Macbeth, and King Richard the Third

• Master the terminology, understand the procedures, and recognize the strategies to reduce vulnerability to hazards

• Collaborate with others to select the most appropriate mitigation strategies for a community

Though we cannot prevent hazards from occurring, we can reduce vulnerability to many natural and human-made hazards that face our communities. This chapter introduces action strategies that can increase the resiliency of a community, beginning with an outline of five broad approaches to mitigation. The chapter then details some of the advantages and disadvantages of structural engineering projects, with attention given to projects used to protect shorelines. The chapter next discusses preventative mitigation strategies, using examples such as acquisition of properties located in hazard areas and land use regulatory techniques such as zoning. The chapter describes property protection next, followed by a discussion of various tools for natural resource protection and ways of informing community members about potential hazards through public education and awareness programs. In addition, this chapter reviews some of the sources of funding that are available to communities to implement mitigation efforts at the local level. The chapter also contains a short description of some of the methods that can be used to deal with various human-made hazards. The chapter concludes by describing how a community can incorporate its mitigation strategies and actions into a local hazard mitigation plan to provide a cohesive and coordinated approach to reducing vulnerability.

Mitigation tools and techniques can be as varied as the communities that use them, and no two will use the same set of strategies. In general, there are five broad approaches to mitigation, as shown in the following table. Within each of these categories, different mitigation actions target specific types of problems. Some communities may choose to focus on one type of mitigation strategy, while other communities may use a mix-and-match approach. Whatever strategy (or combination of strategies) is used depends on various factors, such as the cost of each type of action, the technical ability of the community to put the strategy into place, and the benefit that the community will receive once the strategy is implemented. Some mitigation techniques are best suited to prevent future disasters by keeping people and property out of harm’s way before development occurs (these are strategies in the prevention category). Other categories of mitigation are more effective for protecting existing structures (such as the strategies in the property protection group) and are appropriate for areas where development has already occurred. Table 12.1 summarizes the types of mitigation strategies that communities can use as part of a comprehensive mitigation program and provides a few examples of each.

As you can see, there can be a bit of overlap between some of the categories in the chart above. Further, some strategies may fall into more than one category, while other strategies may not fit squarely into any one group. Nevertheless, while we can quibble about the details, the groupings laid out here can provide a common vocabulary to use during discussions about the wide variety of options available.

It is important to remember that mitigation strategies are not selected in a vacuum. We will discuss the process of selecting and applying mitigation strategies later in the chapter when we introduce the concept of hazard mitigation planning. For now, keep in mind that we choose a mitigation technique to solve a predetermined problem. In other words, a mitigation strategy is only effective if it actually serves to reduce a real hazard risk that has been identified during a careful risk assessment.

As we explored in Chapters 2 and 3, climate change is resulting in far reaching differences in the frequency, intensity, and variability of many natural hazards, such as flooding, drought, severe storms, and hurricanes. As we take action to reduce the risk of disasters caused by these events, we are also improving our ability to prepare for and adapt to the impacts of climate change. For example, if a community knows that they have experienced drought in the past and, because of climate change, are likely to have more severe droughts in the future, hazard mitigation techniques to address this changing vulnerability are also climate change adaptation techniques. While this chapter focuses on hazard mitigation, keep in mind the ways that hazard mitigation may also be effective in enhancing community resilience as our climate and associated weather events continue to shift.

SELF-CHECK

• Cite the five types of mitigation strategies.

• Discuss the factors involved in choosing a mitigation strategy.

• Describe how a risk assessment relates to the selection process.

For many years in the United States, the favored technique for preventing disasters was to try and control the hazard itself. It was assumed that engineering and technology could be used to armor against the forces of nature. State and federal agencies, communities, and even individual property owners have built dams, levees, seawalls, and other large projects throughout the country designed to make communities resistant to natural hazards. In many cases, these hard structures do indeed protect people and property from rising floodwaters, erosion, wave action, and other natural hazards. When communities are located in an area that depends on a particular natural resource, such as a river, it may make sense to protect residents in this way. In some places, structural projects have been in place so long that they must be maintained in order to keep the community intact. However, although some communities have benefited from structural mitigation measures, others have experienced some of the serious disadvantages associated with these projects.

While structural engineered projects are appropriate in some locations, in general, this approach to mitigation is based on a flawed assumption. By armoring communities to resist hazards, it is assumed that these communities can defeat the forces of nature. This is a never-ending proposition, one with few guarantees of success and the potential to lead to a false sense of security.

The major drawback of many structural mitigation projects is that in the process of reducing short-term risk, they can actually make future disasters worse, particularly by encouraging development in hazard-prone areas when residents feel a false sense of security. Civil engineers, planners, and others interested in flood-control management have observed that damage from floods in this country has actually gone up despite our huge investment in flood-control infrastructure.

Structural engineered projects can also reduce nature’s ability to mitigate the impacts of storms and floods. Often these negative effects are experienced at some distance from the site of the project itself. For example, levees may worsen upstream or downstream flooding by changing the natural flow and volume of a river. Groins, which are meant to protect the shore from erosion by trapping sand, can worsen erosion on neighboring beaches. Channel diversions that are built for flood-control purposes can rob surrounding wetlands and marshes of silt deposits and starve them of nutrients, reducing the floodplain’s natural capacity to absorb floodwaters. It is important to consider the wider region when thinking about structural mitigation projects to avoid simply shifting problems from one neighborhood to another.

Armoring against nature can be very expensive. Many structural projects are technically difficult and costly to build and their benefits may be short-lived. When budgets are tight, routine maintenance and repairs to levees, seawalls, and other large projects may be postponed, increasing the likelihood of failure. Few local governments can afford to build and maintain big mitigation projects, and most large-scale engineering works are funded by the federal and state governments. Federal funds are most often used for mitigation projects in areas that are of national interest, such as large ports or shipping channels, or where significant tax revenues and jobs are created, such as along the oceanfront where property values are high. Unfortunately, some of these projects are funded through “pork barrel” appropriations of federal tax dollars—when a member of Congress is able to direct large amounts of money to his or her own district, even though there may only be a direct benefit to relatively few people.

These disadvantages apply to mostly very large-scale structural projects that require complicated engineering plans and millions of dollars to construct. A description of large structural projects follows, along with potential advantages and disadvantages of each project. Not all structural projects are carried out on this scale, however. Some of the smaller projects that are carried out at the local level will also be discussed, such as storm sewers and drainage systems, where many of these disadvantages do not apply.

A dam is an artificial barrier designed to impound water, wastewater, or any liquid-borne material for the purpose of storage or flood control. Dams can be effective flood-control devices by retaining water and releasing it at a controlled rate that does not overwhelm the capacity of downstream channels. Dams are also used to maintain water depths for navigation, irrigation, water supply, hydropower, and other purposes. Reservoirs are water storage facilities that are located behind dams and are used to hold water during peak runoff periods, to serve as sources of drinking water, and to provide recreational and fishing opportunities.

Although very large dams are often owned, operated, and regulated by state or federal agencies, the majority of dams in the United States are privately owned. Dam owners are responsible for the safety and the liability of the dam and for financing its upkeep, upgrade, and repair. Most states have a dam safety program that helps monitor dams and carries out inspections on a regular basis, yet the large number of dams that are owned and controlled by private landowners makes it difficult for state and local officials to ensure their safety. In many states, the dam safety office is understaffed and underfunded, and dam officials cannot inspect all privately-owned dams in the state. Dam repair and maintenance can be costly, and many state dam safety programs do not have enforcement authority to require private dam owners to make repairs.

As with some other types of structural projects, dams and reservoirs are expensive and land-consumptive, require regular maintenance, and only prevent damage from floods for the capacity that they are designed to handle. Dams and reservoirs can have many environmental costs, such as the flooding of natural habitat when the reservoir is filled or barriers to migration of species such as salmon. Dams can eliminate the natural and beneficial function of the floodplain, including its ability to absorb flood-water. Dams can also change the hydrology of an entire watershed, causing negative impacts in areas far from the dam itself.

The potential for dam failure is an extremely serious hazard in many states. Leaks and cracks that form in ill-maintained dams can cause dam failure, resulting in very rapid flooding downstream, often with little warning, putting property and human life in grave danger. Dams can fail for one or more of the following reasons:

A series of dam failures in the 1970s caused the nation to focus on inspecting and regulating dams.

• On February 26, 1972, a tailings dam owned by the Buffalo Mining Company in Buffalo Creek, West Virginia, failed. In a matter of minutes, 125 people were killed, 1100 people were injured, and over 3000 were left homeless.

• On June 5, 1976, Teton Dam, a 123-meter high dam on the Teton River in Idaho, failed, causing $1 billion in damage and leaving 11 dead. Over 4000 homes and over 4000 farm buildings were destroyed as a result of the Teton Dam failure.

• In November 1977, Kelly Barnes dam in Georgia failed, killing 39 people, most of them college students.

The terms dike and levee are often used synonymously. Dikes are usually earthen or rock structures built partially across a river for the purpose of maintaining the depth and location of a navigation channel. Levees are earthen embankments used to protect low-lying lands from flooding. A floodwall is a reinforced concrete wall that acts as a barrier against floodwaters. Berms are barriers created by grading or filling areas with soil and are meant to keep floodwaters from reaching buildings.

To be effective, levees and similar flood-control structures must be located outside of the floodway and must make up for the flood storage they take up. Levees, dikes, and floodwalls should not be used to reclaim land in the floodplain for development.

