into the area fire departments’ planning efforts, it showed
that even if the agency felt they had an adequate plan, that only three out of the seven included in
the study felt they were prepared to deal with the hazards identified, (Appendix D). This implies
that the plans need to be updated. This would likely be a good time to also mitigate some of the
hazards that the departments are themselves facing.
26
Perhaps the most surprising discovery was that only one department out of the survey
group was aware of the disaster mitigation act. With that being the case it is very unlikely that
more than the one department was close to meeting the federal requirements for mitigation
planning.
The guidelines from both the federal and state governments regarding mitigation
planning are very clear. Despite these requirements many departments have developed their own
plans without following the federal requirements. In order to qualify for federal reimbursement
these same departments will be forced to revise their plans and seek approval of those updates.
It was interesting that Richard Moore suggested several years ago that the government
motivate public agencies to adopt mitigation planning. Moore described it this way, “mitigation
will not be achieved and, therefore, the overriding goal will not be met, until incentives are
developed which will make mitigation actions financially acceptable to decision makers,”
(1994). This has finally become a requirement with the update of the Stafford Act that occurred
in 2002. The Robert T. Stafford act is very clear, “States must have an approved hazard
mitigation plan in order to receive Stafford Act assistance,” (2002). The research revealed that
there is a current motivator as Moore was suggested, it is now financially acceptable to decision-
makers.
Federal Way Fire Department has received reimbursement for two federally declared
disasters in the past. This money was used to cover the costs the department paid out in
firefighter overtime during an earthquake response and a major winter storm event. FEMA
money normally funds items such as relocating structures from flood plains, seismic retrofits,
building better berms or dykes, etc. Local agencies will be unable to collect those dollars
27
without a mitigation plan. This requirement should be the best tool so far in reducing the
impacts of natural and man-made disasters.
Washington State also makes it clear that mitigation planning is important. This is
clearly described in a guidebook titled, Keeping Hazards From Becoming Disasters, a Mitigation
Workbook for Local Governments, “As a result of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, having
an approved mitigation plan or strategy is required in order to receive future mitigation
assistance under the Stafford Act,” (2002).
Even if a fire department doesn’t intend to seek federal reimbursement it makes sense for
departments to adopt a mitigation plan. Ample evidence was discovered that shows mitigation
planning pays big dividends. FEMA describes it in a Report on Costs and Benefits of Natural
Hazard Mitigation (1997) “Experience at the Federal, State and local levels during natural
disasters, and a growing body of associated research, has demonstrated that the losses from such
events (in terms of life, property, and community resources) can be substantially reduced when
mitigation techniques and technologies are applied,” It is this experience that should motivate
fire departments to apply mitigation planning as a cost-effective method to reduce damage and
limit the amount of resources needed to respond and recover from disasters.
The impact of mitigation planning should cause public agencies to pool their resources
and work together on the planning process. By tying funding to having an approved mitigation
plan, the United States should reduce the amount of money spent on disasters in the future,
allowing that money to be used for other purposes.
The research further identified what components are required for a plan to be approved.
These components are included in Table 1. It is important to understand how the data in Table 1,
and the data in Appendix A, are related. Table 1 simply describes in broad statements what
28
needs to be included in a plan to be acceptable to FEMA. Appendix A is a longer description
with specific sections that should be in an approved plan. Table 1 could be used to help the
governing body understand how the mitigation plan would be helpful to the fire department. The
appendix would more likely be used by the staff members developing the plan to ensure all areas
are addressed.
Federal Way Fire Department will be impacted by this research because it will now be
forced to adopt some form of mitigation planning. Not only will the planning process take time
and personnel, but also the implementation could be expensive and require consideration in the
long term budget process. The fire department has sought and received reimbursement for
federally declared disasters on two occasions. In both cases the department sought to cover
overtime costs incurred for response to emergencies. In the future it is likely that the department
will face higher costs not only for response but it is likely that a major event will damage the fire
department’s facilities. The mitigation planning process will also have a significant impact on
the department, as the requirements will force a comprehensive effort to develop and implement
the plan. This planning effort should include all of the components listed in Appendix A.
Dave McLoughlin (1988) sums it up very clearly, “Hazard mitigation consists of
activities that permanently prevent the occurrence of a disaster or reduce the losses if a disaster
occurs. How can a fire department that spends so much effort on fire and injury prevention for
the public, not take the steps to reduce the risk for its own personnel and facilities?
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Federal Way Fire Department develop a hazard mitigation
plan for all of its facilities, properties, and personnel. The data in this research shows that
mitigation planning prevents or reduces the direct damage and also prevents or minimizes lost
29
productivity in facilities that might have been forced to close for repairs. It is also beneficial to
the department to have an approved plan so the department may seek reimbursement for
response and recovery costs during a federally declared disaster. Federal Way has a history of
successfully recovering the overtime costs from those efforts. Neither the cost to repair damaged
facilities nor the response costs will be available if the department doesn’t have an approved plan
by November 1, 2003.
