FIRE DEPARTMENT HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING

EXECUTIVE ANALYSIS OF FIRE SERVICE OPERATIONS

IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

By: Jerry E. Thorson

Federal Way Fire Department
Federal Way, Washington

An applied research project submitted to the National Fire Academy

as part of the Executive Fire Officer Program.

October 2002
 2

ABSTRACT

Fire departments are impacted by the same disasters that affect their community. Floods,

earthquakes, hazardous materials spills, terrorist attacks, and others can have a devastating effect

on departments. The impacts are reduced or eliminated through a process called hazard

mitigation planning.

The problem was that the Federal Way Fire Department didn’t have a hazard mitigation

plan. Development and implementation of a hazard mitigation plan will reduce or eliminate

potential damage to the department. Federal Way didn’t know what risks it is facing, and hasn’t

done anything to reduce the impacts of those risks.

The purpose of this research was to identify the benefits and components of a hazard

mitigation plan. It was anticipated that the Federal Way Fire Department would develop a plan,

improving the department’s ability to survive the next major incident. Other fire departments

may utilize this format to develop their own hazard mitigation plans.

Action research methods were used to answer the following questions:

1. What is a hazard mitigation plan?

2. What are the benefits of having a hazard mitigation plan?

3. How are the appropriate hazards identified for inclusion into a plan?

4. What elements should be included in a hazard mitigation plan?

Procedures used in this research included a literature review, fire department survey, and

study of applicable standards, laws and other guidelines.

The results of this research included confirmation that mitigation planning has many

benefits to fire departments. Mitigation planning reduces the impacts from natural, and man
 3

made disasters, and ensures fire departments are eligible for federal reimbursement for response

and recovery.

It is recommended the Federal Way Fire Department develop a hazard mitigation plan for

its facilities, properties and personnel. The department should follow the requirements outlined

in Appendix A as it develops the hazard mitigation plan.

.
 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………2

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………..4

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………….6

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE……………………………………………………....7

LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………………………...10

PROCEDURES…………………………………………………………………………………16

RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………………….18

DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………………...24

RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………………………………….28

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………….30

APPENDIX A FEMA Mitigation Plan Requirements………...….………..………………...32

APPENDIX B Hazard Mitigation Survey Letter ….................................................................35

APPENDIX C Hazard Mitigation Survey................……….....................................................36

APPENDIX D Hazard Mitigation Survey Results....................................................................38

 5

TABLES

TABLE 1 Risk Rating Matrix.....................................................................................................21

TABLE 2 FEMA Minimum Requirements for a Mitigation Plan ..........................................22

TABLE 3 Area Vulnerabilities ...................................................................................................24

 6

INTRODUCTION

Every region in the country is at risk for some type of natural or man made disasters.

These include earthquakes, windstorms, bombings, floods and many others. In some cases fire

departments are at greater risk than the rest of the community, as they may be targets of a

secondary device at a terrorist event. In order to serve the citizens, firefighters must first survive

the incident, and then respond to the emergencies as needed. Just as fire departments throughout

the country work to reduce the risks from fires, they must also work to reduce the risk from

disasters.

What would happen if a citizen was trapped in a flooded house, but the fire department

couldn’t respond because all their fire stations were also under water? A similar situation may

occur if fire departments don’t prepare for emergencies such as earthquakes, or floods. Fire

departments must take the steps needed to survive the incident if they are to carry out their

mission after the event. The Federal Way Fire Department has not adopted a hazard mitigation

plan.

The problem is that the Federal Way Fire Department hasn’t adopted a hazard mitigation

plan. Without a hazard mitigation plan the fire department is vulnerable to the same natural and

man-made risks that may devastate the local community. Fire departments that develop and

implement hazard mitigation plans can reduce or eliminate the damage from disasters. This risk

reduction should improve a fire department’s operations ability after the event.

A hazard mitigation plan evaluates the potential risks, both natural and man-made, and

lays out the steps necessary to reduce the risk, or impact from those hazards. Common examples

would be reinforcing the foundation of an older structure located in an earthquake zone, or taking
 7

steps to make a building less prone to a car-bombing incident. Mitigation planning normally

focuses on potential future events.