Dikes, levees, floodwalls, and berms can cause environmental damage similar to that of dams and reservoirs. These structures can interfere with the environment’s ability to naturally mitigate floods, which it can do under normal circumstances by absorbing excess water into wetlands and low-lying areas. Levees and other floodwalls prevent floodwaters from flowing into the natural floodplain. As a result, they frequently concentrate flooding in locations upstream and downstream. These flood-control structures can also deprive wildlife and fish habitats, such as marshes and estuaries, of the water and nutrients they need to function properly.

THE FAILURE OF NEW ORLEANS LEVEES FOLLOWING HURRICANE KATRINA

For many successive generations, the tools and techniques used in New Orleans, Louisiana, for flood hazard prevention have focused on structural means through the construction of levees. Historically, the levees surrounding New Orleans and those built along the banks of the Mississippi River have repeatedly failed to keep floodwaters out.

After each successive flooding event, the levees of New Orleans have simply been built higher as a preventative measure against the next flood. The levees also work to increase the volume of water by channeling river flow into a concentrated area. These factors combine with the routine subsidence that occurs in the area due to natural soil conditions, effectively creating a never-ending challenge for the protection of New Orleans. The fact that the levees of New Orleans were breached by the forces exerted by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 is a dramatic demonstration of how levees in general are not foolproof flood protection measures. What happened in New Orleans after the levees breached is an even more telling example of the worst-case scenario, with excessive inundation of most of the city and devastation of the neighborhoods in the vicinity of the levee breaches.

As Katrina passed through the area in and surrounding New Orleans, bringing high storm surges and large amounts of rainfall, the level of Lake Pontchartrain rose rapidly, straining the entire levee system in the New Orleans area, especially in the 17th Street Canal and London Avenue Canal. On August 29, the surging water overtopped the eastern levees around New Orleans, spilling into Orleans Parish and St. Bernard Parish and pushing water up the Industrial Canal and Intracoastal Waterway.² There were breaches along the 17th Street Canal and the London Avenue Canal that day as well, resulting in flooding of 80% of New Orleans with floodwaters reaching up to 20 feet in parts of the city. It was difficult and time-consuming to repair the breaches, especially with the arrival of Hurricane Rita a short time later. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was not able to drain all of the floodwaters out of the city until October 11, 43 days after Katrina’s landfall.

There is considerable speculation as to exactly why and how the levees of New Orleans failed so completely. What is known for certain is that the Army Corps of Engineers had purposefully built the levees to a specified level known as the “Standard Project Hurricane.”³ This standard is designed to withstand up to and including a Category 3 hurricane in terms of storm surge levels and a Category 2 hurricane in terms of wind speed. As a consequence, the levees of New Orleans were not designed or constructed to withstand a strong Category 3 hurricane like Katrina. Further complications arose due to the numerous agencies that were responsible for managing the levee system after it was built, resulting in variable maintenance and repair policies and practices, and weaknesses in transition areas between jurisdictional responsibilities. These issues are in addition to the basic problems encountered by building levees on deltaic soils that are prone to subsidence, which causes levees to sink and become unstable over time. Leaks in the 17th Street Canal levee that were reported before Katrina may have been due to weakened structural components caused by this subsidence.

Continuation of a system of levees is not the only mitigation technique that is available to the City of New Orleans, although efforts to strengthen and increase the height of the levees are ongoing. The following adaption strategies were recommended for New Orleans in article in the 2002 Natural Hazards Observer, a publication of the Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center at the University of Colorado. At that time, the article recommended a variety of tools and techniques to mitigate future flood hazards, including the following:

• Protect and restore natural coastal defenses

• Upgrade levees and drainage systems to withstand Category 4 and 5 hurricanes

• Develop maps of potential flood areas that integrate local elevations, subsidence rates, and drainage capabilities

• Design and maintain flood protection based on historical and projected rates of local subsidence, rainfall, and sea level rise

• Minimize drain and fill activities, shallow subsurface fluid withdrawals, and other human developments that increase subsidence

• Improve evacuation routes to increase the ability of residents to escape an approaching hurricane

• Encourage floodproofing of buildings and infrastructure

• Encourage more homeowners and business owners to purchase National Flood Insurance Program policies⁴

A traditional approach to hurricane and coastal storm mitigation is to strengthen, reinforce, or replenish the natural environment so that it is less susceptible to the damaging forces of storms. Most hurricane-related deaths and property damage are a result of storm surges. Shoreline protection works are designed to combat storm surge and storm-induced waves. Some shoreline protection works are also designed to protect existing development from ongoing coastal erosion. However, these measures often have high costs, both in monetary and environmental terms, and should primarily be used as the last defense before abandoning existing major buildings. Some coastal states, mindful of the environmental damage and high cost of these projects, have passed legislation that prohibits most shore-hardening devices.

Beaches and dunes are the coast’s first line of defense against storm winds and waves. The sand that provides this defense is constantly moving from offshore bars to channels, to beaches and dunes, and back again in response to the natural forces of wind, waves, currents, and tides. Sand-trapping structures are designed to protect, maintain, or enhance beaches and dunes by interrupting this cycle as sand is deposited on the beaches or dunes. Some structures, such as groins or jetties, are designed to capture sand as it flows parallel to the shore, a natural process known as littoral drift. Planting and fencing are designed to capture sand as it is blown through the air. However, by interrupting the natural cycle of sand flow, these techniques can create unintended negative consequences. They may starve downstream beaches or create currents that swish sand away from the shore.

Groins are wall-like structures, built of timber, concrete, metal sheet piling, or rock placed perpendicular to the beach to capture sand moved by currents that run parallel to the shore. Usually constructed in groups called groin fields, their primary purpose is to trap and hold onto the sand, filling the beach compartments between them.

Groins are mainly designed to create a wider beach for recreational purposes and to reduce the need for sand replacement on beaches. A wider beach can help slow erosion by making storm waves break further out to sea, but it is not an effective means of protecting shorefront buildings from coastal surge or high winds. By interrupting the normal patterns of drift, groins starve downstream beaches of their diet of sand and may worsen a shoreline’s overall erosion problem.

Jetties are wall-like structures perpendicular to the coast, often in pairs, to keep sediment from building up in inlets. Inlets are natural waterways that run between barrier islands and connect the ocean to the sound, and are very important to navigation. The main function of jetties is to allow safe passage for boats.

While the primary function of jetties is to protect navigation channels, they can restrict the movement of sediment traveling parallel to the shore, even more so than groins. Jetties can also create currents that transfer sand offshore, leading to net sand loss from the beach. The effects of jetty systems are sometimes difficult to predict and frequently are not evident until years or decades later.

Seawalls are vertical coastal walls designed to protect buildings from shoreline erosion. They may or may not also protect against storm wave attacks. Bulkheads are vertical walls set back from the shoreline, often constructed of wood or steel. Unlike seawalls, bulkheads are designed to retain loose fill and sediment behind them. Despite their differences, the terms seawall and bulkhead are often used interchangeably.

Seawalls are costly to build and can block public access to the shoreline. They reflect waves and make currents more intense, which can make the profile (slope) of the beach steeper and can actually make erosion in front of the wall and on the property at both ends of the wall worse. Seawalls require continual maintenance and investment since loosened materials can become a hazard during storms. Temporary seawalls constructed from sandbags are unlikely to withstand the force of a storm and should be used only to repel normal erosion until the structure they are protecting can be relocated.

Dunes are naturally very useful to protect buildings from damage during severe storms and long-term erosion. They also prevent overwash flooding (when ocean-side waves are driven onto an island, usually through gaps in the dune field) during storms and minimize the scouring that occurs when the overwash water flows back to the sea. Dunes also shelter buildings from high winds. Dunes can be constructed artificially by trapping sand with fences or by piling sand into dunes with bulldozers. Dune stabilization is a technique for anchoring sand in dune form using plants.

Dune fields can be difficult to place in between existing beachfront homes. To provide any storm protection, dune fields must be wide, about 100 feet, and the dunes must be as high as 10 feet. There also must be no gaps between the dunes, which limits oceanfront views and public access to the beach. Dunes migrate as part of their natural life cycle. Attempts to anchor dunes in place generally result in “seawall” dunes that narrow beaches and can cause erosion at their ends. Areas with low sand supplies will have trouble in building dunes artificially.

A beach that is relatively stable or growing provides natural protection to structures behind it. Beaches that are losing sand through erosion or starvation cannot provide this natural protection. Beach nourishment is the artificial replacement or addition of sand to beaches to widen the backshore and move the high-water line further toward the sea.

Large-scale nourishment programs can be very expensive, on the order of $1–$5 million per mile per application. The frequency of nourishment required to maintain a beach is difficult to predict. Most nourishment projects along the Atlantic Ocean have a lifespan of two to ten years depending on how often storms occur. Artificially re-nourished beaches tend to erode more quickly than natural beaches.

While nourishment programs create wider beaches for recreational use, they can also unintentionally worsen the hazard risk. The sand used to nourish beaches is often taken from nearby offshore banks because these banks offer a less expensive source of matching sand. But robbing these banks is shortsighted, since they act as an offshore “speed bump.” The result is that larger waves reach the shore, causing more severe erosion. Nourishment programs may also spur oceanfront development, putting even more structures at risk.

SELF-CHECK

• List six ways dams can fail.

• Explain how structural engineering projects can encourage development of hazard-prone areas.

• Discuss the environmental costs of large-scale engineering projects such as dams.

Not all structural mitigation projects are huge and expensive. On a smaller scale—at the community level—structural projects are usually designed by engineers and managed by public works staff and include such necessary actions as the construction and maintenance of stormwater and sanitary sewer systems, as well as drainage and pipe systems.

