Discussion 7
Mitigation Strategies
A. Structural Projects
Once risk assessment for your community is completed, it is important to identify
appropriate mitigation actions or measures before developing a hazard mitigation plan
(HMP). In this step, information revealed in hazard identification and risk assessment is
used to develop clear mitigation goals (general guidelines that explain what you want to
achieve) and objectives (statements that detail how these goals will be achieved).
Mitigation actions are specific measures or strategies that help you achieve these
community goals and objectives. Such measures can either be structural or nonstructural.
Structural measures are those that involve physical construction to avoid possible impacts
of hazards or application of engineering techniques to achieve hazard resistance and
resilience in structures or systems. In contrast, nonstructural measures seek to reduce the
likelihood or consequence of risk through modifications in human action, human
behavior, or natural processes (FEMA, n.d.c). Nonstructural mitigation differs most
significantly from that of structural mitigation, in that it reduces risk (likelihood and
consequences) without requiring the use of engineered structures.
A dam is an artificial barrier designed to hold back water or other liquidborne
materials for any of several reasons, such as human water supply, irrigation, livestock
water supply, energy generation, containment of mine tailings, recreation, and pollution
or flood control. Many dams fulfill a combination of these functions. They can be used as
effective flood control devices by retaining water and releasing it at a controlled rate that
does not overwhelm the capacity of downstream channels. A reservoir is an artificial lake
formed by the construction of a dam. Reservoirs are located behind dams and reduce
flooding by storing water during peak runoff periods. For instance, Lake Sakakawea in
North Dakota, the third-largest artifical lake in the United States, is a body of water
created and contained by the Garrison Dam.
Dams are classified by a number of factors, including the type of construction
material used, the methods used in construction, the slope or cross section of the dam, the
way the dam resists the forces of the water pressure behind it, the means used for
controlling seepage, and, occasionally, according to the dam’s purpose (FEMA, 2013).
Materials used for constructing them include soil, rock, concrete, masonry, steel, timber,
miscellaneous materials (e.g., rubber, plastic), and any combination of these materials.
Embankment dams are the most common type of dams that are mainly made of natural
materials. Embankment dams that are constructed mostly of compacted earth are known
as earth-fill dams, whereas the ones comprised of mostly compacted or dumped rock are
called rock-fill dams. The Garrison dam in Figure 9.1 is an example of an earth-fill
embankment dam. Concrete dams are categorized as either arch or gravity dams,
depending on how they resist water pressure from the reservoir. Arch dams, as their name
indicates, are curved in the shape of an arch so that the water pressure presses against the
arch (Figure 9.2). Arch dams are thinner, require less material, and are usually
constructed in narrow, steep valleys.
Gravity dams are the most common type of concrete dams. The name gravity dam
comes from the fact that gravity holds it down to the ground, keeping the water reservoir
from pushing it over. A buttress dam is a specific type of gravity dam, where the large
mass of concrete is reduced and the buttresses are spaced at intervals on the downstream
side. This design resists the force of the reservoir water and prevents the dam from
tipping over. Dams provide many vital benefits to people and local economies, including
flood protection, water supply, hydropower, irrigation, and recreation. However, dam
failure is a significant threat to people and property downstream. Storm events are not
usually the cause of dam failure. Most of these failures fall into one or more of the
following categories: structural failures, such as foundation defects, slope instability, or
damage caused by earthquakes; mechanical failures, such as malfunctioning gates,
conduits, or valves; and hydraulic failures, such as overtopping of a dam due to
inadequate spillway design and debris blockage of spillways. The owners are solely
responsible for the safety of their dams. In the United States, most dams (69%) are
privately owned, although the state agencies regulate more than 80% of them (FEMA,
2013). Most states have a dam safety program that monitors dams and carries out
inspections on a regular basis. Although dam failures are infrequent, the impacts can be
catastrophic and can far exceed that of typical flood events.
A levee is a manmade structure, usually an earthen embankment, built parallel to
a waterway or a river in order to protect lives and properties behind it from some level of
flooding. These are often referred to as dikes, which are usually earthen or rock structures
built partially across a river to maintain the depth and location of a navigation channel
(Schwab et al., 2007). Floodwalls are also similar to levees, but they are usually found in
more urban areas and are made of stone or reinforced concrete. A levee system is a flood
risk reduction system that consists of levees and associated structures (FEMA, n.d.e).
These measures are inexpensive and effective as a barrier against floodwaters. Levees
were first built in the United States more than 150 years ago. No entity was solely
responsible for levee design, construction, operation, and maintenance. Some were built
by citizens to protect their properties from flooding. Others were built by various federal,
state, or local agencies. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has designed and
built many levee systems and is responsible for the maintenance of federally owned
levees.
Seawalls are “hard” engineering structures built on the shoreline to protect areas
from the action of tides and waves, as well as from shoreline erosion. Vertical seawalls
are built in exposed areas to deflect wave energy away from the coast. However, seawalls
can also be curved or stepped to dissipate smaller waves and reflect larger storm waves
(FEMA, n.d.c). In a curved seawall, the curve helps prevent waves from overtopping the
wall and provides extra protection for the toe of the wall. Seawalls should be constructed
with durable, immovable materials to withstand the extreme wave attacks that result from
powerful hurricanes and other storms. Materials commonly used for seawall construction
include reinforced concrete, boulders, steel, or gabions. Additional seawall construction
materials may include vinyl, wood, aluminum, fiberglass composite, and large
biodegradable sandbags (made of jute and coir).
The Galveston seawall was built in Galveston, Texas, after the deadliest 1900
storm that killed more than 8000 people with winds in excess of 130 miles per hour (209
km/h) and a 15-foot (4.6 m) storm surge (NOAA, 2000). At that time, Galveston was
only 8.7 feet (2.65 m) above sea level. After the devastation of the 1900 hurricane, the
people of Galveston made an unprecedented response, supporting the erection of a 16-
foot-thick (4.88 m), 17-foot-high (5.18 m) seawall (Figure 9.5). Construction began in
September 1902, and the initial segment was completed on July 29, 1904. From 1904 to
1963, the seawall was extended from 3.3 miles (5.3 km) to over 10 miles (16 km). They
also raised the entire island by as much as 8 feet (2.4 m) with sand dredged from
Galveston Bay. Bulkheads are vertical walls similar to seawalls on the shoreline, but they
are designed to retain loose fill and sediment behind them. They are often constructed of
wood or steel. Since the purpose of bulkheads is to maintain the material behind them
rather than provide protection from the action of tides and waves, they are usually do not
afford good protection from storms or other flood events.