The purpose of this research is to identify the benefits and components of a hazard

mitigation plan. The research is also used to identify the process for determining which hazards

should be included in the plan. Once the process is identified it is anticipated that the Federal

Way Fire Department will develop a hazard mitigation plan. Other fire departments should also

be able to utilize this format to develop their own hazard mitigation plan.

Action research methods are used to answer the following research questions:

1. What is a hazard mitigation plan?

2. What are the benefits of having a hazard mitigation plan?

3. How are the appropriate hazards identified for inclusion into a plan?

4. What elements should be included in a hazard mitigation plan?

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE

Western Washington has a history of natural and man-made disasters. These events

include earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, windstorms, tsunamis, landslides, and severe

winter weather. The Federal Way area is currently classified at a seismic hazard zone three on a

scale of zero to four, with four being the highest hazard. The man-made events have included

hazardous materials releases, attempted terrorist attack, and mass casualty incidents.

There have been several events in Washington State featured on the national news

recently. A 6.8 magnitude earthquake in the Nisqually river delta on February 28, 2001 caused

extensive damage to the area. In 1996 the area experienced a severe winter storm with freezing

temperatures and widespread power outages. Federal Way opened emergency shelters for those
 8

without heat or power. As the snow melted urban flooding forced evacuations due to rising

water levels. Major wildland fires in the urban interface area have also forced major actions by

communities causing activation of the fire mobilization plan statewide. In 1999 United States

border agents arrested a man smuggling bomb components across the US/Canadian border with

the suspected intent to set it off at a Seattle New Years Eve Celebration.

It is important to keep in mind that for each of these major emergencies or disasters there

are multiple impacts. Not only are people frequently killed or injured, but also buildings,

bridges, and other structures may be damaged, critical systems may go off line with negative

impacts on the local economy.

The Federal Way Fire Department is in a position where any of these natural or man-

made hazards could impact the fire stations. The question is which hazards impact each station?

Another concern is how high the risk is of the various hazards. When considering these hazards

it is also important to include secondary effects on the community. In other words, if a terrorist

event occurred at the Weyerhaeuser King County Aquatics Center (a world class competition

swimming complex) what impact that could have on the nearby fire station, and its personnel.

Until the department considers the hazards and develops a mitigation plan it is just as vulnerable

to a major event, such as an earthquake, as the rest of the community.

The city of Federal Way is located in western Washington, approximately 20 miles south

of Seattle on the shores of Puget Sound. The fire department covers 34 square miles with a

population of approximately 105,000. The area is primarily residential with significant retail,

and general business areas. There is some limited manufacturing within the district’s

boundaries. The city is home to several national headquarters for businesses such as

Weyerhaeuser, World Vision, and several other regional offices, as well as hosting international
 9

swimming events. The proximity to both Seattle and Tacoma may make it a target of terrorism

in the future.

While it is true that the area may experience any of the natural and man-made disasters

that impact communities throughout the country, without a hazard vulnerability analysis, the

department has no idea, which poses the greatest risk. How will the fire stations hold up during

the next earthquake? Will our storage and furnishings injure firefighters so they are victims, not

rescuers after the next quake? Can we afford to mitigate all possible hazards, or only the most

likely ones? Are we prepared to survive the next severe windstorm? These are questions that a

hazard mitigation plan can help address.

During the Executive Analysis of Fire Service Operations in Emergency Management

course, the focus was on management of major emergencies such as tornadoes, floods, and train

derailments. It also specifically trained the students to perform hazard analysis so those hazards

could be mitigated. The course specifically taught students to focus on hazard identification, and

department capability. By completing both, the Federal Way Fire Department will be able to

identify the hazards the community faces, and then look at the capabilities of the department.

This should help with the planning process, and ensure the department is ready to respond to its

citizens needs. It may also identify areas where the department faces hazards that reduce their

ability to respond. The risk assessment not only evaluates the risks the community could expect,

but also the occupancies that are in that community.

This research also focused on the United States Fire Administrations operational

objectives by attempting to promote a comprehensive, multi-hazard risk reduction plan led by the

fire service. Federal Way Fire Department will set the example for the rest of the community

with its hazard mitigation plan. Once the fire department plan is in place, it can use the plan as
 10

an example for the business community to help them prepare for the hazards they face. It can

also use that experience with the neighborhood groups that are working to become more self-

sufficient.