A number of floods occur in urban areas for the simple reason that drainage systems are not built with the capacity to handle stormwater runoff. Runoff is rainwater that does not soak into the soil, evaporate, or become trapped by plant roots, and thus flows over the surface of the ground into the first depression, stream, lake, or other low-lying area it meets. Stormwater systems are designed to catch runoff and channel it into a series of drains and pipes to a catch basin or other containment device. When drainage systems are installed, a community should make sure that culverts, ditches, channels, pipes, and all other components are built with enough capacity to meet the volume of stormwater that is expected during normal above-average rainfalls.

When designing a new or updated stormwater system, a community would do well to anticipate any changes that could occur to flood levels due to future development and growth. Increased development usually brings an increase in impervious surfaces—paved areas that rainwater cannot soak through, such as parking lots, roofs, streets, and other nonporous surfaces—resulting in a greater volume of water entering the stormwater system. Rapid urbanization that is not well planned can quickly overwhelm a community’s ability to manage increased levels of stormwater runoff.

Drainage systems will not continue to function properly without a well-planned, ongoing preventive maintenance program of inspection, desilting, and repair. Maintenance work can be expensive, but not nearly as expensive as fixing flooding problems. Problematic roadside ditches, storm-water intakes, drains, and water courses should be inspected on a regular basis, especially before and during the rainy season. Some municipalities use closed-circuit television to monitor existing drains where human-entry inspections are not possible.

Traditional municipal stormwater management and flood-control projects involve hard, invasive techniques that disturb natural urban stream channels. Some communities are choosing alternative methods, typically referred to as Green Infrastructure or Low Impact Development techniques, including soil bioengineering, the use of vegetation along streams to slow runoff, and other nontraditional ways to stabilize stream banks and control floodwaters. Some communities also restrict the amount of impervious surface and encourage innovative solutions such as green roofs, where small trees, shrubs, and other plantings are grown on rooftops to filter and soak up rainwater before it meets the drainage system. These and other types of approaches can improve water quality as they reduce flood hazards, and can also add to the beauty of a community.

Mitigation practice is moving away from focusing only on engineering approaches as a way of reducing hazard impacts. Experience has shown that while the actions described above might work in the short term, their long-term effectiveness is often questionable. Many structural projects are expensive to build and maintain. They can be vulnerable to sudden failure, and they encourage development to take place in their shadow. Structural approaches can cause unintended damage to the environment or to people downstream. Strategies with long-term costs that outweigh their benefits are unsustainable, and over the long run such actions can decrease rather than increase community resiliency. Mitigation experts are tending toward activities that are more sustainable, such as the prevention, natural resource protection, and property protection strategies that we will discuss next.

SELF-CHECK

• Define runoff and impervious surface.

• Explain the relationship between urban flooding and maintenance of drainage systems.

• Discuss the long-term effectiveness of structural engineering projects.

Over the long term, the most sustainable approach to minimize damages and losses from natural hazards is to guide development away from hazard-prone areas. This means not building in floodplains, avoiding steep-slope and landslide areas, and setting development back from high-erosion coastal areas. In other words, we try to avoid disasters altogether by removing people and property from the location where the built environment intersects with hazard events. This section described three ways of preventing disasters:

1. The most direct way to prevent future disasters is through public acquisition of hazard land: paying the owners to leave and then demolishing or relocating any buildings located on the site.

2. A second method to prevent disasters involves local land use regulations, such as zoning, subdivision ordinances, and setback regulations to prohibit future building in known hazard areas.

3. A third method involves the community’s power to spend public money for capital improvements in order to discourage development in hazard areas and to encourage development in safer areas.

The prevention approach is most useful when other, safer development locations are available in the community to which growth can be steered. Communities that have reached build-out—the upper limit of the area’s capacity to absorb additional development—are more limited in their options for using prevention strategies, although there are ways that the local government can encourage new structures to be built on existing lots (a practice called infill) in safe locations. Prevention techniques apply only to hazards that can be geographically delineated and located on a map (flooding, for example). They are less effective for hazards that are not locally geographically specific. These hazards require different types of mitigation strategies, since the hazard might occur anywhere and everywhere in the community, such as tornadoes or ice storms.

By acquiring property in hazardous areas, a community can ensure that the land will be used only for purposes that are compatible with the hazard. Picnic shelters and dog parks, for example, are a better choice for the flood-plain than homes and shops. Although acquisition is typically one of the most expensive mitigation tactics, in the long run, acquisition can be very cost effective. Through acquisition, the local government takes ownership of privately held residential or business property that has been subjected to repeated hazards, most often flooding. Acquisition can be accompanied by relocation, when the owner’s home is moved to a safer location, or demolition, if the structure cannot be moved or it is not cost effective to do so.

Although buyout programs require an initial outlay of thousands, sometimes millions, of dollars (depending upon the price and number of homes involved, over the long term these funds are paid back in full through cost savings realized by avoiding future disasters. Initially, since title to the acquired property is transferred to the public domain, acquisition can remove properties from the tax rolls, so that the local government can no longer collect real estate taxes on that property, a major source of revenue for most communities. However, the cost of losing tax revenue from these properties is usually much lower compared to the cost of repairing and rebuilding homes repeatedly after they are damaged during hazard events. The local government also avoids the expense of rescue and recovery operations, emergency sheltering, and financial assistance that arises when residents are displaced due to a disaster. Cost savings are also realized since the local government no longer is responsible for providing municipal services (such as garbage pickup and road maintenance) to these properties once they are acquired. Over the long term, acquisition allows communities to save a great deal by preventing repetitive losses.

Communities have put their acquired properties to any number of uses, such as parks, greenways, open space, tennis courts, ballfields, nature preserves, and community gardens, to name but a few. These new uses can serve the community in multiple ways, including protecting habitat, enhancing water quality, conserving open space, and contributing to the beauty and recreational opportunities of the area.

Acquiring contiguous lots—for example, all the parcels on a street or in an entire neighborhood—provides the greatest long-term benefit to the community. A piece-meal approach, where properties are acquired in a higgledy-piggledy fashion, may not lend itself to effective reuse of the land. But since buyout programs that are supported by federal funds (which covers the vast majority of buyout projects nationwide) involve willing sellers who voluntarily commit to the acquisition and relocation process, there have been some unfortunate cases where a lone structure remains in the midst of otherwise open space. This “snaggle-tooth” approach can diminish the overall reduction in vulnerability of the hazard-prone area. In general, however, a well-crafted acquisition program can serve as a very effective mitigation strategy for communities that have experienced repeated flooding.

Another effective method of preventing disasters is to keep people and property from locating in known hazard areas before these areas become developed. Communities carry this out by adopting a land use plan or comprehensive plan that creates a vision of how the community wants to grow, and then passing ordinances that follow the plan to control where and how property can be developed. The ordinances are typically implemented through the permitting process, whereby the land owner or developer must abide by the rules in exchange for a permit that allows the development to take place. This section discusses some of the more commonly used types of regulation that local governments can use to control growth in hazardous locations, including zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and setbacks.

The majority of local governments in the United States use zoning as a tool to control the use of land within their jurisdiction. The local government is authorized to divide its jurisdiction into districts, and to regulate and restrict the construction and use of buildings within each of those districts. Land uses controlled by zoning include the type of use (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) as well as minimum specifications such as lot size, building height, street setbacks, density of population (how many people can be accommodated in one area), and other elements of development.

A local zoning ordinance consists of maps and written text. Some communities have made good use of their zoning ordinances by showing hazard areas on the map. The corresponding text of the ordinance may require that these areas permit low-intensity uses such as recreation, open or green space, or agriculture. Zoning can also be used to prohibit environmentally hazardous uses, such as junkyards and chemical facilities in areas exposed to natural hazards. At the same time, a zoning ordinance can be used to encourage development in safe areas, by allowing greater density in parts of the community that are not subject to hazards.

Subdivision regulations control land that is being divided into smaller parcels for sale or development. Subdivision ordinances typically set out construction and location standards for lot layout and for infrastructure such as roads, drainage systems, sidewalks, lighting, and the like. Subdivision ordinances are not as broad as zoning and only indirectly affect land use. Nonetheless, subdivision regulations have been used to limit development on hazardous land, especially flood-prone property and wildfire hazard areas. Subdivision ordinances can require increased distances between structures and hazard areas, and can set limits for the amount of impervious surfaces to control stormwater flow. Subdivision ordinances are also useful for clustering development, so that homes are more densely located in safer areas, while flood-plains, high-erosion areas, and firebreak zones are left clear of development.

SUBDIVIDING IN COLORADO, CALIFORNIA, AND OREGON

In Colorado, local governments require subdivision applicants to prepare drainage plans to prevent flooding and erosion. In California, municipalities require subdividers to incorporate wildfire suppression facilities in the development plans. In Portland, Oregon, developers must locate public facilities and utilities, such as sewer and water systems, in a way that minimizes flood damage.

Setback regulations establish a minimum distance between a hazard area and the portion of the lot that may be built upon. Ocean shoreline setbacks are designed to prevent damage to structures from coastal storms and regular erosion. Fault-zone setbacks work in a similar fashion, establishing the distance that construction can take place from a known fault line to prevent damage to structures from earthquakes.