Revetments are sloping structures placed on river banks or cliffs designed to
protect the backshore from high tides and surges (FEMA, n.d.c). They are constructed
from a number of types of material, including stone, concrete-mat, willow plantings, and
gabions. The USACE also uses trench-fill revetments when the channel is poorly aligned,
and concrete mattress revetments cannot be used. In a trench-fill revetment, the river is
used as a dredge to remove silt and sand in front of the trench. Once the sand and silt has
eroded, the stone is launched into the river and paves a new riverbank (USACE, n.d.). In
revetment construction with concrete mats, the process starts with the smoothing of the
bank to a stable slope from the top to the bottom of the water surface. Then, concrete
mats are placed in the water along the base of the river.
Groins (which are known as groynes outside the United States) are shore-
perpendicular structures designed to interrupt or slow the movement of sediment along
the shore (refer to Figure 9.7). Groins are built of timber, concrete, metal sheet piling, or
rock. They are usually built in groups called groin fields, where each groin is connected
to land and extend into the sea or lake. The length and the spacing of the groin system are
an important factor for trapping sediment. Usually, shorter groins are used for larger
grain size, and vice versa. Groins are effective to trap sand near to shore and reduce the
need for sand replacement on beaches (Schwab et al., 2007). Groins can help create wider
beaches for recreational purposes, which in turn slow the erosion process as storm waves
break further out to sea. Similar to groins, jetties are also wall-like structures built
perpendicular to the coast (see Figure 9.8). Although the primary function of jetties is to
protect navigation channels, they also trap sediment by restricting the movement of
materials transported by longshore currents. Jetties help stabilize channels, inlets, and
outlets. The critical factors for channel stabilization are the width of the channel and
management of sediment (FEMA, n.d.c). The width of the channel should be in balance,
as it has to be wide enough to reduce current velocity within the channel, but narrow
enough to restrict shoaling.
B. Mitigation Measured Related to Prevention
Zoning is one of the most powerful regulatory instruments that local governments
possess for land use control and management. Zoning ordinances regulate development in
a community by dividing areas into different zones (or districts) within the jurisdiction
(Figure 9.9) and set criteria for each zone how land should be developed. It is also a part
of the community’s comprehensive plan to guide future development. In terms of hazard
mitigation, zoning can limit development or restrict inappropriate uses in designated
hazard areas. One effective method is by down-zoning (decreasing density), which can be
accomplished by increasing the minimum lot size or reducing the number of dwelling
units permitted per acre, thereby decrease the number of people and structures in high
hazard areas (Schwab et al., 2007). On the other hand, safer areas can also be zoned,
decreasing the lot size and increasing the number of dwelling units per acre including
residential houses, apartments, and commercial buildings. Besides down-zoning, hazard
areas can also be designated for lowintensity uses such as parks, open space, and
agriculture.
Along with the standard zoning ordinances, some communities may have overlay
zones for a certain area such as floodplains or historic districts that allow communities to
isolate and protect areas not covered by the rest of the ordinance. Overlay zones are
effective for use in high-hazard areas (e.g., coastal areas) or to protect environmentally
sensitive areas such as wetlands. Such zones coexist with other zones, operating like a
transparency overlaying existing land-use controls, where development is regulated by
the standard zoning ordinance and the unique requirements of the overlay zone. They can
also be triggered by a certain event, such as a hurricane or a tornado. For instance,
overlay zones remain transparent until a hurricane causes substantial damage in the
designated area. The requirements for these zones will be in effect after the disaster,
which might include restriction of reconstruction until a thorough damage assessment can
be performed.
Zoning ordinances primarily affect future development rather than existing
buildings and properties, and thus, they are less useful in hazard mitigation for current
development. Most zoning codes allow continuing prior uses as nonconforming uses even
changes are made in the ordinance. However, communities can require nonconforming
structures to be replaced within a certain time, as the former uses become illegal once the
structures are replaced or destroyed. This process is called amortization, which may take
years to become effective. Zoning is also influenced by local politics as administrative or
leadership change in the community can bring changes in local zoning ordinances.
Moreover, zoning if not examined carefully, can be a subject to legal challenges and can
come at a significant financial cost. The Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council case
(1992), discussed later in this chapter, is one such example of arbitrary zoning challenged
by the taking clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Subdivision regulations or ordinances govern how land will be divided into small
parcels for development and set construction standards for developers. These standards
typically address lot layout and infrastructures such as roads, utilities, drainage systems,
sidewalks, and storm sewers. Subdivision regulations are important in hazard mitigation,
as they also set standards for firefighting equipment and snowplows on the road,
minimum water pressure needed for firefighting, and installation of adequate drainage
and storm water management facilities. The ordinances can also require constructing
buildings above the flood level, increased the distance between structures and hazard
areas, or even can be used to limit development on hazardous land. The local government
must approve the subdivision plat before the lots are ready for sale. Subdivision
ordinance can require the final plat to show hazard areas and set provisions to keep
minimum distance between the hazard areas and construction sites. If needed, the
ordinances can enforce a buffer to limit development or activity within a certain area. For
instance, subdivision ordinances in the state of Maryland require a 25-foot buffer next to
all wetlands.
In land use planning, the term setback is used to delineate the distance that a
building or a structure is away from a street or other feature such as a river or shoreline.
In hazard mitigation, setback regulations can establish a minimum distance between the
building or lot and a hazard area. In coastal areas, ocean shoreline setbacks are
implemented to prevent damages to structures from coastal storms or erosion. Similarly,
fault zone setbacks are used in earthquake-prone areas as effective measures to keep
buildings and structures from fault lines. Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs) are put in
place by local governments to implement large-scale projects in a community, such as
schools, bridges, police stations, recreation centers, and other public facilities.
Governments can set requirements to implement these major public expenditures for the
next 520 years, which may include incorporating mitigation measures such as retrofitting,
acquisition of open space, and using setback or preventing development altogether in
hazard areas. In most cases, CIP funding is augmented with FEMA mitigation grants,
along with local or state funding for the projects.
Eminent domain is defined as “the right of the government to take (condemn)
private property for public use; however, the owner must be given just compensation for
the taking” (Schwab et al., 2007). The Bible refers to one of the first instances of eminent
domain, as Naboth was compensated for his vineyard being taken by King Ahab of
Samaria. Much later, in the 1700s, France implemented a similar decree, which
ultimately prompted the United States to follow suit under the Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution. The Fifth Amendment stipulates that four conditions shall be met before the
government can usurp private land: “(1) private property (2) must be taken (3) for public
use (4) and with just compensation”. Traditionally, local and state governments
commonly use eminent domain for the purpose of creating important infrastructure for
public use (e.g., roadways and schools). Projects of this nature are clearly seen for their
“public use” and rarely get bogged down in litigation. In some hazard-prone areas
(floodplain or coastal areas), this principle can be used for the safety and well-being of
the public in an effort to minimize the effects on life and property.