This effort is significant to the local community, regionally, and on a national level, as it

will likely reduce the costs, both financially, and in lives when the next major disaster occurs.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review began at King County’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) with

study of the documents on hand. The review continued at the National Fire Academy’s Learning

Resource Center. Literature was also obtained from the Federal Emergency Management

Agency’s (FEMA) resource files. The literature ranged from public laws such as the Stafford

Act, to reports on the success of other mitigation plans, and to journal articles describing the

benefits of planning.

The research started with an attempt at identifying exactly what a mitigation plan should

accomplish for a community. According to John D. Seyffert (1998) “Hazard mitigation is a

management strategy, in which current actions and expenditures made to reduce the occurrence

or severity of potential natural disasters are balanced with potential losses from future events”.

Mr. Seyffert makes the determination that not all hazards can be mitigated away; some will not

make sense to complete based on the cost to implement and the level of risk. While his

description is focused on natural events the same is true for man made events. Fire departments

will have to prioritize which risks to address.

One crucial step to the success of a fire department mitigation plan is to identify the

benefits of that planning effort. The literature review went on to examine the reference materials
 11

for benefits of mitigation planning. A very clear example of those benefits was found in a

FEMA report. It described the reinforcement of highway bridges in earthquake prone California.

Since 1971 California’s Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has retrofitted over 1,305

bridges, making them more likely to survive the next earthquake. “The average cost per square

foot for retrofitting is $31.71. By contrast, if a bridge were to be destroyed in an earthquake, a

new bridge would typically cost between $90-$120 per square foot,” (1997). The report goes on

to identify that “this infers that the average bridge retrofit cost is about 22.7% of the replacement

cost,” (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 1997). When one considers the long

term impacts of the loss of a major freeway bridge, this appears to be a very wise investment.

One of the reoccurring themes found in the journal articles was the need to motivate both

the public and private sector. Vincent Montane (1990) describes it this way, “the philosophy in

business today must be that if you can’t take care of yourself during and after disasters, you

cannot take care of your customers.” He goes on to state, “it is crucial for the survival of

business to focus on the steps to take for training employees, protecting property and facilities,

and maintaining, as well as revising your recovery plan.” If these statements are true for private

business, then they are vital for fire departments.

It became clear very quickly that response and recovery from disasters has become

increasingly expensive over the last several years. Ross T. Newkirk (2001) describes the costs

very succinctly:

From 1989 to 1993 the average (US) annual losses from disasters were 3.3 billion.

During the last four years [1993-1997] the average annual loses increased to $13 billion.

On the federal side alone, disasters have cost a total of more than $20 billion in public
 12

funds that could have been used for public education, job training, and health care for

investments in our children and our nation’s future.

With the costs of response and recovery escalating government agencies must encourage the

local communities to become more resistant to the effects of disasters.

Several researchers attempted to motivate emergency planners by describing how

significant the problem is worldwide. “Over the last 20 years natural disasters have claimed 2.8

million lives worldwide,” (Housner, 1988). He goes on to make the connection between the

dangers and risk of disasters and also introduced mitigation as a viable option. “It may not be

possible to prevent the occurrence of an earthquake or landslide, but the disasters such hazards

generate can often be lessened or avoided,” (Housner, 1988).

The research to this point shows a need for mitigation planning but it leaves out the

question of why aren’t more mitigation plans in place? This prompted additional research into

what are the inhibitors for mitigation planning. The answer came in an article by Richard T.

Moore (1994) who advocates a national mitigation strategy. “Mitigation planning isn’t

implemented for a variety of reasons:

• Ignorance of mitigation

• Perception that mitigation measures are unaffordable

• There is no incentive to do mitigation

• Building professionals, in general do not have the know-how to put mitigation measure

into place.”

Another idea that Moore suggests is the concept of government incentives to motivate

others to plan ahead. Since FEMA often issues grants to cover the costs for state and local

governments to respond and clean up after a major disaster, the federal government decided to
 13

attach requirements for pre-incident mitigation planning. Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act placed new requirements on public agencies

expecting reimbursement from FEMA.

“States with existing mitigation plans, approved under former section 409, will continue

to be eligible for the 15% Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding until November

2003, when all state mitigation plans must meet the requirements of the regulations. If

state plans are not revised and approved to meet the Standard State Mitigation plan

requirements by that time they will be ineligible for Stafford Act assistance, excluding

emergency assistance,” Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act

(2002).