A major problem with setbacks is that some communities grant too many variances (exceptions that allow development to go ahead, even though the rules prohibit it), which weakens the regulations’ effectiveness. Some variances are granted to homeowners who want to rebuild their oceanfront homes after a major storm has reduced the amount of beachfront on the lot. Constitutional issues can arise when state and local officials deny a permit to build or rebuild based on the setback. Some of the constitutional issues associated with setback regulations are discussed in earlier chapters.

Local governments are empowered to spend public money for public purposes such as capital improvements, which include physical assets such as bridges, police stations, schools, recreation centers, and similar community facilities. Most local governments plan for these big-ticket items with a capital improvement program (CIP). The CIP lays out the government’s intentions to provide public facilities over the next five to ten years, and specifies where they will be located and when and how they will be built.

12.5.4.1 Using Capital Improvement Plans to Protect Public Facilities from Hazards

Communities can protect public facilities by requiring that capital improvements not be built in known hazard areas. Such careful siting can protect lifelines and critical facilities and can also reduce public expense for repair and reconstruction of public structures that might be damaged during hazard events. Local governments can also use capital improvement and maintenance programs to require that public facilities be built using durable materials and constructed in ways that make them strong enough to withstand the impacts of hazards.

12.5.4.2 Using Capital Improvement Plans to Steer Private Development from Hazard Areas

In addition to using the capital improvement plan to limit damage to public structures, local governments can also use the spending power to discourage growth and private development in hazardous areas. By limiting the availability of public services such as roads, schools, water and sewer lines and other infrastructure that is necessary to support development, the community can make it much more expensive and difficult for a developer to build in hazardous areas. Many communities enact prohibitions on extensions of services to outlying areas in an attempt to curb urban sprawl. Local governments can also use capital improvement planning to encourage growth and development to take place in desirable sections of the community where hazards are not present. However, capital improvement programs have not been used extensively for hazard mitigation purposes, even in highly hazardous, fast-growing areas. In the rare instances that capital improvement spending has been used as a mitigation tool, it is only effective when used in combination with other land use regulations and planning.⁵

SELF-CHECK

• Define variance.

• Describe three disaster-preventive tools.

• Explain the costs and benefits associated with land acquisition as a mitigation strategy.

In a perfect world, communities would be built in locations that are never exposed to the impacts of hazards. But when hazards cannot be avoided, it is imperative to reduce potential disaster losses by strengthening buildings and facilities so they can better withstand hazard impacts. Local governments can encourage or in some instances require property owners to take steps that will improve the hazard resilience of homes and businesses. Local governments can also make sure that public facilities, such as sewage treatment plants, fire and police stations, schools, libraries, government buildings, water and power distribution lines, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure are built to high standards that make them less vulnerable.

From studying structures that were damaged during past disasters, we now understand many of the factors that can contribute to property damage, including the following:

• Poor framing (causes structures to be vulnerable to high winds, snow loads, and earthquakes)

• Inadequate anchoring (contributes to instability during earthquakes and susceptibility to high winds)

• Pilings and supports that are not buried deep enough (making structures vulnerable to erosion and the scouring action of storm surge)

• Low-quality building materials (increasing vulnerability to multiple hazards)

• Shoddy workmanship (significantly weakens structures against all types of hazards)

Some of the ways that communities can combat these deficiencies and make sure that buildings are able to withstand hazard conditions include strengthening buildings and facilities, enforcing building codes, and municipal improvements. The following sections explore these methods of property protection.

Among the many types of mitigation strategies that are used to strengthen buildings and facilities, four techniques are described in this chapter: (1) elevation, (2) floodproofing, (3) windproofing, and (4) seismic retrofitting.

Many communities have successfully used elevation to reduce future flood losses while allowing property owners to remain in the same location. Elevation-in-place also works for some public facilities and buildings. Elevation is most commonly done by placing a building on stilts or piles, with open space underneath. The lowest habitable floor of an elevated building is typically raised above the 100-year flood level, so that rising water flows under the building without harming the structure. Along the ocean-front, elevation many also mean raising the building above expected storm surge and wave heights.

One less expensive way to reduce flood damage is to elevate just the HVAC equipment, such as furnaces and hot water heaters. This equipment can often be moved to an upper floor or attic. However, relocating HVAC systems is likely to involve plumbing and electrical changes. Electrical system components, such as service panels (fuse boxes and circuit breakers), switches, meters, and outlets should also be elevated at least one foot above the 100-year flood. These components easily suffer water damage and can short and cause fires. By elevating electrical and mechanical equipment, buildings can often be habitable more quickly and less expensively after a flooding event.

There are two major types of floodproofing. Dry floodproofing means that all areas below flood level are made watertight. With wet floodproofing, floodwaters are intentionally allowed to enter a building to reduce the pressure exerted by deep water. The property owner floodproofs the interior by removing water-sensitive items from parts of the building that are expected to flood. Backflow valves (also referred to as “check valves”) can help homeowners prevent the reverse flow of sewage into the house by temporarily blocking drainpipes.

Although floodproofing makes construction more expensive, it can be an effective mitigation tool and provides a high level of protection from water damage. Dry floodproofing is typically done by coating walls with waterproof compounds of plastic sheeting and protecting building openings with removable shields or sandbags. Dry floodproofing cannot extend more than two or three feet above the foundation of the building because the pressure exerted by deeper water would collapse most walls and floors.

Windproofing involves designing and constructing buildings to withstand wind damage. Windproofing typically involves improvements to the aerodynamics of a structure, the materials used in its construction, or adding features such as storm shutters and shatter-resistant windowpanes. Windproofing can also help protect a building’s occupants and their possessions from broken glass and flying objects.

Residential structures are never completely windproof, but can be made wind-resistant. Construction techniques that can increase resistance without significantly increasing the cost include fairly simple techniques such as using larger than usual timbers, using bolts instead of nails, and installing hurricane clips or reinforcing roof braces. These techniques can help prevent roofs or even entire buildings from coming loose during high wind events and becoming flying projectiles that cause further damage to neighboring structures and endanger human life.

Seismic construction involves designing and building new structures to withstand the shaking force of an earthquake. It also includes nonstructural improvements to the inside of buildings to reduce earthquake damage. The cost of including seismic techniques during the building process can be relatively minor, such as adding reinforcing rods to concrete or using wood frame with brick veneer rather than all brick when building new homes.

In contrast, retrofitting existing buildings is often a more challenging process. Rebuilding is vastly more expensive than incorporating design improvements during initial construction. Seismic retrofitting may be a low priority for the public in areas that are rarely affected by serious earthquakes. But even in these areas, inexpensive tactics can go a long way to reducing earthquake risk.

Structural improvements to buildings typically include adding braces and removing overhangs. Bridges, water towers, and other nonoccupied structures can also be retrofitted with earthquake-resistant materials. Sources of secondary damage, such as sprinkler pipes, water connections, and gas service lines that can rupture during a quake should be secured or fitted with shutoff valves. Fuel tanks and their supply lines should be securely anchored so that they do not become dislodged by earthquakes.

Nonstructural mitigation techniques include securing bookcases, computer monitors, and light fixtures to the wall; covering glass windows with shatter-resistant film; and locating hazardous materials where they are less likely to be spilled during an earthquake.

An effective way of protecting buildings from hazard impacts is through strict enforcement of a stringent building code. Building codes are laws, ordinances, and regulations that set forth standards and requirements for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, operation, occupancy, use, and appearance of buildings. Building codes usually require a certain level of fire resistance and also regulate for earthquake, flooding, and high wind impacts in order to save lives and reduce building collapse.

Strict compliance with the letter as well as the spirit of the building code is essential so that structures are built as safe as possible. Strict enforcement is especially critical in the aftermath of a disaster. It is understandable that residents and property owners want to rebuild their homes and businesses as quickly as possible following a hurricane or other large-scale event. Political pressure may be put on building officials in the post-disaster period to expedite the permitting process. However, this urge to get back to normalcy should not be indulged at the sacrifice of public health and safety.

SHODDY WORKMANSHIP MAKES FOR HUGE LOSSES

In August 1992, more than 75,000 homes and 8000 businesses were destroyed or severely damaged by Hurricane Andrew, a storm with sustained winds over 120 miles per hour. Damage reports following the storm showed that Andrew caused more damage to recently built structures than to those built before 1980! Much of the damage was attributed to the widespread practice of shoddy workmanship, poor design, and lax enforcement of the building codes. Following Hurricane Andrew, Florida’s building code was modified to require glass that can withstand high velocity impact from wind-borne debris and hurricane-strapped roof tresses to make structures more resistant to wind-related damage.

In addition to strengthening buildings and facilities, there are other techniques communities can use to protect public facilities, such as burial of utilities and routine pruning. These steps are described below.

Burying utility lines underground can help keep power and telecommunications running during a hazard event, particularly during high winds and winter storms. During normal weather conditions, underground systems can also be more reliable than overhead systems, with fewer interruptions. However, the gain in reliability is offset by an increase in repair time, because specialized crews must identify and locate the problem, dig the area, and repair the cable. During severe weather events, such as hurricanes and ice storms, customers with underground facilities are less likely to be interrupted, but may be among the last to have power restored when there is an underground failure.

Burying existing overhead lines is often expensive, and can take years to complete. Customers might see their utility bills go up as much as 125% to cover the cost of burial and to cover the higher operation and maintenance costs. However, the costs of burying utility lines in newly developed areas can be a cost-effective alternative.^*

Pruning is the thinning of trees and tall bushes that interfere with utility lines. Pruning not only removes branches that pose an immediate threat to power lines, it also strengthens trees and makes them less likely to topple over or drop heavy branches on power lines, cars, and buildings during high winds or ice storms. Pruning requires near constant effort to keep up with the rate of new growth. Where the public right-of-way is not wide enough to allow for sufficient pruning, communities can purchase or lease additional rights-of-way. Communities can choose to plant wind-resistant species of trees and plants and to plant larger stands of trees, which are less vulnerable to windfall than widely separated trees.