Building codes are sets of regulations governing the design, construction, and
maintenance of structures (FEMA, n.d.a). They specify the minimum acceptable standard
required for structural design, integrity, and construction materials used in buildings and
structures, thereby reducing casualties, injuries, and property damage. The Code of
Hammurabi, written around the 18th century B.C. by the Babylonian king Hammurabi, is
the earliest known example of building codes. One of these codes stated that “if a
dwelling collapsed and caused the death of the owner, the builder would be put to death”
(IBHS, n.d.a). London passed the Rebuilding of London Act after the Great Fire, a
massive blaze in 1666 that destroyed nearly 15,000 buildings. In the United States, all
major cities used to have their own building codes. For example, the city of Baltimore
passed its first building code in 1859. Later, however, almost all municipalities adopted
model building codes due to the increasing cost and complexity of developing building
regulations. Prior to 1994, model building codes were developed through three
organizations: Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. (BOCA),
the Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. (SBCCI), and the International
Conference of Building Officials (ICBO).
C. Property Protection Measures
Strengthening or modifying a building in order to prevent or reduce damages from
hazards is called retrofit. There are many approaches to retrofitting, described next. Flood
retrofitting measures known as floodproofing can be done in two ways: dry and wet. Dry
floodproofing involves sealing the structure against floodwaters by making all areas
below the flood protection level watertight. This can be done through coating walls with
waterproofing compounds or plastic sheeting and closing all building openings (i.e.,
doors, windows) with removable shields or sandbags. Dry floodproofing is recommended
for areas subject to shallow flooding and limited to 2 or 3 feet above the foundation of a
building due to the pressure exerted by deeper water on the walls and floors (Wetmore,
2013). In addition, sufficient advanced warning time is needed for dry floodproofing to
close openings, place sandbags and other measures. In terms of wet floodproofing,
floodwaters are allowed to enter a building to reduce the pressure exerted by deep water.
Wet floodproofing involves removal of valuable or essential items that could be affected
by flood water and replacing the structural components below flood level with water
resistant materials. This method can dramatically reduce damage costs by simply
removing furniture and electrical appliances out of the flood prone area.
Windproofing focuses on modifying the design and construction of a building to
withstand wind damage. This involves the improvement of the aerodynamics of a
structure, materials used, and the addition of features such as storm shutters, shatter-
resistant window panes, and paneling put in place to cover windows just before a storm
(Figure 9.11). Windproofing helps to secure a building from broken glass and flying
debris during a tornado or a hurricane. The law of nuisance, pertaining to modern
property law, requires that private property owners must refrain from using property in a
way that interferes with the rights of adjoining property owners or causes injury to the
general public. These include securing the structures so that they do not become flying
debris during a storm, and not undertaking any activities that increase flooding.
Seismic retrofitting involves adding braces, removing overhangs, and providing
flexible utility connections and tie-downs to reduce damage. Seismic construction
techniques, such as adding reinforcing rods to concrete or using brick veneer wall instead
of all brick, can be fairly inexpensive but nevertheless they are very effective at reducing
damages during an earthquake. Seismic retrofitting also involves nonstructural mitigation
techniques, such as securing movable objects such as bookshelves and tall furniture, and
covering windows with shatter-resistant panes. In earthquake-prone areas, such as many
areas of California (Figure 9.12), codes that require seismic construction and retrofitting
are an integral part of building codes, ensuring that structures can adequately resist
seismic forces during earthquakes.
A storm safe room is a hardened structure that can be installed in a private
residence or business, or in a community to provide a safe shelter during wind events
(especially tornadoes). These should be built in accordance to the guidelines specified in
FEMA P-320, Taking Shelter from the Storm: Building a Safe Room for Your Home or
Small Business; and FEMA P-361, Design and Construction Guidance for Community
Safe Rooms (FEMA, n.d.f). Research by the wind scientists and engineers at the National
Wind Institute at Texas Tech University led to the development of specific, FEMA-
endorsed criteria for constructing safe rooms. Funding for constructing safe rooms are
available through a number of federal programs, including Community Development
Block Grant Funds by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), FHA
Mortgage Insured Financing, FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Funds
and Predisaster Mitigation (PDM) program funds. Local communities can apply for these
grants to build community safe rooms. Residents can also apply through local authorities
to build residential safe rooms. During a tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, on May 20, 2013
(which measured at an EF-5 level storm), it was reported that many families survived in
the city’s underground residential safe room.
Property acquisition, also known as a buyout, is the most permanent form of
mitigating hazards. In this case, the government purchases a private property that is
located in a hazard area and makes it public property by acquiring the title (FEMA,
n.d.b). Since the property is removed from the private market, inappropriate development
and potential threats to public are reduced forever. Acquisition or buyout is very
expensive, as it involves real estate transactions, including the appraisal, title search and,
if necessary, lot survey. The community also pays the closing costs. However, the
property owner is responsible for any mortgages, liens, or other fees against their
property. FEMA provides 75% funding to the community for purchasing property in
flood hazard areas (FEMA, n.d.b). Participation in the buyout program is voluntary, so
the government does not pay any relocation costs to the property owner. The government
can also acquire the full bundle of rights to a piece of land in a hazard area which is
known as fee simple acquisition. When a single owner has all the rights associated with a
parcel of land, the owner is said to hold the land in fee simple (Schwab et al., 2007). Fee
simple acquisition is a relatively less expensive way to acquire undeveloped land and can
act as a development management tool for guiding the location of development before a
hazard event occurs.
Easement is an alternative to fee simple acquisition, where the government
acquires lesser rights to a property (such as right of access), leaving the other rights to the
owner (Schwab et al., 2007). Property owners commonly grant easements for the
placement of utility poles, utility trenches, water lines, or sewer lines. In hazard-prone
areas, the government can purchase an easement that prevents building on a particular
parcel of land, thereby protecting the area from development. One big disadvantage of
the easement method is that easements must be policed and the terms enforced, which
can be as expensive as acquiring fee simple rights. Thus, governments usually prefer fee
simple acquisition over easement, and it has been used less frequently in hazard
mitigation.
Easement is also known as the purchase of development rights (PDR), while
transfer of development rights (TDR) programs treat development as a commodity
separate from the land itself. The government awards development rights based on the
value or acreage of land and establishes sending and receiving areas for these rights. The
sending areas contain the land that the government would like to protect, and landowners
have limited rights to develop their land. However, in receiving areas, they can sell rights
to developers. As a result, developers build on receiving areas in the community, which is
considered as a safer alternative to sending areas that might be located in high hazard
areas. Besides protecting sensitive areas, TDR programs are supposed to reduce the land
value shifts of zoning by compensating those who cannot fully develop their land.
