Mitigation in the Past

The root of mitigation is to lessen the risk of damage caused by potential disasters to any person, object, or economy.  The protection strategy of mitigation is used by all levels of government, private organizations, and even in the homes of the general population.  When a person puts a fire escape ladder in a second story bedroom, they are practicing mitigation.  When a company teaches employees the proper use of hazardous equipment, they are practicing mitigation.  If a community devises evacuation plans, that is mitigation.  When a state government makes planning regulations in order to prevent homes from being built in a floodplain, it is also mitigation.  When the federal government gives grants for first responders to enhance their training that is also mitigation. 

Preceding the September 11th Terrorist attacks mitigation was primarily based on direct reactions to known possible events.  On September 10th, 2001 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director Joe Allbaugh stated that the mitigation responsibilities in communities are:
1.    “Identifying the hazard and assessing the risk,
2.    Planning; and
3.    Making real brick and mortar changes in our communities.”
Allbaugh, in the same speech, identified the importance of land use and building codes, the availability of the latest technology for local emergency managers, training for the technologies and tools.  He encouraged pre disaster mitigation by reinstating funding of $50,000 per state for the fiscal year 2002 for pre disaster mitigation programs. (FEMA, 2001)

Most communities focus hazard mitigation on known possible disasters.  As described in the FEMA home study course “The Emergency Program Manager” published in June of 1998, mitigation begins with hazard identification and vulnerability analysis.  The course also distinguishes the need for planning for probable hazards, such as planning for an earthquake in California and not planning for a hurricane in Kansas.  The simplified direction of community level mitigation recommended in terms of the role of the emergency manager is as follows:
   
1.    Identify Hazards
a.    Research community historical disasters
b.    Research community historical emergencies   
c.    Research through the community through non-conventional sources in order to learn about non-recorded emergencies and/or disasters such as:
i.    Citizens, especially those who have lived in the area for a long time
ii.    Teachers at the high school, community college, or university levels
d.    Research through your FEMA Regional Office and other applicable governmental agencies
e.    Correlate the past disasters with current hazards
f.    Research potential future hazards
g.    Update hazards as necessary
2.    Conduct a Vulnerability Analysis
a.    Review each hazard identified in the previous phase
b.    Correlate the hazard with its effect on the community
c.    Identify hazards with the ability to create the most damage
3.    Motivate Mitigation Action in the Community
a.    Through laws
b.    Through structural measures
c.    By using incentives and disincentives
d.    Through land use planning
e.    Etc…
4.    Reexamine Practices Following Disasters and Fix as Necessary (FEMA, 1998)


This plan of action and similar plans proved successful in many communities.  As Joe Allbaugh stated in the previously discussed presentation:
“Along the Red River in North Dakota and Minnesota, communities on both sides of the river took their flood threat seriously and acted to minimize the impacts of this year's event. Levees, both permanent and temporary, held. In areas where FEMA and the State and local governments had conducted buyouts, the water rose, but no people, nor homes were affected.
To the west, in Washington State, the recent Nisqually earthquake did far less damage than might have been expected, partially, because several decades ago, Seattle-Tacoma and Olympia leaders adopted codes and issued municipal bonds to erect buildings that could withstand earthquakes.” (FEMA, 2001)
Those and countless other stories of successful mitigation practices are found, read, or heard from many people across the country, even the world.  However, but one fateful day in September 2001 changed the way Americans face emergency management forever.  Did the terrorist attacks change mitigation practices forever?  Of course, but the changes may not be as blatant as one might imagine…

Changes in Community Mitigation since the September 11th Terrorist attacks

    One might imagine that the changes in emergency management and its practices since the September 11th terrorist attacks would be drastic.  These drastic changes would be easily visible and hopefully widely successful.  Many changes in mitigations strategies as a direct result of the tragedy are also visible and drastic.  The increased security at airports, including making airport safety a national security issue is a drastic movement. (TSA, 2002)  Perhaps the most drastic change in emergency management and mitigation is the creation of the Department Homeland Security.  As Governor Tom Ridge stated regarding the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, in an online chat:  “the new department creates the most effective way for not only the federal government to work but it is clearly the most effective way to develop the strong relationships and the necessary partnerships with the states and local governments, with the 700,000 law enforcement officials around the country, with the hundreds of thousands of first responders the paramedics and the firemen and the EMT personnel.”(MSNBC, 2001)  These actions and the creation of a new department are national level changes.  How has community level mitigation changed since the terrorist attacks? 

Incorporating terrorism into mitigation strategies is the new plan for hazard mitigation.  FEMA suggests, “terrorism is now just as much a part of the hazard environment as wind, water and seismicity, and FEMA now has guidance available to help state and local emergency mangers incorporate terrorism and technological disasters into mitigation planning.”(FEMA, 2002)  In a FEMA article on Hazard Mitigation and terrorism, this is suggested as a mitigation planning strategy:

1.    “Identifying and organizing resources
2.    Conducting a risk or threat assessment and estimating losses
3.    Identifying mitigation measures that will reduce the effects of the hazards and creating a strategy to deal with the mitigation measures in priority order
4.    Implementing the measures, evaluating the results, and keeping the plan up-to-date.”(FEMA, 2002)

Local agencies in the DC Metro area have also taken new mitigation measures since the terrorist attacks.  Some examples are:
   