SELF-CHECK

• Define retrofitting.

• List three ways of protecting property from hazards.

• Cite four strategies used to strengthen buildings.

• Discuss ways of protecting utilities and public facilities.

A community’s wetlands, hillsides, shorelines, floodplains, riparian areas, forests, and habitats can provide important and cost-effective eco-services and benefits, not the least of which is hazard mitigation. Often, the best way to reduce vulnerability of people and property is to preserve a healthy, well-functioning ecosystem.

Wetlands are areas that naturally flood with water at least a portion of the year, and are some of the most dynamic, valuable, and diverse ecosystems on earth. Wetlands serve as natural flood controls by storing tremendous amounts of floodwaters and slowing and reducing downstream flows. The federal government, along with state and local governments, protects wetlands through regulations and permitting requirements for dredge and fill activities, as well as acquisition and purchase of easements in wetland areas. For further discussion of wetland regulation, see Chapter 7.

Over the past century, coastal and inland watersheds of the United States have changed dramatically. Up to 80% of wetlands in some locations have been converted to agriculture and urbanization. In other areas, the construction of massive flood-control structures designed to keep rivers from switching channels in their natural meandering patterns has resulted in a restriction of sediment flow and freshwater supplies to many floodplains and deltas.

Among the human actions that physically alter, degrade, or destroy wetlands are conversion to agriculture; clearing for development; draining for irrigation; dredging for navigation, energy exploration, and extraction; and the construction of levees, dikes, and dams. Wetlands are also commonly degraded through water and air pollution, introduction of invasive (nonnative) species, sedimentation, and changes in temperature and salinity. In the future, sea level rise may be the most serious long-term threat to wetlands in the coastal zone, due to inundation as well as saltwater intrusion caused by a rising water table. A sizable portion of coastal wetlands may be inundated if even the mildest of sea level predictions comes true.

Most slopes greater than 15° have enough soil and loose rock to cause a landslide. Landslide risk greatly increases when steep slopes and loose soils are drenched with water, from torrential rainfall, broken water pipes, or misdirected runoff.

Soil conservation and steep-slope preservation are measures that place restrictions on the grading of hillsides and impose limits on development of landslide-risk areas. Some methods of slope stabilization involve changes to the structure of the slope, such as reducing the steepness of the grade. Other techniques involve planting vegetation to help anchor loose rubble and soil. Because water greatly increases the risk of landslides, wise water management can help reduce the hazards associated with steep slopes. One method is to cover the surface with impermeable material to prevent water from reaching the loose material beneath it. However, this technique will increase stormwater runoff and may create flood hazards downhill. A better approach is to redirect stormwater or install a subsurface drainage system.

SELF-CHECK

• Name two ways of mitigating through natural resource protection.

• Explain the mitigation benefit of wetland preservation.

Often, the key to building a resilient community is educating the public about the nature and consequences of hazards. As citizens, elected officials, planners, builders, emergency managers, school children, and others in the community learn about the hazards around them, they can also learn about the steps that can be taken to minimize injuries and death, damage to property, and economic losses. There are many methods for informing the public about hazards and mitigation, including hazard mapping, disclosure requirements during real estate sales, disaster warning systems, and community awareness campaigns.

Some communities choose to relay information about local hazards by publishing maps. Mapping of hazards includes inventories of at-risk populations, hazardous areas, hazardous structures, and environmentally sensitive areas. Hazard maps can range in sophistication from simple paper maps that show the outlines of hazardous areas (e.g., storm surge inundation zones) to multilayered computerized maps created through a geographic information system (GIS). GIS supports the inventory and analysis of spatial data related to the location and characteristics of hazardous areas, demographic data, characteristics of the built environment, and other factors that are necessary to mitigation and preparedness efforts.

Hazard maps are often made available to the public for viewing in local government offices. Many communities make their maps accessible over the Internet through links from a municipal or county website so that new and current residents have access to the maps at any time at relatively little cost. Using web-based maps also facilitates dissemination of up-to-date and interactive mapping information. Maps that clearly portray the extent of hazard exposure a community faces can create an awareness and understanding among local officials, as well as the general public, that often is more vivid than other methods of information dissemination. These graphic depictions of community vulnerability can be worth a thousand words, and can serve to notify residents of where the dangers lie in relation to both public and private property. A map of the town’s property tax base overlaid with hazard maps of storm surge or flood zones, for example, can be a real eye-opener. When the intersection of the built environment with the potential hazard area is illustrated on a map, it can highlight the need for management practices that will reduce the community’s level of vulnerability.

USING GIS TO PROJECT FLOODING FROM FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

Planners and engineers of the Charlotte–Mecklenburg Storm Water Service in North Carolina use GIS technology to create computer models of the impact of future flood events and to assess the impact of various land use, development patterns, and growth scenarios. In fact, by conducting a build-out analysis, they are able to predict the floodplain assuming the city is fully developed based on current zoning. The department uses the GIS data to choose the most appropriate stormwater flood-control measures in the floodplains of the metropolitan area.

Hazard Maps can be used to define the boundaries within which hazards must be disclosed during real estate transactions. Real estate disclosure laws require that the buyer and lender be notified if a property is located in a hazard-prone area. Supporters of disclosure laws claim that a better-informed marketplace should result in better decision making—lenders will be hesitant to extend credit in hazard areas, and well-informed purchasers will choose to avoid purchasing in hazard areas, demand a lower price, or require mitigation as a bargaining chip. Only a handful of states have mandated real estate disclosure about natural hazards. Federally regulated lending institutions (which include the vast majority of banks and mortgage issuers in the United States) are required to advise applicants for a mortgage or other loan if the building is in the floodplain as shown on an official Flood Insurance Rate Map.

Notification may not have much of an impact on home buyers if the notification of the hazard risk occurs too late in the real estate process. For instance, federal lending laws require that flood hazard notification must be made five days before closing, by which time the applicant has usually signed a contract or has otherwise committed to purchasing the property.

Local real estate boards can help make notification practices more effective by requiring that newcomers be advised about hazard risks thoroughly and early in the home-buying process. Real estate boards may also require homeowners to disclose past disaster events, whether or not the property is in a mapped high-risk zone. However, sellers in many states retain the option to make no representation about the hazard risks or about past hazard events, including flooding, erosion, or coastal storms that have affected the property.

Disaster warnings are critical for protecting residents from flash floods, dam breaks, thunderstorms, winter weather, tornadoes, and other rapid-onset hazards. Many disaster warnings are issued through the National Weather Service and are disseminated to the public in numerous ways, including sirens, radio, television, mobile public-address systems, telephone trees, reverse 911 systems, and door-to-door contact. Posted signs can be used to identify risks at a particular site. Informational signs have been installed in riptide areas along the coast, tsunami inundation areas, in falling rock and landslide-risk zones, areas of localized flooding, and other hazard areas.

Many people fail to respond to emergency warnings of imminent disaster, and even fewer residents heed warnings that are projected further into the future. Individuals ignore warnings for a variety of psychological or social reasons, including the following:

• Warnings in the past might have proven unwarranted (i.e., the hazard they were warned about never actually happened)⁵

Even though communities cannot single-handedly change the fatalistic outlook or combat all of the psychological factors that lead people to ignore warnings and cautionary words, community awareness programs can be used to directly educate the general public about hazard risks and mitigation strategies. Information can be presented in a number of ways, including outreach projects, hazard information centers and kiosks, school-age education workshops, and other means of spreading the word.

General awareness campaigns can include a wide variety of topics, such as practical information specific to the community and individual households. Residents should be informed about ways they can limit exposure, how they can retrofit their property to reduce damage, items to pack for any type of emergency, and local evacuation routes and procedures. Awareness campaigns can also cover information that the public should know about how their community fits into a larger environment, such as how uncontrolled floodplain use impacts downstream neighbors, they ways in which wetlands naturally absorb and filter flood waters, barrier island and inlet migration, and how dunes protect inland areas from wave action and storm surge.

General awareness programs have a mixed record for building public support for hazard mitigation and preparedness activities. More successful are self-help programs with a narrow scope, such as residential floodproofing workshops or property insurance informational sessions. Some communities have successfully teamed with local building supply and home improvement stores to provide consumers with information about mitigation building techniques. For example, large retailers including The Home Depot and Lowes have held mitigation expos and preparedness fairs in several coastal areas. These events are often strategically timed to take place in early summer, just before hurricane season begins. Demonstrations of mitigation techniques—for example, how to place plywood sheets over windows to protect glass against high winds—highlight supplies available for sale in the store, while educating and motivating customers to turn their DIY (do-it-yourself) energy toward home protection, as well as home improvement.

FUN WITH MAPS

During the 1999 hurricane season, New Hanover County in Coastal North Carolina distributed hurricane tracking maps that allowed users to trace the paths of hurricanes as they crossed the Atlantic Ocean. The user-friendly maps, which had information about household preparedness and evacuation routes, proved very popular and helped increase awareness of the number of hurricanes that make landfall or come close to the state’s coast each year.

SELF-CHECK

• Explain how public information is an effective hazard mitigation technique.

• Discuss obstacles to disaster warning systems.

• Give an example of a community awareness campaign.