Relocation is a process whereby the housing, infrastructure, and other assets of an
entire community or a segment of a community are rebuilt in a new location. Sometime a
few residents of a community are relocated. Relocation of communities away from areas
subject to repeated disaster is an important disaster mitigation option, as it reduces the
chances of death and injury of the residents and government expenses of repeated
restoration. In such areas, it is less costly for the government to help disaster victims
move to other places than bear the expenses of repeated insurance claims as well as
restoration. FEMA funds the relocation of facilities when they are subject to repetitive
heavy damage and when relocation is cost effective (FEMA, n.d.d). When any
community or part of a community is exposed to a hazard that can cause significant
negative impact, and when other mitigation measures are inadequate in terms of safety,
efficacy, and feasibility, the only option is physically moving the residents to and
rebuilding the necessary infrastructure in a new location. Human settlement in hazardous
areas such as in floodplains, earthquakeprone areas, landslide areas, and wildfire prone
areas enhance residents’ hazard vulnerability. Relocation is a useful strategy for adjusting
human settlement patterns to reduce vulnerability to environmental hazards.
D. Natural Resource Protection
Wetlands are valuable natural resources that provide numerous benefits to the
people and the environment. They provide habitats for a large number of ecologically and
economically important species, hold flood water, absorb wind and tidal forces, provide
recreational spaces and so on. According to the Clean Water Act, wetlands are defined as
“areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas”
Wetlands that are located at the edge of deep bodies of water function as a buffer
zone. These areas can hold floodwaters that overflow from rivers, lakes, and other bodies
of water. Vegetation within the wetlands reduces the speed of the floodwaters and slowly
releases the flood water into the floodplain. As a result, wetlands contribute to reducing
the amount of floodwater and soil erosion inland. Similarly, inland isolated wetlands that
are surrounded by dry land can retain excess surface runoff as a result of increased
paving of surfaces. These areas also retain the pollutants, nutrients, and sediments of the
runoff from the higher dry land that surrounds them before the water reaches open water
sources. Coastal wetlands can abate the impacts of tropical storms, cyclones, and large
storm surges and can preserve lives and property. Wetlands at the margin of the water
bodies such as rivers, lakes, and oceans protect the lands from erosion, as plants within
the wetlands hold the soil and reduce the strength of waves or the speed of the water
flow.
Erosion is a natural process that affects all landforms. The term refers to wearing
down of the land surface and transporting the eroded material through the actions of
wind, fluvial processes, marine processes, and glacial processes (Figure 9.15). Human
activities that break down the land surface, such as farming, construction, logging,
mining, or altering the landforms, can greatly accelerate natural erosion. Coastal erosion
involves the breaking down and removal of material along a coastline by the forces of
wind, waves, and longshore currents and typically causes a landward retreat of the
coastline. It results in loss of land and increases the risks of coastal flooding, which can
damage building, property, agricultural land, and ecology. Rates of coastal erosion can be
affected by human activity, sea level rise, seasonal fluctuations, and climate change
(Schwab et al., 2007). Extreme meteorological events such as hurricanes can drastically
increase the amount of coastal erosion. During such events, high waves and storm surge
act together to erode beaches in a short period of time.
E. Public Education and Awareness
Community outreach and awareness projects can be undergone to educate citizens
and potential homebuyers about the hazard risks in a community, possible mitigation
strategies that can be taken, how to prepare for a disaster, and how to respond after a
disaster occurs. Communities can send newsletters, pamphlets, and brochures regularly to
all its members and potential newcomers to disseminate and highlight information about
different hazard risks in the community. Presentations can be given on hazard mitigation
in community meetings (Figure 9.16). Seminars and workshops on mitigation can be
held, targeting the general public, homebuyers, church members, and public officials.
Essay and poster competitions can be promoted in the schools to educate children in
different age groups on hazard risks and mitigation topics. Educational and training
programs can be arranged by governments and private companies on hazard mitigation
topics to protect their employees and property against potential disaster.
Many times, property owners are not aware of the past or potential future
problems when they purchase land that might be located in a hazardous area. In the
United States, federally regulated lending institutions are required to disclose to mortgage
and other loan applicants whether a property is on a floodplain, as shown on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). However, this requirement has to be met only 10 days prior
to closing; hence, an applicant might already have commited to purchase a property
before learning about the flood hazard in the area (Wetmore, 2013). State and local laws
can be strengthened to overcome this deficiency and provide property owners hazard
information earlier in the purchasing process.
For instance, the California Geological Survey has mapped areas of potential
landslide, liquefaction, or fault rupture hazard in the state that are designated as “special
study zones” by the California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act of 1972.
According to this act, potential buyers of land in these special study zones must sign a
form indicating that they are aware of potential hazards in this area and of the fact that
additional inspections or work may be required to live on this property in the future
(Cutter et al., 2012). However, the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) provided by Realtors
currently does not give any information of potential hazards related to properties for sale.
Laws can be enacted to require the real estate industry to incorporate hazard information
into the MLS. Additionally, local emergency management agencies (EMAs) can provide
such information to potential buyers through their websites.
F. Emergency Services
Communities must have effective warning systems in place so that residents can
get enough lead time to prepare and implement protection measures before a hazard
event. This may feature monitoring local weather conditions, outdoor warning sirens,
weather radio broadcasts (e.g., NOAA weather radio), mass telephone notification,
Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs), e-mail alerts, notifications through social media
platforms (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), weather channes/news on TV, public service
announcements (PSAs), door-to-door contacts, or any combination. In the United States,
the National Weather Service (NWS) issues watches and warnings for flooding,
thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, and winter storms. Watches are issued when
conditions are favorable to produce these hazards and warnings are given when the
hazards are imminent to occur or have been observed. Local EMAs, as well as television
and radio channels (including NOAA weather radio), relay these watches and warnings to
the general public. In Bangladesh, cyclone warnings are also disseminated door to door in
coastal areas using megaphones, hand sirens, and public address systems by volunteers
who work in the Cyclone Preparedness Programme (CPP), which is a joint initiative by
the government and the Red Cross.
Emergency response services include first responders such firefighters, police,
emergency medical services (EMS), and other entities that protect people at the scene of
a hazard event. They take appropriate action to contain the hazard, protect property,
conduct search-and-rescue operations, provide mass care, and ensure public safety,
including cleanup and special precautions for each type of hazard (e.g., draining standing
water after a flood and cautioning residents about aftershock or successive tsunami
waves).
Critical infrastructure are “the assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or
virtual, so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a
debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or
safety, or any combination thereof” (DHS, n.d.). It is important to protect critical
infrastructure in our communities from hazard events that provide essential needs and
help our economy. This involves facilities related to agriculture/food, energy/power,
public health, banking/finance, drinking water/treatment, IT/telecommunications,
transportation systems, postal and shipping, and emergency services.
