Session 4 Slide 4-1

Hazards Risk Management In the United States

Session 4 Slide Deck

Session 4 Slide 4-2

Session Objectives

4.1 Discuss Federal government efforts to manage risk

4.2 Examine Project Impact and community engagement in hazard mitigation

4.3 Examine the legal basis for hazards risk management

4.4 Discuss FEMA’s “Whole Community” concept4.5 Examine risk management process owners and

stakeholders4.6 Discuss obstacles to effective risk management

Government Efforts to Manage Risk• Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)• Civil Defense• National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)• Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM)• Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA)• Repetitive Flood Claims Program (RFC)• Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL)• National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program

(NEHRP) Session 4 3

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

• Hurricanes Betsy (1965) and Camille (1969)• Available and affordable flood insurance• Floodplain management ordinance• Federal floodplain mapping• Voluntary then mandatory program• Flood Management Assistance Fund (FMA)• Community Rating System• Over 20,000 communities

Session 4 4

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2000)

• Encourage mitigation planning at the State and local levels

• Incentives

• HMGP funding

• Local plans

Session 4 5

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)

• Enacted by Congress in 1988

• Post disaster

• Implement long-term hazard mitigation programs

• Reduce the risk

• Benefits of the project must exceed the costs

Session 4 6

Examples of activities supported by HMGP include the following:

• Acquisition of property on a voluntary basis and commitment to open use of the property

• Retrofitting of structures and lifelines• Elevation of structures• Vegetation management programs• Building code enforcement• Localized flood-control projects• Public education and awareness

Session 4 7

HMGP Cost Share

• 50% Federal and 50% State and local match• Participation low• 1993 Midwest Floods and the Volkmer

Amendment• 75% Federal and 25% State and local match• Increase funding and participation• Property Acquisition program• Funds for mitigation planners

Session 4 8

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM)

• Authorized funding of mitigation actions pre-disaster

• Competitive grants

Session 4 9

FEMA Flood Loss Reduction Programs

• Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)

• Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC)

• Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL)

Session 4 10

National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP)

• Reduce earthquake risks

• Multi-agency program

• Funding to States

Session 4 11

NEHRP, is a multi-Agency effort that works to:

• Improve understanding, characterization, and prediction of hazards and vulnerabilities

• Improve model building codes and land use practices

• Reduce risk through post-earthquake investigations and education

• Develop and improve design and construction techniques

• Improve mitigation capacity; and accelerate application of research results

Session 4 12

The NEHRP provides funding to states to establish programs that:

• Promote public education and awareness

• Planning

• Loss estimation studies

• Some minimal mitigation activities

Session 4 13

NEHRP Agencies

• FEMA

• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

• National Science Foundation (NSF)

• United States Geological Society (USGS)

Session 4 14

Project Impact

• Disasters in the 1990s

• Mitigation tools available

• FEMA Focus Groups

• Community-based

• Launched in 1997

Session 4 15

Project Impact – Concept

Communities were asked to achieve the following four goals:

– Build a community partnership.– Assess community risks.– Prioritize risk-reduction actions.– Build support for implementation of mitigation

projects by communicating your actions.

Session 4 16

Project Impact Assessment

Benefits:– Understand risks– Leverage resources– Reduce losses– New loss-reduction activities– Laying the groundwork for future mitigation

efforts– Capitalizing on the synergy created by Project

Impact

Session 4 17

Project Impact Assessment

Challenges:– Turnover– Balance– Long-term funding

Session 4 18

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)

• Post-disaster

• Presidential declaration

• Stafford Act

• Eligible entities:– State and local governments– Indian tribes or other tribal organizations– Certain non-profit organizations

• Individuals and businesses not eligibleSession 4 19

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)

Minimum project criteria - There are five issues you must consider when determining the eligibility of a proposed project.

– Does your project conform to your State's Hazard Mitigation Plan?

– Does your project provide a beneficial impact on the disaster area, i.e. the State?

– Does your application meet the environmental requirements?

– Does your project solve a problem independently?– Is your project cost-effective?

Session 4 20

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)

Funding– Limited– 15% or more of total disaster relief funding– 75% Federal and 25% State and local match– CBDG funds

Session 4 21

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000)

• New approach to mitigation planning

• Amended Stafford Act

• Coordination between planning and implementation

• Incentives

• Funding for plan development

Session 4 22

FEMA’s “Whole Community” Concept

• Government-centric EM model not enough• Leveraging resources• Serving the entire community• Larger EM team• FEMA and other Federal Agencies

– Local, tribal, state and territorial partners;

– Non-governmental organizations like faith-based and non-profit groups and private sector industry;

– Individuals, families and communities, who continue to be the nation’s most important assets as first responders during a disaster. 

• National dialogueSession 4 23

FEMA’s “Whole Community” Concept

Three Foundational Principles– Understand and meet the actual needs of the

whole community.– Engage and empower all parts of the

community.– Strengthen what works well in communities on

a daily basis.

Session 4 24

FEMA’s “Whole Community” Concept

Benefits include: – Shared understanding of community needs and

capabilities

– Greater empowerment and integration of resources from across the community

– Stronger social infrastructure

– Establishment of relationships that facilitate more effective prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery activities

– Increased individual and collective preparedness

– Greater resiliency at both the community and national levels

Session 4 25

Risk Management Stakeholders

• Government

• Business community

• Academia/hazards research community

• Community groups

Session 4 26

Risk Management Stakeholders

Government - Elected Officials

•Federal elected officials

•State Governors

•Local elected officials

Session 4 27

Risk Management Stakeholders

• Government - Agencies and Departments– Federal

• FEMA/DHS

• Other Federal agencies

– State• State emergency management agencies

• Other State government agencies

– Local• Local emergency management agencies

• Other local government agencies

Session 4 28

Risk Management Stakeholders

Business Community– Large employers– Small business owners– Chambers of Commerce– Project Impact– Business sectors

Session 4 29

Risk Management Stakeholders

Academia/Hazards Research Community

•FEMA Higher education Program

•University Research Programs

•Not-for-profit institutes

Session 4 30

Risk Management Stakeholders

Community Groups

•Local Emergency Planning Committees

•Local chapters of National and regional community organizations

•Faith-based and voluntary groups

Session 4 31

Obstacles

• Risk perception

• Availability of qualitative and quantitative data

• Mitigation actions

• Funding

• Politics

• Risk Communication

• Lack of Organizational ConstituencySession 4 32