The Federal Way Fire Department should also follow the steps listed in Appendix A to
develop the hazard mitigation plan. By following this outline the department should meet all of
the requirements of the 2000 Hazard Mitigation Act. Once this is accomplished the department
should forward the plan to the FEMA Regional Office for approval.
Other fire departments considering hazard mitigation planning should follow the same
steps as Federal Way Fire Department and enjoy the same benefits for their community.
30
REFERENCES
FEMA, Author, Post-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance for State and Local
Governments, September 1990, pg. 82, 86.
FEMA, Author, Report on Costs and Benefits of Natural hazard Mitigation, March 1997, pg. 2,
9, 13, 19, 21, 24, 29.
Housner, George W. Natural Hazard Mitigation, Bostid Developments, Fall/Winter 1988, pg. 1,
2.
McLoughlin, Dave, FEMA publishes new primer on mitigation, Hazard Monthly, February
1988,
pg. 9.
Moore, Richard T. Towards a National Mitigation Strategy, Responder Magazine, 1994, pg. 18.
Montane, Vincent, The Disaster threat and corporate safety, Disaster Recovery Journal,
July/Aug/Sept 1990, pg. 10.
National Fire Academy, Author, Executive Analysis of Fire Service Operations in Emergency
Management, Student Manual, March 2001, pg. 4-28, 4-31.
Newkirk, Ross T, The increasing cost of disasters in developed countries: A challenge to local
planning and Government, Journal of Contingencies and Crises Management, September 2001,
pg. 159.
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5156 § 104 P.L.
106-390, 2002.
Seyffert, John D., Expert Advice on making hazard mitigation part of positive planning, Hazard
Monthly, February 1998, pg. 8.
31
Washington State, Author, Washington State Hazard Mitigation Strategy, January 2000, pg. 14,
15.
Washington Military Department, Emergency Management Division, Author, Keeping Hazards
from Becoming Disaster: A mitigation Workbook for Local Governments, June 2002, pg. 4.
32
Appendix A
FEMA Mitigation Plan Requirements
Sample plan outline
I. Preliminaries
A. Letter of Transmittal From Governor
B. Preface
C. Acknowledgements
D. Executive Summary
E. Table of Contents
F. List of Figures
G. List of Appendices
II. Introduction
A. Purpose
B. Scope
C. Authority
D. Goals and Objectives
E. Definitions
III. Hazard Identification and Evaluation
A. Hazard Evaluation
1. Types of Hazards
2. Frequency, Magnitude, and Distributions
33
B. Vulnerability Assessment
1. Historical Damages
2. Current Exposure
3. Future Exposure
C. Risk Information
1. Loss Potential
2. Potential Impact of No Action
3. Liability Potential
IV. Capability Assessment
A. Legal Framework
1. Enabling Legislation
2. Executive Orders
3. Policy Memorandums
B. Governmental Organization
1. Roles of Different Levels and Internal Organization
C. Existing Mitigation Plans, Programs and Structures
1. Local Government
2. State Government
3. Federal Government
V. Proposed Mitigation Activities
A. Implementation and Monitoring
1. Role of State Hazard Mitigation Officer
2. Responsibilities of Lead Agencies
34
3. Periodic Reporting Requirements
B. Evaluation
1. Continued Relevancy of Goals and Objectives
2. Effectiveness of Mitigation Strategies and Measures
C. Maintenance
1. Periodic Plan Updates
2. Future Enhancements
35
Appendix B
Hazard Mitigation Survey Letter
August 22, 2002 Dear Emergency Manager, The Federal Way Fire Department is starting work on a hazard mitigation plan. We are currently planning to work with King County Office of Emergency Management on a regional plan. I am also working on a National Fire Academy EFOP research paper. If you would spend a few minutes and answer the questions on the enclosed survey it will help with both the fire departments plan, and my research for the Fire Academy. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at either 253-946-7240, or e-mail at [email protected]. Thank you for your assistance, Jerry E. Thorson Fire Marshal
36
Appendix C
Fire Department Hazard Mitigation Survey Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. The answers will be used to evaluate mitigation planning for the Federal Way Fire Department and in a National Fire Academy Applied Research Paper. 1. What does the term “hazard mitigation plan” mean to you? 2. Describe what you believe are the benefits to having a fire department mitigation plan. 3. Does your department have a hazard mitigation plan? 4. If the answer to question 3 was no, why not? 5. What natural and man made disasters could your department realistically expect to occur in
the near future? In other words, what would a hazard vulnerability analysis identify are potential hazards in your jurisdiction.
6. Is your department prepared to deal with those hazards? 7. What elements should be included in a fire department mitigation plan? 8. Are you aware of any local, state or federal requirements for fire departments to have a
hazard mitigation plan? 9. What resources would you use if you were to develop a hazard mitigation plan?