Also, it includes government facilities, national monuments and icons, defense
industrial base, chemical, commercial facilities, dams, nuclear reactors, materials, and
waste (DHS, 2013). Critical infrastructure, such as hospitals and other public health
facilities, transportation systems, IT/telecommunications, power system, food supply, and
drinking water, are vital during emergency periods and disaster situations. This critical
infrastructure must be secured and made resilient so that damages can be reduced and
their functions can be immediately restored after a hazard event.
G. Advantages and Disadvantages of Structural and Nonstructural Mitigation
Measures
Based on the discussion of various structural and nonstructural mitigation
measures so far in this chapter, they clearly protect us from natural hazards and, most
important, save lives. They provide a range of economic, environmental, and social
benefits as well. Structural mitigation measures such as dams and reservoirs can be used
for irrigation, water storage, navigation, electricity generation, and even for recreational
purposes, such as boating, camping, skiing, and picnic areas. A total of 10% of American
cropland is irrigated using water stored behind dams. Hydroelectricity produced by dams
is considered clean because it does not contribute to global warming. The United States
produces more than 103,800 megawatts of renewable electricity using hydroelectric dams
and meets 812% of its power needs in that way.
However, the benefits of structural mitigation are always offset by some major
disadvantages. First, the most common criticism about structural mitigation projects is
that they are very expensive, and most of them are technically difficult to build. It is not
easy for local communities to afford large-scale structural mitigation projects. For
instance, the USACE rebuilt the New Orleans levees after Hurricane Katrina to the tune
of about $14 billion (Toreh, 2012). Second, structural mitigation measures reduce
nature’s ability to mitigate the effects of a storm or flood. For instance, levees can
increase flooding upstream or downstream of them by changing the natural flow and
volume of a river (Schwab et al., 2007). While levees are good for individual
communities in small-scale to mid-size events, they are bad for an overall river system’s
capacity to deal with flood flows. Third, structural mitigation measures can afford a false
sense of security and encourage them to live in hazard-prone areas. Failure of structural
projects is very common, and it can make a disaster worse. Prior to the Great Mississippi
Flood of 1927, the USACE were committed to the “levees only” policy to control the
Mississippi River. The 1927 Mississippi River flood demonstrated several major
problems associated with a one-sided approach to flood control. Much of the levee
system along the lower Mississippi was breached or overtopped, and the flood torrent
fanned out over the flat delta (Figure 9.17). Similarly, the levee and floodwall failures in
New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina made the disaster worse, as discussed earlier in
this chapter. The potential for dam failure is also a serious hazard in many communities.
In contrast, nonstructural mitigation measures are always less costly and more
affordable than structural measures. The benefits of these measures can be seen in the
evolution of floodplain management in the United States. In the past, government
agencies used to build massive flood control structures, such as dams, levees, and
floodwalls to control the great rivers. After the Great Flood of 1927, the 1936 Flood
Control Act alone authorized the construction of some 250 projects aimed at both flood
control and relief work. But flood-related expenses were still going up, and people began
to question the effectiveness of just a structural approach. In response, federal, state, and
local agencies began to develop policies and programs with a nonstructural emphasis,
which were not intended not to control or redirect the path of floodwaters (FEMA, n.d.e).
Since the 1960s, floodplain management has evolved from heavy reliance on structural
measures to one using a combination of many tools, including nonstructural flood
protection measures. The creation of the NFIP in 1968 was a landmark step that came out
of this process. In addition, nonstructural mitigation measures such as education and
outreach projects can have significant impact. For instance, in the case of pandemic
planning, educating public about engaging in healthy behaviors can stop a potential
outbreak of disease.
H. Incorporating Mitigation Strategies Into Hazard Mitigation Plans
According to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), an HMP “shall
include a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the
potential losses identified in the risk assessment.” The direction of the mitigation strategy
is determined by the results of the risk assessment and the community’s current and
potential capabilities. It is during this phase that the mitigation goals and objectives
identify possible mitigation actions to reduce high-priority risks and develop a prioritized
strategy. Goals are broad, forward-looking statements that should articulate a
community’s desire to protect people and structures and the overall improvements that
the community wants to achieve. For instance, floods could be identified as a problem for
the community based on its risk assessment. So one of the proposed goal statements
addressing the flood issue might be “to minimize losses to existing and future structures
in hazard areas from flooding.”
HMPs must identify and analyze a range of mitigation actions that address the
goals and objectives of the community. Emphasis should be placed on new and existing
buildings and infrastructure. The analysis needs to address multiple mitigation actions, as
already discussed in this chapter, for each profiled hazard. In addition to listing multiple
actions for each hazard, the HMP should describe how the community decided upon a
particular mitigation action, including the parties involved in the analysis and selection
(FEMA, 2003). One popular method used to analyze the mitigation actions systematically
for consideration is to evaluate the Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal,
Economic, and Environmental (STAPLEE) opportunities and constraints associated with
each mitigation action.
Once the planning team has a list of acceptable mitigation actions based on
STAPLEE or other evaluation criteria, they need to prioritize implementation actions.
The community may wish to complete a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) to prioritize
mitigation actions. However, a BCA is required only when a community applies for a
grant to implement the action. The mitigation plans require only a review of benefits and
costs. A review of benefits and costs is a broad and comprehensive analysis comparing
the monetary and nonmonetary benefits and costs of each action.
Usually, it considers the number of people that will be affected by an action, the
size of the area in question, and which critical facilities will be affected. It also
determines if costs are reasonable compared with the size of the problem and probable
benefits. The various methods for prioritizing actions using review of benefits and costs
include simple listing, relative rating, simple score, and weighted score.The next element
of an HMP is to identify how the mitigation actions will be implemented. In this step, the
planning team identifies the responsible parties, finding source, and the time frame to
implement the selected actions. After the process is completed, the planning team will be
ready to document the implementation strategy.
I. Structural Mitigation Strategies for Manmade Hazards
Structural mitigation strategies are one broad category of measures that can be
taken to mitigate manmade hazards. As with the natural hazards discussed in Chapter 9,
these measures are very costly and must be practical to implement. Furthermore,
community emergency managers and their private-sector counterparts need to view these
measures holistically and ensure that they are based on risk assessment outcomes and
benefit from the support of all stakeholders. Technological hazards are often concentrated
and held in high volumes to facilitate trade, commerce, distribution, and transport.
Therein lies the problem: their potential for doing great harm is increased by the fact that
they exist and move through and around population centers. Conceptually, we might
apply the principle of time, distance, and shielding (TDS) from radiological hazards
whenever we consider options for broadly mitigating technological hazards. In essence,
the less time a human or animal is exposed to an agent, the less harm it can do. The more
distance between the agents and people, the less harm it can do. Finally, if shielding or
protection can be placed between the offending substance and potential victims, that may
lessen or prevent injury altogether.