In other words if a public agency such as a fire department doesn’t have a hazard

mitigation plan approved before November 2003 they won’t get any FEMA money to repair their

damaged facilities. They also will be unable to recover their overtime costs incurred responding

to a flood or other disasters. The Stafford Act continues with the justification “This requirement

is to encourage the development of comprehensive mitigation plans before disaster events,”

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (2002).

The federal government has identified mitigation planning as a priority for all

government agencies. To encourage this planning they will withhold federal assistance money

from all agencies that fail to take steps to reduce those risks. This federal requirement is perhaps

the best motivator of all. Many jurisdictions will seek both reimbursement for their costs but

also seek federal dollars to mitigate future problems.

Mitigation efforts can be costly and time consuming. Considering the public sectors

limited resources it is important for any agency to prioritize which hazards are included in a
 14

mitigation plan. The challenge is determining which hazards to include in the planning process.

By identifying the hazards that affect a community, and determining the jurisdictions

vulnerability to those hazards, the need becomes apparent. FEMA (1990) describes it as such:

“For example, if the identification indicates that the area is susceptible to floods and earthquakes,

and that they can be expected to occur with a certain degree of probability, there would be a clear

need to take some mitigation actions.”

Washington State (2000) identified how hazard mitigation can be accomplished in a

comprehensive booklet. “Hazard mitigation can be accomplished in a number of ways and can

generally be broken down into the following strategies: alter the hazard, avert the hazard, adapt

to the hazard, avoid the hazard, acquisition, and relocation.” By using these strategies a fire

department has multiple methods for reducing the risks. Examples to reduce the risk of flooding

could include improvements to a river channel, or relocating fire stations away from the flood

plains. While these items appear costly, it may prove to be cost effective for certain critical

buildings.

FEMA describes what elements should be included in a mitigation plan in its Post-

Disaster Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance for State and Local Governments booklet. The

document suggests an evaluation of natural hazards, a description and analysis of state and local

hazard management polices, and the capabilities to handle those hazards. The booklet goes on to

suggest methods to reduce or avoid long term vulnerability to those hazards. Finally it

recommends a regular evaluation and updates to the plan. A complete list of the FEMA

mitigation plan requirements is included as Appendix A.

Mitigation works for all types of hazards. In a comparison of two similar floods in

Missouri, FEMA (1997) evaluated the mitigation efforts in the flood plane,
 15

In Arnold Missouri, the total amount of Federal Disaster assistance granted after the 1993

floods was over $2 million dollars. After the floods of 1995, the forth-largest flood in

Arnold’s history, the damage was less than $40,000 as a result of non-structural

mitigation.

The examples listed above describe major projects worth large sums of money, but the

research found smaller projects that benefited from mitigation efforts as well. In their efforts to

protect structures from hurricane force winds, Dade County, Florida realized substantial savings.

“For every $1 invested in wind shutters at the Emergency Service Center South, at least $5 is

saved in mitigated interior damages,” (FEMA, 1997).

The literature review found that mitigation planning is now part of the national strategy

for dealing with natural and man-made disasters. It also revealed how costly is has become to

ignore the fact that we are continuing to face these disasters. Mitigation planning is very often a

cost effective tool for reducing the high costs of those emergencies. One of the surprises found

during the literature review was that much money that can be saved from business interruption

factors costs.

In July 1993 a levee that protected the Des Moines Water Works facility was over-topped

allowing flood waters to enter the facility. Since the treatment plant couldn’t be operated, over

250,000 customers were without water service for 11 days. According to FEMA’s Report on

Costs and Benefits of Natural Hazard Mitigation (1997) “the direct costs of damage to the Des

Moines Water Works treatment plant was approximately $14 million, while cost associated with

the interruption of business was over 200 million.” This is just one example that shows that the

cost for business interruption may exceed the direct damage from the incident itself.
 16

During the literature review this research was influenced by the fact that other researchers

have documented many success stories of mitigation planning. Not only have other communities

reduced damages to structures and businesses, but these efforts have saved many lives. The

research focused the efforts of this research to develop an easy guide for the fire department to

follow in the adoption of an all hazard mitigation plan.