There is no doubt that communities can incur significant costs in implementing many of the mitigation tactics mentioned in this chapter. Local government officials must balance many competing interests when deciding how to distribute limited resources. Hot-button issues such as crime control, education, affordable housing, public transit, homelessness, and health services often grab the immediate attention of voters. Many local government budgets are stretched thin in meeting the urgent needs of citizens, and mitigation may receive low priority, particularly if the community has not experienced a hazard event in the recent past. However, it is a well-accepted principle in planning and emergency management circles that current dollars invested in mitigation greatly reduce the demand for future dollars by reducing the amount needed for emergency response, recovery, and reconstruction following a disaster. Keeping businesses open, residents in their homes, and basic services operating following an emergency results in economic security and social stability for local communities. Financial resources that are directed toward lowering risk represent money well spent.

State and federal aid is a large part of many local government revenue streams. The vast majority of buyouts, elevation projects, and other expensive mitigation activities are paid for with federal funds, through programs such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program, and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program. Other funding sources include the Small Business Administration Disaster Assistance Program and Community Development Block Grants issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Most of these programs are available to communities after the President of the United States has issued a disaster declaration for the area. Some programs, such as the PDM and FMA programs administered by FEMA are not tied to a disaster declaration, and local governments may apply for this funding annually. You can find descriptions of these and other federal programs in Chapter 6.

In addition to disaster assistance programs, other federal and state programs may fund mitigation activities, even though the programs are not directly related to hazards. Mitigation goals can often be coupled with other objectives, such as affordable housing, pollution prevention, water quality protection, natural resource preservation, wildlife conservation, and other mutual interests. For instance, wetland restoration funding may be available from the federal EPA, soil and water loans may be granted by the U.S. Farm Service Agency, and watershed protection grants may come from the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Although these programs may not have natural hazards mitigation as a primary objective, they can often provide an opportunity to fund hazard mitigation as a side benefit.

Many federal grant programs require the local government to contribute what is known as a nonfederal match—usually a percentage of the total grant amount awarded—that must come from another source. This is true of many federal hazard mitigation grants. Local or state funds can be used to meet the match, although federal funds from another source cannot.

When the state does not provide the needed match, local governments applying for grants can often meet the nonfederal match with in-kind contributions instead of cash outlays. In-kind resources can consist of labor or salaries paid to local staff to carry out the mitigation activities (such as project managers, engineers, planners, and public works crews). In-kind contributions can also include donated services, supplies, equipment, and office space. Partnerships and coalitions formed with other organizations can also be a source of in-kind resources.

PAY AS YOU FLOW

Tulsa, Oklahoma, has established a stable financing source to pay for its stormwater management program. Each home and business in the watershed is assessed a monthly stormwater fee as part of its utility bill. Businesses are assessed based on the amount of impervious surface. The fee raises over $8 million a year, which the city uses to pay for enforcement of regulations on new development, a master drainage plan for the city, and acquiring lands along creek beds to be used as biking and hiking trails.

SELF-CHECK

• Define nonfederal match and in-kind contribution.

• List five local sources of mitigation funding.

• Cite five sources of federal and state funding for mitigation.

Although outside sources of funding pay for the bulk of large mitigation projects, many creative local governments are becoming more self-reliant when it comes to paying for mitigation activities. Local governments have used a variety of sources, including capital budgets, taxation and special assessments, municipal bonds, utility and permitting fees, and partnerships with nonprofit organizations to fund mitigation activities.

Local governments can also study their annual operating budgets carefully to see where mitigation can fit into ongoing community programs. Often a change in spending priorities is all that is needed to finance some mitigation ideas. And sometimes, the most effective mitigation activities require no new money at all, just a shift in thinking so that the community includes mitigation principles in day-to-day operations and decision making.

Instead of preventing human-made disasters by avoiding hazardous locations, it is necessary to create a built environment that is protected from attack or is better able to withstand an attack or hazardous materials accident. This can be achieved through target hardening and other strategies. It is also possible to carry out public awareness campaigns so that members of the community are better informed about ways to protect themselves, their families, and their businesses from various types of human-made hazards.

Target-hardening strategies can be fairly simple—for example, installing security fencing around an HVAC system’s air intake to avoid the insertion of poisonous gas. Target hardening can also be more elaborate, such as blocking off large areas as buffer zones around particularly sensitive buildings. Some of the strategies that are appropriate for mitigating natural hazard impacts can also be used to increase protection against man-made hazards. For example, some types of earthquake mitigation techniques may also strengthen a building against the effects of a bomb blast. Mitigation against wildfire can protect structures from incendiary devices. And property protection measures that strengthen buildings against high winds may help mitigate the impact of an explosion. Table 12.2 gives a few examples of the type of strategies that can be used to mitigate the impacts of human-made hazards.⁶

All of the mitigation strategies described in this chapter are put to their best advantage as part of a comprehensive mitigation plan. Hazard mitigation planning is the most effective way of establishing a community’s commitment to mitigation goals, objectives, policies, and programs. By expressing what a community hopes to achieve, the plan can be an important connection between the public interest that is being served and the mitigation strategy to be put in action. A plan can help a local community avoid the uncoordinated and often inconsistent results of an ad hoc, project-by-project attempt at mitigation by identifying what it wants to do before a hazard event occurs. That way, as soon as money is available and the opportunity arises, the community can implement mitigation strategies more efficiently.

Not only does a local mitigation plan make sense, it is also required by law that local governments have an approved mitigation plan in place before they can receive certain types of federal disaster assistance. This includes funds from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, two significant FEMA funding sources.

According to the Disaster Mitigation Act, the primary purpose of hazard mitigation planning is to identify community policies, strategies, and tools for action over the long term that will reduce risk and the potential for future losses throughout the community. The FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Handbook lays out nine tasks that comprise this process:

Each of the nine major steps in the hazard mitigation planning process is described in the following section of this chapter. For a more detailed description of these steps, you can download the planning guidance from the FEMA website.⁷ In addition to the FEMA Handbook, the Beyond the Basics website (www.mitigationguide.org) provides guidance and examples from a variety of communities around the country of high quality mitigation planning.

Local governments can prepare a mitigation plan for their jurisdiction independently, known as a single-jurisdictional plan. Alternatively, communities may develop a mitigation plan in conjunction with other communities in a multijurisdictional planning process. In many cases, multijurisdictional plans are coordinated at the county level. Multijurisdictional plans are acceptable under the FEMA requirements as long as each jurisdiction participates in the process and officially adopts the plan. Both single and multijurisdictional plans present their own benefits and challenges, so in deciding which approach is right for your community, it will be important to weigh the costs versus the opportunities.

Establishing a mitigation plan in conjunction with other jurisdictions may increase the pool of resources—human, technical, and financial—available to complete the planning effort. But regardless of whether your community pursues a single- or multijurisdictional plan, many external resources exist to facilitate the process. For example, many regional planning agencies can provide expertise, as can local universities with planning or emergency management degree programs. Private consultants are also available to assist in the coordination, facilitation, and execution of the mitigation planning process. See the FEMA Handbook for criteria to weigh when selecting a consultant.

Before embarking on the planning process itself, the community must establish the commitment and political will to see the plan through to the end. Planning can be a protracted procedure, and sustaining support is critical to its success. An important component of garnering the necessary support depends on the knowledge base of the community at large. A certain level of understanding about hazard mitigation planning and risk reduction is necessary for a successful outcome. There must also be a general awareness of the hazards the community faces and of the need to do something about them. Of course, the planning process itself will serve an educational role as participants in the process become more knowledgeable about their community’s vulnerability and ways to decrease it, but an assessment of how much citizens and elected and/or appointed officials actually know about hazards from the outset can help direct later steps in the most efficient and effective manner.

The planning team that will develop the hazard mitigation plan should be made up of local staff that have the authority to carry out the detailed studies as well as the analysis and policy recommendations that are part of the planning process. Many communities establish an advisory committee or task force to meet regularly and oversee the mitigation planning process. It is also important to coordinate with other agencies within the local government and with other jurisdictions. This is particularly important if the plan is to be a multijurisdictional plan, that is, one that covers all the local governments in a county or region.

In order to solicit adequate public participation in the mitigation planning process, it is critical for a community to express what it wants to accomplish through its outreach efforts, who to involve in the hazard mitigation plan, and how and when to effectively engage the community. An outreach strategy will help pinpoint the stakeholders and members of the public to target, and identify methods of bringing them into the planning process.

FEMA recommends that, at a minimum, the stakeholders that must be included in the planning process are neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia, and other private and nonprofit interests. Moreover, FEMA recommends soliciting participation from local cultural institutions and elected officials and planning commission members.

In addition to these key stakeholder groups, the general public must also be given an opportunity to be involved in the planning process. Beyond simply keeping citizens abreast of how the mitigation plan is developing, community members, though not necessarily technical experts, can help shape the content of the plan itself, identifying assets and problem areas, narrating threat and hazard history, and prioritizing proposed mitigation alternatives.

Promoting public participation not only ensures that the mitigation plan represents the goals and priorities of the community, but also increases buy-in from stakeholders whose support will help implement the plan. FEMA requires that the public be invited to participate in the process when the plan is in draft stages and prior to plan approval. Public meetings, workshops, informational presentations, websites, resident mailings, and other forms of communication are often effective ways to solicit citizen participation.

While actual methods of outreach will vary from community to community, many tactics are common across the United States. For example, presentations to governing bodies like a board of commissioners can help secure participation from those key stakeholders. Meetings where the mitigation plan is discussed are often advertised through the news media, social media, municipal website, or at community events such as fairs or sporting events. Jurisdictions can also host informal roundtables and forums at strategic locations to solicit public participation.