It is well known that a major strategy for disaster mitigation stemmed from
structural modifications of the human environment. This is best understood if we put the
terms exposure, vulnerability, and risk into context. For emergency managers, these
terms are important since they allow for prioritizing and pursuing capability-building
measures and improving disaster resiliency. In his seminal book Disasters by Design,
Denis Mileti helps define these terms and consider systemic approaches to applying them
and achieving resilient communities. He defines exposure as “the measure of people,
property, or other interests that would be subject to a given risk.” Mileti explains that
vulnerability is “a degree or measure of the capacity to endure, resist, or recover from the
impacts of a hazard in the long term, as well as the short term.” He then defines risk as
“the probability of an event or condition occurring, and refers to hazards as the product of
risk, vulnerability, exposure, and the capacity of humans to respond to extreme events.”
However, he uses the term hazard to mean “the product of risk and vulnerability,”
essentially considering them extreme phenomena with the potential to cause disasters.
To contextualize this with an example, look at the technological hazard posed by
a hazardous material spill from a 90-ton railway car. A simple approach to addressing
this dangerous situation might be to focus solely on improving evacuation plans and
escape routes for citizens in harm’s way. This denotes the acceptance of the incident,
which may be helpful, but at the same time, it excludes the idea of addressing other
variables. A systems approach might include considerations of passing of legislation to
limit or reroute the transport of freight cars carrying bulk containers of specific hazardous
materials (e.g., chlorine). In addition, we might install devices to warn approaching trains
that they are entering a populated area, post strict speed limits and surveillance cameras
to record infractions, or both. We could also get rid of some of the risk factors by
working with railroad engineers to identify and remedy dangerous curves or slopes that
might contribute to a derailment.
J. Nonstructural Mitigation Strategies
Nonstructural mitigation strategies for technological hazards often come in the
form of administrative measures, such as the passing of codes, laws, and regulations. In
essence, politicians and community leaders can propose new laws, regulations, and
rulings that enable the mitigation of some manmade hazards: that is, a legislate to
mitigate strategy. Administrative measures may have a significant impact on
implementing procedures, protocols, and training, which in turn serve to mitigate
manmade hazard incidents. Indeed, many regulations already exist; however, most safety
professionals would agree that only those regulations that are enforced can have any
impact. Without enforcement, there is no assurance that companies and organizations are
taking the necessary steps and that the steps are adequate. After significant incidents
(e.g., accidents, spills, and acts of terrorism), further legislation is often proposed in
response, but often in haste, which may or may not serve the community well.
At a local level and on a large scale, community leaders could move to alter
zoning restrictions that preclude industrial and business properties from being
interspersed with residential areas. This is in keeping with the principle of distance. On a
much smaller scale, building codes for industrial and business properties could be
enhanced to compel those organizations that may harbor technological hazards like
volatile chemicals and combustible gases to harden their structures and incorporate
barriers into their perimeters. This may better protect the areas outside these properties
from any sort of incident or accident that could cause harm to the public. Measures such
as these are in keeping with the principle of shielding.
The intended purposes of these regulations are to enhance worker protections,
improve overall safety, and ultimately mitigate the risks to people, damage to property,
and insult to the environment. Environmental laws enacted in 1986 (i.e., Emergency
Planning and Community Right to Know Act; or EPCRA) and 1990 (i.e., the amendment
to the Clean Air Act) gave the EPA oversight of risk management planning at facilities
that have higher-than-threshold levels of specified chemicals. Regulatory standards were
enacted in the 1990s in response to several significant accidents in the United States and
Bhopal, India.
There have been a number of incidents where first responders were dispatched to
the scene of an emergency situation and became the victims of a secondary explosion or
chemical release. For instance, a fire at a Kansas City construction site containing
explosives in 1988 resulted in the death of six firemen when explosives stored there were
ignited by the fire and subsequently detonated (Adams & Miller, 2004). Had that fire
department been armed with the information that the site harbored explosives, those
deaths would likely have never occurred. The EPCRA legislation discussed earlier in this
chapter was derived from Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) of 1986; often referred to as SARA Title III. Due to tragic incidents like the
1988 Kansas City explosion, SARA Title III/EPCRA requires information sharing and
promotes planning for chemical emergencies at the state and local levels. It is also
intended to provide the public with information about the chemicals that are used, stored,
and released in their community.
Those four specific sections of EPCRA apply to a facility based on the type and
amount of chemicals that a company produces, processes, uses, stores, or releases.
Therefore, which facilities are required to issue reports under EPCRA? Facilities that
hold hazardous chemicals above a certain threshold limit are required to submit specific
information to the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), Local Emergency
Planning Committee (LEPC), and their local fire department (Protection of Environment,
2007; GSA, 2001). For most hazardous chemicals, the threshold amount is any amount
greater than 10,000 pounds (4,500 kg). Chemicals designated by the EPA as extremely
hazardous substances are required to be reported in quantities above 500 pounds (225 kg)
or the individual chemical threshold planning quantity, whichever is lower.
Biological hazards can be looked at in two main ways. Naturally occurring
outbreaks of disease can be widespread on every continent (pandemic) or focused in a
well-defined region or nation (epidemic). In some assessments, disease events such as
these are considered to be natural hazards because they are the very product of nature
itself. Then there are those outbreaks that are caused by an accident (e.g., careless
laboratory release or exposure) or made possible due to the intentional release of a
pathogen or toxin (act of bioterrorism or biocrime). This type of modality is considered a
manmade or technological hazard. Pathogens (bacteria, viruses) and biological toxins of
great public health concern have been characterized by the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) as Category A, B, and C agents. Category A contains the agents
that have greatest potential for harm (refer to Table 10.1). They have received this
dubious distinction because they (i) cause high morbidity and mortality rates, (ii) may be
easily dispersed or spread from human to human, (iii) require special public health
preparedness needs, and (iv) may lead to panic or social disruption. As a result, HHS
requires organizations that store or work with these dangerous pathogens or toxins to
follow the rules, guidelines, and reporting requirements of the Select Agents Program
(Title 42, Chapter 1, Subchapter F, Part 73). The program follows in the wake of the 2001
Amerithrax incident and the subsequent criminal investigations (discussed later in this
chapter). It ensures that the government has visibility on the inventories of those serious
pathogens and the activities of the organizations that hold them.
Biosecurity refers to the policies and measures taken for protecting a nation’s
food supply and agricultural resources from both accidental contamination and deliberate
attacks of bioterrorism (Ryan & Glarum, 2008). Biosecurity is big business, and
rightfully so. Agriculture is a vital part of the nation’s economy, and the systems that
make it up as a whole are very vulnerable to plant and animal pathogens. When it comes
to food security, we need to adopt a “field to fork” mentality—that is, watching over the
entire process of food production, from production to consumption. Our food supply is
vulnerable to biological threats (natural or intentional) while the plants or animals are in
the field, during processing, packaging, transportation, and while the resulting food
products are being sold in a store or market. Our food supply is vulnerable to
agroterrorism; therefore, biosecurity efforts to reduce this threat are an ongoing
challenge. It has three major components: isolation, traffic control, and sanitation.