PROCEDURES

Definition of Terms

Hazard mitigation: includes any action taken to eliminate or reduce the long-term risk to human

life and property from natural or man-made hazards. They are actions taken to eliminate or

reduce the degree of long-term risk to human life and property from natural and man-made

hazards such as floods, earthquakes, landslides, etc.

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): This federal program provides grants to states

and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster.

The purpose of the program is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and

to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster.

Stafford Act: Also known as the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. This federal requirement

provides new and revitalized approaches to mitigation planning. It includes a requirement for a

standard state mitigation plan as a condition of disaster assistance. States and local public

agencies must have in effect a FEMA approved Enhanced State Mitigation Plan that meets the

factors of the Act in order to receive funding for response and recovery efforts.

Tsunamis: are large water waves, typically generated by seismic activity that have historically

caused significant damage to coastal communities throughout the world.

 17

Research Methodology

Action research methods were used to determine what elements should be included in a

hazard mitigation plan. This was also used to determine what the benefits of having a plan

would be to the jurisdiction that considers the need for implementing such plans. Another step

of the research was determining how those hazards should be identified. By identifying and

selecting the hazards to include, and what elements go into the plan, an agency can begin the

mitigation process.

A survey instrument was used to determine how many fire departments in the area

surrounding Federal Way have current plans, and what the benefits are to mitigation planning.

This part of the study also evaluated whether the fire departments included in the survey would

be interested in a regional mitigation plan. The survey included 15 departments in King County,

Washington. They were chosen due to their similarity in size and capabilities to Federal Way.

Nearly 50% of those selected chose to participate in the study. This was considered a

representative sample for the departments in King County. This survey is included as

Appendix C.

It is intended that this research will be used to develop a hazard mitigation plan for the

Federal Way Fire Department. This research could also be used by any other fire departments to

develop their own mitigation plan.

Literature Review

There is much literature available on the topic, the challenge is identifying the sources

and selecting those relevant documents. Literature was obtained both locally at the King County

Office of Emergency Management and at the federal level at the National Fire Academy’s (NFA)

Learning Resource Center. The research continued with a review of FEMA publications. State
 18

laws were also included in this research. Journals that include emergency procedures were

helpful as well. It is interesting because they often look at the mitigation efforts from a business

perspective rather than the traditional fire service viewpoint. Finally student manuals from the

NFA are included. These documents are helpful because they are very focused on the topic and

offer very detailed steps to be followed.

Assumptions and Limitations

It is assumed that the Federal Way Fire Department and others will be motivated to adopt

mitigation planning as a way of surviving the incident and reducing the cost of recovery. It is

also assumed that the department will make the investment in time and personnel to reduce the

risks identified in that effort. A limitation on this research was its focus on available documents

and other references, none of the sites with successful mitigation strategies were visited for

interviews with those involved. It is likely that the motivators would be changed, either better or

worse, due to the additional information available from first hand sources.

RESULTS

1. What is a hazard mitigation plan? A hazard mitigation plan directs actions to either prevent

the occurrence of an emergency or reduce the vulnerability in ways that minimize the

adverse impact of a disaster or other emergency. The planning process attempts to reduce

the degree of long term risk to human life and property from natural and man made hazards.

In other words a mitigation strategy for an area that experiences flooding might be to change

the zoning of that area so additional properties aren’t developed in that flood plain. Hazard

mitigation plans normally focus on some future event, however it is not uncommon for

recovery efforts to be combined with future mitigation.

 19

2. What are the benefits of having a hazard mitigation plan? Quite simply, a reduction of the

cost of lives lost and property damaged. Mitigation planning also places fewer constraints

on time and resources since the scope of the repairs or modifications to structures are less

impacting before the event. It also minimizes controversies that often arise after a disaster.

In other words, mitigation planning capitalizes on opportunities.

In FEMA’s Report on Costs and Benefits of Natural Hazard Mitigation (1997) it

finds that “investing in mitigation actions targeted at high-risk areas before disaster strikes

can pay dividends.” The report goes on to describe many cases showing the benefits to

hazard mitigation planning. “FEMA is confident that the 800,000 school children of the

LAUSD are in a much safer environment and have much less chance of injury or disruption

of their education should another earthquake occur,” (1997). This is a good example of how

recovery efforts that include mitigation planning can reduce future impacts. Following the

1994 Northridge, California earthquake, about $162 million was allocated by FEMA to

upgrade the damaged structures to current building code standards. A motivator for

mitigation planning is that to receive federal reimbursement for future disasters, government

agencies are now required to have a mitigation plan in effect by November 2003. This

reimbursement will be critical to any community’s recovery from a major disaster.