37
10. Would your department be interested in developing a countywide hazard mitigation plan? 11. Would you like to receive a copy of the results of this survey? (If yes, please give your
mailing address). Please return the completed survey form to: Jerry Thorson Or fax to 253-5297206 Federal Way Fire Department 31617 1 Ave So. Federal Way, WA 98003 Sincerely, Jerry E. Thorson Fire Marshal
38
Appendix D
Fire Department Hazard Mitigation Survey Results Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. The answers will be used to evaluate mitigation planning for the Federal Way Fire Department and in a National Fire Academy Applied Research Paper.
1. What does the term “hazard mitigation plan” mean to you? A plan to reduce the risks to people and property from natural hazards
Preventing a hazard from occurring, actions to eliminate the hazard A plan to mitigate an emergency that requires either a single resource or a regional response. To implement actions, which eliminate risk from hazards, or reduce the severity of the affects of hazards on people and property. A pre-plan of possible emergencies which might be expected to occur with tasks. A set of strategies intended to lessen the impacts and reduce the vulnerabilities associated with known hazards. A documented plan dealing with the hazard risks associated with a region or jurisdiction. The plan addresses areas identified in a hazard analysis where a jurisdiction would reduce the impact of a particular hazard.
2. Describe what you believe are the benefits to having a fire department mitigation plan.
Saves lives and property, speeds recovery We should always have a plan to deal with known or potential hazards
We can prepare resources ahead of the actual event, staffing, training, finance, etc. The leadership of the fire department working with city, and county government is of critical importance. You won’t have to wing the incident when it occurs. Training. Consistency Reduced costs of responding to preventable tragedy. Protection of life, property and environment through proper engineering. A more prepared response to high impact incidents, awareness of the hazards and impacts of those hazards.
3. Does your department have a hazard mitigation plan? In part, not totally
Our disaster plan performs the same function Yes
Yes, we fall within the scope and plan of the King County Emergency Operations Plan
Yes, we call the airports our emergency plan Yes a wide range of policies, surface water management, steep slope protection, etc.
Yes, it needs refinement and additional sections.
39
4. If the answer to question 3 was no, why not? Working on plan
Redundant N/A – 5
5. What natural and man made disasters could your department realistically expect to occur in the near future? In other words, what would a hazard vulnerability analysis identify are potential hazards in your jurisdiction.
Flood, storm, earthquake Earthquake, windstorm, winter storm, transportation, Haz Mat, flooding, terror attack.
Earthquake, storms, Haz Mat, terror attack, wildland fires, plane crash Civil disorder, drought, earthquake, energy shortage, fire, floods, food supply contamination, Haz. Mat. Landslide, severe storm, terrorism, transportation accident. Utility outage, water supply contamination. Aircraft incident, water rescue, sabotage, hijack, structural fire, bomb, MCI, natural disaster, radiological, power failure, evacuation Winter storm, earthquake, windstorm, urban fire, stream flooding, transportation, Haz. Mat. Utility failure, phone failure, etc. Flooding, earthquake, inclement weather, wildland/urban interface fire, earth filled damn failure, conflagration, civil unrest, WMD, volcanic eruption, transportation Haz. Mat.
6. Is your department prepared to deal with those hazards?
Yes 3 Not all Refer to the answer in #3.
For some of them, we are very well prepared; for others, we have a long way to go.
A qualified yes, we are dependant on the network of support from mutual aid.
7. What elements should be included in a fire department mitigation plan? Type of hazards, occurrences of hazards, locations
Response/operational expectations, how to coordinate with other agencies Fire department operations, may overlap with city manager
Respondent listed 17 elements of the King County Emergency Operations Plan, along with excepts of the plan that were considered too lengthy to include here. For the full text see the King County, Washington, Emergency Operations Plan. Definitions, facilities, jurisdictional responsibilities, procedures, communications, security, transportation, post incident procedures. Risk and vulnerability analysis, mitigation strategy list, and action plan to accomplish the strategies. Hazard identification, risk analysis, mitigation, response, and recovery.
8. Are you aware of any local, state or federal requirements for fire departments to have a hazard mitigation plan?
40
Only local jurisdiction Some state requirement (or is it FEMA)? None specific except what is noted below. King County Emergency Operations Plan No 2 The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 enacted by Congress
9. What resources would you use if you were to develop a hazard mitigation plan? Public involvement, existing plans, records
Experience of personnel NFPA, Washington administrative Code, state and federal documents, FEMA, etc. I would use the processes and resources that developed the King County Emergency Operations Plan. (Airport) FAA, other large airports or cities that have working plans. Washington Emergency Management Division brochure, census data, local planning department. Federal Comprehensive emergency Planning Guide, examples from other jurisdictions, NFA LRC.
10. Would your department be interested in developing a countywide hazard mitigation plan?
No Yes 2 Possibly 3
11. Would you like to receive a copy of the results of this survey? (If yes, please give your mailing address).
N/A Please return the completed survey form to: Jerry Thorson Or fax to 253-5297206 Federal Way Fire Department 31617 1 Ave So. Federal Way, WA 98003 Sincerely, Jerry E. Thorson Fire Marshal