•    Arlington County, VA:  “the Emergency Preparedness Coordinator conducted exercises and training with the County’s Emergency Management Team (EMT) in preparation for the possibility of a terrorist incident using a weapon of mass destruction and one bio-terrorism table-top exercise funded by the U.S. Department of Justice.”(Arlington County, 2002)
•    Fairfax County, VA:  “Overtime funding for the Police Department has been increased $1.63 million in FY 2003 primarily for security and investigative work that began after the events of September 11 and is expected to continue based on our current high alert status. This work includes participation in federal terrorism task forces, increased surveillance activities, and outreach to residents, neighborhood groups and businesses in target communities.”  (Fairfax County, 2002)
•    Washington, DC:  “In response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, the District of Columbia (the District) government focused great effort to assess and revise city emergency plans.”(DCEMA, 2002) In the new Disaster Response Plan (DRP), the DC Emergency Management Agency (DCEMA) states:  “The DRP takes an all-hazards approach to disaster response, which means the plan does not address specific scenarios, but can be utilized in any public emergency situation.” (DCEMA, 2002)

Out With the Old, In With the New, and Changes for the Future

    The changes in emergency management since September 11, 2001 are great.  However, the changes in local mitigation policy and practices are not enormous.  The main changes occur in the transformation of mitigation for specific events to all-hazard approaches.  Bioterrorism and Chemical terrorism preparations have also increased, although not at a huge amount.  The addition of supplemental preparations may also be a result of the Anthrax attacks following September 11th and not the terrorist attacks themselves.      

Changes in mitigation do not seem to be enforced or encouraged in such a way that local communities are obligated to follow such practices.  Why would communities practice mitigation with already tight budgets and time constraints?  It has been seen numerous times that mitigation follows directly following some disaster.  Only when the community can see that it really can ‘happen to them’ do they take action.  It is as if there is a pyramid of policies and practices in emergency management.  During non-disaster times, the largest effort is directed to response and there is little or no mitigation practices.  Directly following a disaster, mitigation is a focus and has attention to its policies and practices.  However, it would be a greater benefit to practice mitigation as a ‘slow but steady’ technique.  Convincing local communities to actually research and mitigate, rather than mitigate as a result of a disaster.

A continuation of an all-hazard approach is greatly recommended.  Research and preparation for Bioterrorism and Chemical Terrorism is also recommended, although they should both be balanced and fit into current all-hazard strategies.  Some of these programs are old programs in which there has become an increased fervor in the old programs.  Re-starting or re-focusing on older programs which had fallen by the wayside as a result of non activity in the areas has become popular.

Further studies should be undertaken to discover if there is a correlation between the number of deaths as a result of a disaster and the amount of funding and mitigation activities.  It is this researcher’s opinion that only major events, resulting in a large number of deaths or large amount of damage, receive funding and mitigation attention.  Perhaps the all-hazard approach will help deter these practices, as it is not recommended to prepare for the 2% event and waste efforts toward such unrealistic goals. 
   
    Mitigation should be practiced every day.  Policies and procedures should be enhanced in order to promote mitigation for every community, no matter how large or small.  Mitigation is proven to work and communities should use it.  Safety is the key; they have the key (mitigation) so why not turn it?
 
Mitigation Paper References:

Arlington County.  Fiscal Year 2003 Proposed Budget:  Section E - Public Safety, Fire Department.  Arlington County, Virginia.  Available from URL:  http://www.co.arlington.va.us/dmf/fy03_budget/section_e/fire/tsp.htm.  Accessed on November 24, 2002.

The District of Columbia, Emergency Management Agency.  District Response Plan.  April 4, 2002.  Available from URL:  http://dcema.dc.gov/info/pdf/cover.pdf.  Accessed on November 12, 2002.

The District of Columbia, Emergency Management Agency.  District Response Plan, Basic Plan.  April 4, 2002.  Available from URL:  http://dcema.dc.gov/info/pdf/basic.pdf.  Accessed on November 12, 2002.

Fairfax County.  Budget Highlights, 2003.  Available from URL:  http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/gov/omb/pdf/overview/Budget_Highlight.pdf.  Accessed on November 13, 2002.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency.  FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh, National Emergency Management Association Conference.  September 10, 2001.  Available from URL: http://www.fema.gov/library/nema091001.shtm.  Accessed on November 12, 2002.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency.  Hazard Mitigation: It’s not just for natural disasters any more.  October 7, 2002.  Available from URL:   http://www.fema.gov/fima/antiterrorism/.  Accessed on November 12, 2002.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency.  Home Study Course… The Emergency Program Manager.  IS-1.  June, 1998.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency.  Mitigation planning guidance for incorporating terrorism into hazard mitigation programs now online.  October 22, 2002.  Available from URL:  http://www.fema.gov/fima/planning9.shtm.  Accessed on November 13, 2002.

MSCBC.com.  Gov. Tom Ridge, Director of Homeland Security.  Online Chat.  June 12, 2002.  Available from URL:  http://www.msnbc.com/news/763702.asp#BODY.  Accessed on September 28, 2002.

Transportation Security Administration.  Commission Reports, White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security The DOT Status Report.  2002.  Available from URL:  http://www.tsa.dot.gov/public/display?content=326&theme=74.  Accessed on November 12, 2002.


Acronyms

DCEMA: DC Emergency Management Agency
DRP: Disaster Response Plan
EMT: Emergency Management Team
FEMA:  Federal Emergency Management Agency
TSA:  Transportation Security Administration



Relevant Websites for Further Information:

Arlington County:  www.co.arlington.va.us
DC EMA:  dcema.dc.gov
Fairfax County:  www.co.fairfax.va.us
The Federal Emergency Management Agency:  www.fema.gov
Transportation Security Administration:  www.tsa.dot.gov