3. How are the appropriate hazards identified for inclusion into a plan? When one begins to

add up all of the possible events that may occur in a community, the list rapidly becomes

overwhelming. Communities must conduct some form of risk assessment or hazard

vulnerability analysis. “Risk assessment of the nature, extent, and consequences of the

hazards lie at the core of adopting efficient and economic actions to lesson the effects of a

natural hazard,” (Housner, 1988).

 20

Not only did Housner point out that risk assessment was an important part of a

mitigation plan, he also determined that the assessment process involves three essential

features, “determination of the hazard; determination of the vulnerability of the structure and

facility exposed; and determination of the significance of the impacts,” (1988). The latter

feature was not expected in this research. A community must evaluate what the impact on

the region would be if the hospital was closed for three months due to windstorm damage.

When that type of damage is considered it makes it a higher priority to mitigate the hazards

for the hospital. Risk assessment provides the factual basis for all activities proposed in a

hazard mitigation plan. Without the risk assessment a jurisdiction has no real basis for the

efforts and may in fact be spending money on the wrong projects.

The NFA’s Executive Analysis of Fire Service Operations in Emergency

Management Course recommends a four-step process to rate or prioritize the hazards a

community may face. (See Table 1 for an example of the recommended process). In the

NFA student manual Executive Analysis of Fire Service Operations (2001) it states, “Risk

assessment in any modern community is holistic, multidisciplinary, community oriented, and

is mission oriented. These priorities can help the fire department as well as the community

focus it’s energy where it will be most effective.” The first step in the process is to simply

list all of the hazards that a community may face. This should include both natural and man-

made hazards. Next agencies should rank the perceived probability of occurrence for each

hazard. This is determined in part by a historical look at the past history of the risks

identified. Then a vulnerability assessment is made for each hazard. For the same flooding

example, if the river does exceed the riverbanks, how vulnerable is the community to

damage? The final step is to multiply the scores for probability and vulnerability and arrive
 21

at a risk rating. Once this is achieved, the community has a better idea of which risks to

focus their mitigation efforts on.

Table 1: Risk Rating Matrix

Hazard Vulnerability Risk

Probability of Occurrence Danger Factor Disaster Rating

(probability x
Likely Possible Unlikely High Average Low Danger)
(3) (2) (1) (3) (2) (1)
Wildland Fire X X 1
Conflagration X X 6
Civil Disturbance X X 9
Tornado X X 6
Flood X X 4
Hurricane X X 1
Earthquake X X 6
Volcano X X 1
Chemical Spill X X 9
Industrial Disaster X X 4
Nuclear Attack X X 6
Terrorist Attack X X 4
Other

When considering the table above it provides a very clear example of which hazards

should be included in a mitigation plan. The sample lists 12 possible hazards to be

considered. The community appears to be most at risk from a civil disturbance and a

chemical spill. The least risk is from wildland fire, hurricane and volcano. The items

included in the plan can now be based of the level of risk and the amount of resources an

agency is will to devote to the mitigation planning process.

4. What elements should be included in a hazard mitigation plan? There are many ways to

write a hazard mitigation plan and many criteria an agency could select. For the purposes of

this research it was considered imperative to follow the FEMA requirements in order to
 22

qualify for recovery money from FEMA. Therefore the FEMA publication, Post Disaster

Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance (1990) was utilized to determine what elements

should be included in a hazard mitigation plan. The requirements are included in Table 2.

Table 2: FEMA Minimum Requirements for a Mitigation Plan

However at a minimum each plan shall include the following:

1. An evaluation of the natural hazards in the designated area.

2. A description and analysis of the state and local hazard management policies, programs, and

capabilities to mitigate the hazards in the area.

3. Hazard mitigation goals and objectives and proposed strategies, programs and action to

reduce or avoid long-term vulnerability to hazards.