The first of these events resulted from an intentional act where Bacillus anthracis
(anthrax) spores were placed in envelopes and mailed to members of the media and
Congress. Several cases of inhalation anthrax appeared, and some astute clinicians and
diagnosticians quickly realized that they could not be the result of any natural source.
That triggered a nationwide alert and investigation to make medical professionals and
security experts vigilant for more occurrences. When all was said and done, five people
died as a direct result of their exposure to the deadly spores. Public health measures taken
during this outbreak included medical screening of exposed people, active surveillance,
and monitoring. In addition, some very costly cleanup procedures needed to be carried
out in the Hart Senate Building, the Brentwood mail sorting facility, and a few other
locations that received secondary cross-contamination from the U.S. postal system.
In the aftermath of the anthrax attacks, the United States Postal Service (USPS)
took proactive measures to enhance mail security and safeguard public health.
Recognizing the urgent need for a robust biohazard detection system to screen mail for
anthrax spores, the USPS entered into contracts with industry leaders such as Northrop
Grumman, headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia, and Cepheid, based in Sunnyvale,
California. These contracts marked a significant milestone in the USPS's efforts to fortify
its mail screening capabilities against biological threats. Leveraging the expertise and
technological innovations of Northrop Grumman and Cepheid, the USPS embarked on a
collaborative effort to develop, produce, and install state-of-the-art biohazard detection
systems across its network of mail processing facilities. The biohazard detection system
developed by Northrop Grumman and Cepheid represented a cutting-edge solution
designed to detect the presence of anthrax spores in bulk mail shipments. Utilizing
advanced sensor technologies, molecular diagnostics, and automated processing
algorithms, the system offered high sensitivity and specificity, enabling rapid and reliable
detection of potential biohazards.
Installation of the biohazard detection system within USPS facilities heralded a
new era of mail security, providing an additional layer of protection against bioterrorism
threats. The system's ability to screen mail in bulk for anthrax spores helped to mitigate
the risk of contaminated mail reaching its intended recipients, thereby reducing the
potential for harm and enhancing public safety. Moreover, the collaboration between the
USPS and industry partners exemplified the importance of public-private partnerships in
addressing complex security challenges. By harnessing the collective expertise,
resources, and capabilities of government agencies and private sector companies, the
USPS was able to rapidly develop and deploy a critical biohazard detection capability to
safeguard the nation's mail system. In conclusion, the partnership between the USPS,
Northrop Grumman, and Cepheid underscores the importance of proactive measures and
collaborative efforts in mitigating biological threats and protecting public health. By
investing in innovative technologies and strategic partnerships, the USPS demonstrated
its commitment to ensuring the security and integrity of the mail system in the face of
evolving threats.
Another way that we can mitigate biological threats is through medical
countermeasures. These include such elements as specific drugs, treatment protocols, and
vaccines. Diseases like EVD, which has no specific approved treatment or vaccine, are
difficult to control. The only course of action for the clinical community is to provide
supportive treatment for the symptoms. In essence, they should try to make the patients
comfortable and keep them alive through rehydration and the administration of pain
medications. On the other hand, anthrax is a disease that responds to several antibiotic
drugs and has an approved vaccine. Both have been used prophylactically to handle the
threat to Department of Defense (DoD) personnel and persons exposed in the Amerithrax
incident (such as postal workers and congressional staffers).
The type and rate of emission of the radiological material will dictate how much
time, distance, and shielding (TDS) must be applied to achieve the acceptable level of
protection. Radiological hazards are readily found in medical imaging and some research
laboratories. Radioactive sources must be properly stored and accounted for. Any
organization that stores or harbors radiological sources must have a radiation protection
officer to monitor the sources and exposure of personnel to those sources. Nuclear power
plants are heavily regulated and monitored by the NRC. Mitigation planning mandates,
such as the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), grew out of a focus on
planning for natural hazards. The events of September 11, 2001, have forced
communities to discuss terrorism as a serious possibility. Indeed, for some communities,
it is not a low-probability event. In the spirit of an all-hazards approach to our profession,
mitigation plans should also address hazards generated by human activities such as
terrorism and hazardous material accidents. Terrorism should be considered as a
moderately high-level hazard in any community or organization. Indeed, as communities
confront the diverse array of hazards and threats they face, mitigation measures must
encompass a holistic approach that encompasses not only physical infrastructure
enhancements but also investments in human capital and capacity building. In this regard,
enhancing training, education, and equipping local emergency services, law enforcement,
and government personnel emerges as a crucial component of effective hazard mitigation
planning. Training serves as the foundation upon which the capabilities and readiness of
emergency responders and government personnel are built. By providing specialized
training tailored to the specific hazards and threats facing a community, local agencies
can ensure that responders are equipped with the knowledge, skills, and competencies
needed to effectively mitigate, respond to, and recover from emergencies.
Education plays a complementary role in enhancing resilience by raising
awareness among stakeholders about the nature of hazards, the importance of
preparedness, and the actions individuals can take to protect themselves and their
communities. Public education campaigns, community workshops, and outreach
initiatives can help empower residents to become active participants in hazard mitigation
efforts, fostering a culture of resilience and collective responsibility. Furthermore,
equipping local emergency services, law enforcement, and government personnel with
the necessary tools, resources, and equipment is essential for enhancing their operational
effectiveness and response capabilities. This may include investments in communication
systems, protective gear, specialized vehicles, and technology platforms to facilitate
coordination, communication, and information sharing during emergencies.
By investing in enhanced training, education, and equipment for local responders
and government personnel, communities can bolster their resilience and preparedness
across a wide range of hazards and threats. These investments not only strengthen the
capacity of frontline responders to effectively manage emergencies but also empower
communities to take proactive steps to mitigate risks and build a safer, more resilient
future for all. Moreover, integrating training, education, and equipment enhancements
into hazard mitigation planning ensures that these measures are aligned with the specific
needs and priorities of the community. By incorporating these elements into
comprehensive mitigation strategies, communities can maximize their impact and
effectiveness in reducing the potential for loss of life, property, and livelihoods in
emergencies.
While the term mitigation refers generally to activities that reduce loss of life and
property by reducing or eliminating the effects of disasters, in the terrorism context, it is
often interpreted to include a wide variety of preparedness and response actions. For the
purposes of this chapter, the traditional meaning will be assumed; that is, mitigation
refers to specific actions that can be taken to reduce loss of life and property from
manmade hazards by modifying the environment to reduce the risk and potential
consequences of these hazards. Good security protocols and the presence of a guard force
serve as important deterrents that may preclude or prevent an act of terrorism.