Part of hazard mitigation planning is knowing what strengths, in the form of existing policies, programs, and resources, are already available to a community. These assets should be documented in a capability assessment. The capability assessment describes the legal authority vested in local governments to pursue mitigation measures. The assessment also evaluates the community’s institutional framework, technical know-how, and ability to pay for mitigation. The capability of all levels of government (local, state, tribal, federal, and regional), as well as the contributions made by nongovernmental organizations (churches, charities, community relief groups, the Red Cross, hospitals, for-profit and nonprofit businesses) should be included, with a description of their utility to the community in terms of hazard mitigation. Preparing a capability assessment assures that local mitigation strategies will be based on existing authorities, policies, programs, and resources, and that the community’s ability to expand on and improve its existing tools is duly noted.

The political willpower necessary to carry out mitigation strategies should not be underestimated. In some communities, the most difficult hurdle to overcome may be reluctance on the part of citizens or local officials to engage in something new. Some property owners may view hazard mitigation as a restriction of their rights. Other community members may mistakenly think hazard mitigation will pose an impediment to growth and economic development. In times of fiscal restraint, expenditure of limited resources may be a challenge. On the other hand, some residents and elected officials may have experienced personally the devastation of a past disaster and will support local hazard mitigation efforts wholeheartedly. The planning team should consider the local political climate carefully when assessing the community’s capability.

The risk assessment task is the backbone of the hazard mitigation plan, providing the factual basis that allows communities to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions. The risk assessment process includes an identification and profile of hazards, an assessment of vulnerable assets and populations, an estimate of potential losses, and a description of future land use and development trends. These steps are described in detail in Chapter 10.

The previous steps identified the populations and assets that are vulnerable to specific identified hazards and the capabilities of the community to address its hazard threats. The planning team must then develop appropriate mitigation actions to reduce vulnerability. Goals and objectives are useful for guiding mitigation decisions and are developed to address the hazard and risk assessment findings.

Goals are general guidelines that describe what the community hopes to achieve.

Objectives provide a more specific way to achieve the goals. In general, each goal statement will have three or four objectives that spell out steps to reach that goal.

Mitigation actions are developed later, and are the most specific proposals for reaching goals.

Together, goals, objectives, and actions make up a mitigation strategy that is designed to increase community resiliency. Goals establish a vision of how the community wants to protect itself from hazards and how the community wants to grow and develop in the future. Objectives are more specific and narrower in scope than goals and are usually phrased so that it is easy to see when (or if) they have been reached.

Once the community has concluded that it faces an unacceptable risk to certain identified hazards and has made the commitment to reducing its level of vulnerability by establishing meaningful goals and objectives, it is time to formulate a plan that meets those goals. This is the action part of the planning process, where the planning team establishes what will be done, and where, to reduce vulnerability. This section of the plan involves the identification, evaluation, and prioritization of a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects to reduce the effects of each hazard identified earlier. The policies created will help guide both the day-to-day and long-range decision making of the community.

The mitigation actions considered should cover a wide range of options to reach the objectives laid out previously. Every single action may not necessarily be acted upon, but the planning team should think of multiple alternatives, each with its own set of relative merits. Some of the actions that are identified may be “brick and mortar” projects, such as constructing tornado-safe rooms or retrofitting existing school buildings to withstand earthquake shaking. Other mitigation actions may be nonconstruction projects, such as acquisition of flood-prone properties or changes to the zoning ordinance or building code. In general, mitigation actions should cover each of the six broad categories of mitigation activities, including prevention, property protection, natural resource protection, structural projects, and public education and awareness strategies as well as emergency operations. It is important that the identified actions and projects address both reducing the effects of hazards on new buildings and infrastructure, as well as existing buildings and infrastructure. In addition, the actions should include some that are appropriate to carry out after a disaster has occurred, while others can be instituted at any time, including in the pre-disaster period.

The regulations that accompany the Disaster Mitigation Act require that the prioritization process for selecting mitigation actions include an emphasis on the use of a cost–benefit review to maximize benefits. All projects using federal funds must be justified as being cost effective. This can be determined using various benefit–cost analysis methodologies.

A benefit–cost analysis (BCA) is a quantitative procedure that assesses the desirability of a hazard mitigation project by taking a long-term view of avoided future damages to insurable structures as compared to the cost of the project.

A benefit–cost ratio (BCR) is the outcome of the analysis, which demonstrates whether the net present value of benefits exceeds the net present value of costs.

FEMA’s BCAs are governed by guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). A BCA is required for all mitigation projects submitted to FEMA for funding, and mitigation projects with a BCR less than 1.0 will not be considered for funding under most programs. Mitigation projects with higher BCRs will be more competitive to receive federal funds.

Mitigation is an ongoing process. Effective plans are dynamic and evolving, and must be continually tested. Therefore, an essential element of the written mitigation plan is a section that spells out in detail the procedures to monitor and evaluate the plan’s progress on a regular basis. The plan should designate a specific person or position within the local government to perform these functions.

The primary question to be addressed in monitoring and evaluating a hazard mitigation plan, is, “Has the area’s vulnerability increased or decreased as a result of planning and mitigation efforts?” Where vulnerability has decreased, the planning team should determine if other methods could be used to achieve even greater improvement in reducing the area’s vulnerability. Where vulnerability has increased, or has not decreased as projected, mitigation efforts must be evaluated to determine if other mitigation strategies might provide greater effectiveness than those currently in use.

Regularly scheduled updates to the hazard mitigation plan address changes that have taken place in the local area. This schedule can be quarterly, semiannual, or annual—whatever best suits the needs and ability of the local government to stay on top of things. At a minimum, under the Disaster Mitigation Act local mitigation plans must be updated within a five-year cycle. The plan should include a statement that declares the community will review and update the plan every five years, and that it will resubmit the plan to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer and to FEMA for review and approval. The planning team should also set a regular schedule for monitoring implementation of the plan.

LOUISA COUNTY, IOWA, TAKES STOCK

In 1993, a severe flood occurred in Louisa County, located along the Mississippi River, resulting in damage to more than 275 homes and the evacuation of nearly 200 families. Following this flood event, the county used both acquisition and relocation to mitigate future flooding problems. In May 2001, the flood pattern of 1993 repeated itself, and the Mississippi River and its tributaries flooded Louisa County yet again. By comparing calculated damages from the 1993 flood to the 2001 flood, the effectiveness of the acquisition program could be measured. Significant reductions in emergency shelter, family assistance, and public assistance expenditures were realized in 2001 as a result of the acquisitions and housing relocations that occurred in the aftermath of the 1993 flooding.⁸

The governing body of the local government must officially adopt the hazard mitigation plan in order to make the plan enforceable. A series of recommendations made by planning or emergency management staff does not have nearly the impact as an official document that clearly lays out the government’s policies for dealing with hazards and reducing vulnerability. In fact, adoption of the plan is a prerequisite for plan approval by FEMA.

The final version of the plan should be presented to the lead governing body of the community, usually at a regularly scheduled meeting that is open to the public. Depending upon the structure of the local government, this may be a meeting of the city council, board of supervisors, county commissioners, board of aldermen, or other official policy-making group (see Chapter 8 for a discussion of the various forms of local government in the United States). The mitigation plan must be adopted through the government’s normal legal process. Generally, most local governing bodies adopt a hazard mitigation plan by resolution. A resolution is an expression of a governing body’s opinion, will, or intention that is usually legally binding. Depending upon the laws of the state and the local jurisdiction, adoption of the plan gives the local government legal authority to enact ordinances, policies, or programs to reduce hazard losses and to implement the recommended mitigation actions contained in the plan.

Once adopted, communities must work to implement the actions developed in the hazard mitigation plan. Communities typically face challenges in effectively carrying out the strategies described in the plan, including a lack of funding or other resources, a loss of interest after the mitigation planning process is over, and a disconnect between the mitigation strategy and day-to-day operations and governmental programs.

The following approaches may be helpful for communities seeking to successfully implement hazard mitigation plans.

• Use the post-disaster window of opportunity. The post-disaster recovery period offers unique opportunities to accomplish mitigation goals. Public support and political will to change policies and invest in long-term risk reduction may be at its highest. In addition, funding sources may become available for mitigation, such as FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Public Assistance.

• Focus on quality over quantity. In implementing a plan, it helps to achieve a few “early wins,” or successfully complete some initial mitigation actions. These could be low-cost actions that can be implemented quickly or a single high-priority project. Demonstrating progress can go a long way in gaining the support needed to implement more complex actions in the future.

• Encourage local champions. Successful projects often involve a strong local champion. Champions are leaders who understand the mitigation vision, can clearly communicate it, and can engage others to get buy-in.

• Identify a mentor. Community officials can learn from other communities that have successfully implemented mitigation actions. Other communities may be willing to share experience and lessons learned. The FEMA Best Practices Portfolio (http://www.fema.gov/mitigation-best-practices-portfolio) or State Hazard Mitigation Officers can provide ideas and advice.

SELF-CHECK

• Explain the role of a local hazard mitigation plan.

• Discuss the importance of a mitigation plan in regards to federal disaster funding.

• Describe the steps involved in developing a mitigation plan.