4. A method of implementing, monitoring, evaluating and updating the mitigation plan. Such

evaluation is to occur at least on an annual basis to ensure that the implementation occurs as

planned, and to ensure that the plan remains current.

The list above describes the minimums that must be included in a mitigation plan to

receive approval from FEMA. It went on to suggest an outline for meeting mitigation plan

requirements. A complete outline is included in this document as Appendix A. The outline was

identified as a result of the action research and details the elements that should be included in a

hazard mitigation plan.

A survey was sent to 15 departments in the King County, Washington area. These

departments were chosen because of their similarities to the Federal Way Fire Department in size

and staff. Of the 15 surveys sent out, seven departments responded to the request. This was
 23

deemed sufficient to be an accurate representation of the departments located in King County

Washington.

The complete results of the survey are included as Appendix D. The responses on the

returned surveys are recorded as accurately as possible.

The respondents appeared to have a good grasp of the goals for mitigation planning.

Many of the responses carried a theme of reducing the risks or preventing the hazards from

occurring.

It also became clear that most respondents felt that they currently have a hazard

mitigation plan. Six out of the total seven departments indicated that they have a mitigation plan.

Only one stated that they have part of a plan. It appears that while many departments believe

they have a mitigation plan the fact that only one department was aware of the federal

requirement leads one to believe that they haven’t submitted their plans for FEMA approval.

One fact that was very clear is that the departments included in the survey believe they

were vulnerable to a wide range of hazards. Earthquakes, floods and winter storms were very

common with all of the surveys responses. It was also apparent that fire departments throughout

the county face different hazards based on their location, terrain and geography and types of

businesses. A summary of the frequently stated vulnerabilities is listed in the surveys, and is

included as Table 3.
 24

Table 3: Area Vulnerabilities

Earthquake 6

Winter storm 6

Flood 5

Hazardous Materials 5

Incident

Terrorist Attack 4

When asked what elements should be included in a fire department mitigation plan the

response was less clear. Based on the survey responses it appears that the departments in King

County did not follow a standard format and developed their plans based on some other criteria.

It should be noted that this conclusion is based on the survey responses not on evaluation of the

actual documents.

The survey instrument was intended to identify the status of mitigation planning in King

County Washington, so that Federal Way’s planning efforts could be compared to the

surrounding fire departments. The survey showed that while the departments are at various

stages of mitigation planning there is very little commonality of those plans.

DISCUSSION

By their very nature fire departments must be able to respond under any condition to

serve the public. This means that they must survive whatever disaster impacts the community.

The September 11th incident at the World Trade Center is a very graphic example, despite the

enormous losses that the fire department sustained; they continued to operate both at the World
 25

Trade Center, and throughout the city. Fire departments must look to the future and reduce the

hazards that can be predicted and addressed.

The primary reason for mitigation planning is to reduce the risk to life and property from

predictable hazards. If a fire department can identify the hazards, and reduce or eliminate the

dangers from those risks, it improves the ability to respond to others that have been injured or

suffered damage. Since the mitigation plan reduces the risk, it helps to ensure the firefighters

can respond to the community’s needs after the event. A good example of this is a fire station

that is retrofitted to be more earthquake resistant will allow the firefighters to survive the quake

to respond to emergencies.

This research revealed that most of the departments have disaster response plans. Out of

the departments surveyed only one responded Yes to the question of, does your department have

a hazard mitigation plan? The rest of the respondent’s believed that their disaster plan performs

the same function, or they referred to their emergency plan. Another concept was simply

following the county emergency operations plan. While it is important to have an emergency

response plan, a response plan is very different from the focus of a mitigation plan. Emergency

response plans outline how a fire department will respond to emergency calls after the disaster

hits. A mitigation plan attempts to minimize or eliminate the impacts of the disaster before it

hits, therefore reducing the loss of life and property.

As the research probed deeper into the area fire departments’ planning efforts, it showed

that even if the agency felt they had an adequate plan, that only three out of the seven included in

the study felt they were prepared to deal with the hazards identified, (Appendix D). This implies

that the plans need to be updated. This would likely be a good time to also mitigate some of the

hazards that the departments are themselves facing.

 26

Perhaps the most surprising discovery was that only one department out of the survey

group was aware of the disaster mitigation act. With that being the case it is very unlikely that

more than the one department was close to meeting the federal requirements for mitigation

planning.