K. Technological Hazards Into The HMP
The overarching mission of the HMP is to identify cost-effective objectives and
strategies to reduce the risk to life and property associated with potential high-risk natural
hazards and manmade hazards and to improve community response and recovery if these
hazards occur. It is important to highlight that the mission emphasizes cost-effective
mitigation approaches in recognition of the fiscal limitations of the community. This will
likely require that the community develop partnerships and establish priorities (see Figure
10.11), which should be included in their hazard mitigation mission. Partnerships can
help overcome financial challenges but also expand possibilities for more effective
implementation strategies and identify shared responsibilities in meeting hazard
mitigation objectives.
The most preferred goals are those that reduce the number of facilities and
structures located within hazard-prone areas as much as possible. Where this cannot be
realistically achieved, enhancing the ability of structures to withstand hazard events
should be pursued. If efforts to avoid or minimize impacts cannot be practically
implemented, communities should seek to improve its response to, recovery from, and
preparedness for hazard events. Enhancing community awareness of hazards is also
important for effective mitigation planning. All-hazard mitigation work teams develop
mitigation strategies. Hazards requiring similar responses should be grouped together,
with the greatest focus placed on those identified as posing the highest risk to the
community and its residents. The next section presents an example of how mitigation
planning activities might transpire.
Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Environmental, and Economic
(STAPLEE) criteria (refer to Figure 10.12) are used to formulate a list of priorities for
potential projects to be completed within the community (FEMA, 2003a). STAPLEE is a
valuable resource for deciding which programs are cost effective and could legitimately
be implemented. Technological, manmade hazard mitigation is not typically addressed in
community HMPs. This is due to specific language in the Stafford Act and DMA 2000,
which stipulate that community planners should focus on natural hazards. FEMA
philosophy, supported by a study by the DHS Office of the Inspector General, is that the
responsibility for dealing with technological hazards rests with private organizations that
harbor dangerous materials. Indeed, as communities evolve and face new challenges,
more progressive approaches to hazard mitigation planning (HMP) are emerging, which
encompass a broader spectrum of risks, including technological hazards. These forward-
thinking communities recognize the importance of addressing not only natural disasters
but also human-made and technological hazards that pose significant threats to public
safety, infrastructure, and the environment.
Technological hazards encompass a wide range of potential threats, including
dam failures, utility outages, chemical spills, and acts of terrorism. While these hazards
may differ in their origins and characteristics, they share commonalities in their potential
to cause widespread disruption, damage, and harm to communities. Incorporating
technological hazards into HMPs requires a proactive and multi-disciplinary approach
that engages stakeholders from diverse sectors, including government agencies,
emergency responders, utilities, industry partners, and the public. These partnerships are
essential for identifying, assessing, and mitigating the unique risks associated with
technological hazards.
One key aspect of addressing technological hazards in HMPs is conducting
comprehensive risk assessments to identify vulnerable areas, critical infrastructure, and
potential scenarios for various hazards. This may involve modeling the potential
consequences of dam failures, analyzing the impact of utility outages on essential
services, evaluating the risks posed by hazardous materials storage facilities, and
assessing the vulnerability of key assets to acts of terrorism. Based on the findings of risk
assessments, communities can develop targeted mitigation strategies and action plans to
reduce the likelihood and impact of technological hazards. These strategies may include
infrastructure upgrades to enhance resilience, emergency response protocols for rapid
intervention, public education campaigns to raise awareness, and contingency plans for
business continuity and recovery.
Moreover, integrating technological hazards into HMPs requires ongoing
monitoring, evaluation, and adaptation to changing threats and circumstances.
Communities must remain vigilant and responsive to emerging risks, leveraging the latest
technologies, data analytics, and best practices to continually improve their resilience and
preparedness. By addressing technological hazards in their HMPs, progressive
communities demonstrate a commitment to comprehensive risk management and
resilience-building. By proactively identifying and mitigating risks, these communities
can better protect their residents, infrastructure, and environment, ensuring a safer and
more resilient future for all.
In the United States, most chemical hazard issues are regulated by the Department
of Transportation (DOT), OSHA, and the EPA. Structurally, chemical hazards are
mitigated by the proper positioning, storage, and packaging of these materials. Biological
hazards may come in the form of natural outbreaks, accidents, and intentional releases. In
order to respond to such incidents, HHS has the Select Agents Program, which deals
administratively with the most serious pathogens and toxins in Categories A, B, and C.
Laboratories that handle these pathogens and toxins follow strict guidelines for biosafety
to ensure that laboratory workers and the public do not become exposed to these hazards.
Indeed, biosecurity programs and measures play a crucial role in safeguarding a
nation's food supply chain from the threat of harmful pathogens that can affect plants,
animals, and consumers. These programs encompass a range of preventive and protective
measures designed to detect, mitigate, and manage the risk of biological threats to
agriculture and food production systems.
At the core of biosecurity programs is the recognition of the interconnectedness of
global food systems and the potential for pathogens to spread rapidly across borders. As
such, these programs are often multi-faceted and collaborative, involving government
agencies, agricultural producers, industry stakeholders, researchers, and international
partners. One key aspect of biosecurity programs is the implementation of measures to
prevent the introduction and spread of pathogens into agricultural and food production
systems. This may include strict quarantine and border control measures to regulate the
importation of plant and animal products, as well as stringent sanitation and hygiene
protocols within production facilities to minimize the risk of contamination.
Additionally, biosecurity programs often involve surveillance and monitoring
activities aimed at early detection of potential threats. This may include routine testing of
crops, livestock, and food products for signs of disease or contamination, as well as the
establishment of rapid response mechanisms to address emerging threats promptly.
Education and outreach also play a vital role in biosecurity efforts, as raising awareness
among stakeholders about the importance of biosecurity measures and best practices can
help foster a culture of vigilance and compliance. Training programs for agricultural
producers, veterinarians, and food handlers on biosecurity protocols and disease
prevention strategies can help enhance readiness and response capabilities at the
grassroots level.
Furthermore, research and innovation are critical components of biosecurity
programs, as they enable the development of new technologies, tools, and strategies for
mitigating biological threats. This may include the development of vaccines, diagnostic
tests, and biocontrol methods to combat specific pathogens, as well as the use of
advanced surveillance technologies and data analytics to improve early warning systems.
Overall, biosecurity programs and measures serve as a linchpin of national food security
efforts, protecting the integrity and safety of the food supply chain against a myriad of
biological threats. By prioritizing prevention, detection, and response, these programs
help ensure the resilience and sustainability of agriculture and food production systems,
safeguarding the health and well-being of both consumers and the broader economy.