This chapter described some of the many tools and techniques that local communities can use to reduce vulnerability to natural and humanmade hazards. These tools include a variety of structural engineering projects, ways of strengthening buildings and facilities to withstand hazard impacts, land use regulations and building codes, natural resource and wetland preservation strategies, techniques for informing the public and increasing community awareness of hazards, as well as mitigation strategies aimed at reducing the impacts of human-made hazards. Additionally, the chapter provided examples of funding sources for mitigation, including federal and state resources, and ways that local governments can fund mitigation activities using internal revenue sources. The chapter concluded with a discussion of hazard mitigation planning as a way to coordinate and integrate resilience into all community programs and policies.

2. Which of the following is an example of a property protection mitigation strategy?

4. A hazard mitigation plan is the first step of a risk assessment. True or False?

6. Wetland conservation is an example of a structural engineered project. True or False?

9. Groins are hardened materials on the shore to protect against erosion. True or False?

10. Stormwater systems should have the capacity to meet the volume of stormwater expected in a lower than normal rain season. True or False?

11. Keeping development out of hazard-prone areas is the most sustainable approach to hazard mitigation. True or False?

13. Acquisition is only used in cases where property owners are willing to sell. True or False?

14. A land use plan and the resulting zones and ordinances can be used to keep people and property from locating in hazard areas. True or False?

16. In situations where communities cannot avoid hazards they must then protect property from as much damage as possible. True or False?

17. Wet floodproofing uses special paints and compounds to protect walls from water damage. True or False?

18. Seismic construction includes structural and nonstructural improvements to reduce earthquake damage. True or False?

20. Which of the following is an example of a mechanical engineering mitigation technique?

1. Mitigation is a long-term approach to reducing hazard risk. List five different mitigation strategies that communities can use to control hazards and disasters.

2. Dams, seawalls, and vegetative buffers are all examples of structural engineered projects. Describe the purpose of this type of strategy.

4. By building dams, levees, and seawalls, humans assume that they can defeat the powers of Mother Nature. What are three disadvantages to such projects?

5. What are some relatively inexpensive ways a community can control its stormwater flow?

8. What is a buyout program, and why does it work best when it involves blocks of homes or a neighborhood?

9. Wetlands are a valuable part of the environment. How do they contribute to flood control?

11. Whose responsibility is it to determine a property’s vulnerability to hazards—potential buyers, sellers, or mortgage companies?

12. List seven different funding sources available to communities that wish to carry out mitigation strategies.

13. Which of the state and federal aid programs does not require a disaster situation?

15. Law requires that local governments have an approved mitigation plan before they can receive federal disaster money. Explain why.

1. Explain how a mitigation plan can help a community in an earthquake prone area carry out mitigation strategies.

2. What rationale would you give to support a proposal to remove a dam on a river in Minnesota? Opponents of the proposal claim that the loss of hydropower and flood control will negatively affect the area.

3. A small coastal town in Georgia is exploring the idea of using a seawall to protect a stretch of shoreline where a dozen homes and several small businesses are located. What factors determine the effectiveness of such a seawall? What are other options available to this community?

4. As a mitigation planner in a tornado-prone area of Kansas, what property protection mitigation measures would you recommend to protect the homes in the community? What resources would you use to research the potential strategies?

5. Look around your community and think about the wetlands that have been impaired or destroyed because of development or other means. What impact, if any, has that had on flooding in the area? Are there wetlands that are still vulnerable?

6. What disaster warning systems are in place for your community? How do they compare to another community, one with different hazard issues?

7. As the owner of a warehouse in an industrial area, you’ve decided to build an adjacent building to house part of your business. A chemical explosion at the other end of the industrial park has caused you to think about protecting your new building and your investment. What types of mitigation strategies could you put to use in the design, construction, and security of the building?

8. Assume you are the emergency manager in a town that has experienced major flooding for the fourth time. Homes in several neighborhoods located in the floodplain were damaged severely, and many people are living in trailers and other types of temporary housing. The mayor of your town asks you to seek funding from FEMA to carry out some mitigation projects. What would you advise the mayor and the town council to do? What factors would you consider as you propose your ideas?

Think about any areas or neighborhoods in your community or county that should not be developed or that cannot be protected well enough from hazards. Come up with an acquisition plan that would protect this area from development and protect residents and property from injury or damage. How would you defend the high cost of such a strategy?

Think about some mitigation action that has been proposed for your community (or one that you believe would be beneficial). What is the general sentiment of the community about the action? What could be done to gain more support for the mitigation?

Choose a particular mitigation action for your community and consider the funding options available to pay for it. What resources would you investigate?

1. FEMA. Dam Ownership in the United States. (Date not available). www.fem.gov/hazard/damfailure/ownership.shtm. (November 9, 2005). Visit National Dam Safety Program Partners for more information.

2. Knabb, R. D., J. R. Rhome, and D. P. Brown. 2005. Tropical Cyclone Report, Hurricane Katrina, August 23–30, 2005. National Hurricane Center. www.nhc.noaa.gov/2005atlan.shtml.

3. U.S. House of Representatives. 2006. A Failure of Initiative: Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina. Available at katrina.house.gov.

4. Leatherman, S. P. and V. R. Burkett. 2002. Sea-level rise and coastal disasters: Lessons from the East Coast and New Orleans. Natural Hazards Observer 26 (March), (4): 10–11.

5. Buby, R. J. ed. 1999. Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land Use Planning for Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.

6. FEMA. 2003. State and Local Hazard Mitigation Planning How-To Guide: Integrating Manmade Hazards into Mitigation Planning. Publication 286–7. FEMA.

7. FEMA. 2013. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook. Publication 302-094-1. FEMA.

Type of Strategy	Purpose and Critique	Examples
Structural engineered project	Lessen the impact of a hazard by modifying the environment or progression of the hazard event. Can have the potential to increase vulnerability over the long term and/or cause environmental degradation	• Dams and reservoirs • Dikes/levees/floodwalls/berms • Diversions • Seawalls/groins/jetties • Revetments • Beach nourishment • Storm sewers/drainage system • Vegetative buffers
Prevention	Avoid hazard problems or keep hazard problems from getting worse. Most effective in reducing future vulnerability, especially in locations where development has not yet occurred	• Land use planning • Zoning/subdivision • Floodplain regulation • Acquisition and relocation • Shoreline/fault-zone setbacks • Capital improvement programs • Taxation and fees
Property protection	Protect structures by modifying/strengthening the building to withstand hazard impacts. Effective for protecting existing structures in hazard areas	• Building codes/construction standards • Building elevation • Floodproofing/windproofing • Seismic retrofit • Safe rooms • Fire retardant construction materials
Natural resource protection	Reduce the impacts of natural hazards by preserving or restoring natural areas and their mitigation functions. Can also serve other community interests of providing open space/recreation areas/greenways	• Floodplain protection • Beach/dune preservation • Riparian buffers • Fire resistant landscaping • Erosion/sediment control • Wetland conservation and restoration • Habitat protection • Slope stabilization
Public information	Advise residents, business owners, potential property buyers, and visitors about hazards, hazardous areas, and mitigation techniques to protect themselves and their property	• Outreach projects • Hazard map information • Real estate disclosure • Warning systems • Education programs for schoolchildren

Type of Mitigation Technique	Sample Action
Site planning and landscape design	• Minimize concealment opportunities such as hedges, bus shelters, trash cans, and mailboxes • Limit entrances/exits • Provide adequate lighting
Architectural and interior design	• Avoid locating toilets and service spaces in nonsecured areas • Locate delivery/mail service facilities at remote locations • Prevent vehicles from driving into or under building • Restrict roof access
Structural engineering	• Create blast-resistant exterior envelope • Ensure structural elements can withstand blast loads • Enclose critical building components within hardened floors, walls, ceilings
Security	• Develop backup control center capabilities • Implement intrusion detection systems • Install screening systems (metal detectors, x-ray machines, etc.)
Mechanical engineering	• Protect utility lifelines (water, power, communications) by concealing, burying, encasing • Locate air intakes on roof with restricted access • Provide filtration of intake air
Electrical engineering	• Secure primary and backup fuel supply areas • Implement separate emergency and normal power systems • Locate utility systems away from entrances, loading areas, etc.

Beach nourishment	The artificial replacement or addition of sand to beaches to widen the backshore and move the high-water line further toward the sea.
Building codes	Laws, ordinances, and regulations that set forth standards and requirements for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, operation, occupancy, use, and appearance of buildings.
Build-out	The upper limit of a community’s capacity to absorb additional development.
Impervious surfaces	Paved areas that rainwater cannot soak through, such as parking lots, roofs, streets, and other nonporous surfaces.
Infill	The practice of building new structures on existing lots.
In-kind contributions	Noncash contributions of goods and/or services. Can include items such as equipment, technical or consulting services, furniture, and office supplies. May also include donated staff or volunteer time.
Nonfederal match	The amount of funds, usually a percentage of the total grant amount awarded, required by many federal grant programs that must come from a source other than the federal grant program.
Retrofitting	Rebuilding existing buildings to withstand the shaking and ground movement associated with an earthquake.
Runoff	Rainwater that does not soak into the soil, evaporate, or become trapped by plant roots, and thus flows over the surface of the ground.
Subdivision ordinance	Regulations that govern the division of larger tracts of land into smaller parcels. Subdivision ordinances dictate the land uses that are permitted on the parcels, and are often accompanied by conditions that require the developer to provide adequate amenities to support the new development in exchange for a permit.
Target-hardening strategies	Methods of protecting structures from man-made hazard impacts.
Variance	Exception that allows development to proceed, even though the rules prohibit it.
Zoning	The process of dividing a local community into districts, or zones. Zoning regulations control the type and amount of development and land uses that are permitted in each zone.