The guidelines from both the federal and state governments regarding mitigation

planning are very clear. Despite these requirements many departments have developed their own

plans without following the federal requirements. In order to qualify for federal reimbursement

these same departments will be forced to revise their plans and seek approval of those updates.

It was interesting that Richard Moore suggested several years ago that the government

motivate public agencies to adopt mitigation planning. Moore described it this way, “mitigation

will not be achieved and, therefore, the overriding goal will not be met, until incentives are

developed which will make mitigation actions financially acceptable to decision makers,”

(1994). This has finally become a requirement with the update of the Stafford Act that occurred

in 2002. The Robert T. Stafford act is very clear, “States must have an approved hazard

mitigation plan in order to receive Stafford Act assistance,” (2002). The research revealed that

there is a current motivator as Moore was suggested, it is now financially acceptable to decision-

makers.

Federal Way Fire Department has received reimbursement for two federally declared

disasters in the past. This money was used to cover the costs the department paid out in

firefighter overtime during an earthquake response and a major winter storm event. FEMA

money normally funds items such as relocating structures from flood plains, seismic retrofits,

building better berms or dykes, etc. Local agencies will be unable to collect those dollars
 27

without a mitigation plan. This requirement should be the best tool so far in reducing the

impacts of natural and man-made disasters.

Washington State also makes it clear that mitigation planning is important. This is

clearly described in a guidebook titled, Keeping Hazards From Becoming Disasters, a Mitigation

Workbook for Local Governments, “As a result of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, having

an approved mitigation plan or strategy is required in order to receive future mitigation

assistance under the Stafford Act,” (2002).

Even if a fire department doesn’t intend to seek federal reimbursement it makes sense for

departments to adopt a mitigation plan. Ample evidence was discovered that shows mitigation

planning pays big dividends. FEMA describes it in a Report on Costs and Benefits of Natural

Hazard Mitigation (1997) “Experience at the Federal, State and local levels during natural

disasters, and a growing body of associated research, has demonstrated that the losses from such

events (in terms of life, property, and community resources) can be substantially reduced when

mitigation techniques and technologies are applied,” It is this experience that should motivate

fire departments to apply mitigation planning as a cost-effective method to reduce damage and

limit the amount of resources needed to respond and recover from disasters.

The impact of mitigation planning should cause public agencies to pool their resources

and work together on the planning process. By tying funding to having an approved mitigation

plan, the United States should reduce the amount of money spent on disasters in the future,

allowing that money to be used for other purposes.

The research further identified what components are required for a plan to be approved.

These components are included in Table 1. It is important to understand how the data in Table 1,

and the data in Appendix A, are related. Table 1 simply describes in broad statements what
 28

needs to be included in a plan to be acceptable to FEMA. Appendix A is a longer description

with specific sections that should be in an approved plan. Table 1 could be used to help the

governing body understand how the mitigation plan would be helpful to the fire department. The

appendix would more likely be used by the staff members developing the plan to ensure all areas

are addressed.

Federal Way Fire Department will be impacted by this research because it will now be

forced to adopt some form of mitigation planning. Not only will the planning process take time

and personnel, but also the implementation could be expensive and require consideration in the

long term budget process. The fire department has sought and received reimbursement for

federally declared disasters on two occasions. In both cases the department sought to cover

overtime costs incurred for response to emergencies. In the future it is likely that the department

will face higher costs not only for response but it is likely that a major event will damage the fire

department’s facilities. The mitigation planning process will also have a significant impact on

the department, as the requirements will force a comprehensive effort to develop and implement

the plan. This planning effort should include all of the components listed in Appendix A.

Dave McLoughlin (1988) sums it up very clearly, “Hazard mitigation consists of

activities that permanently prevent the occurrence of a disaster or reduce the losses if a disaster

occurs. How can a fire department that spends so much effort on fire and injury prevention for

the public, not take the steps to reduce the risk for its own personnel and facilities?

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the Federal Way Fire Department develop a hazard mitigation

plan for all of its facilities, properties, and personnel. The data in this research shows that

mitigation planning prevents or reduces the direct damage and also prevents or minimizes lost
 29

productivity in facilities that might have been forced to close for repairs. It is also beneficial to

the department to have an approved plan so the department may seek reimbursement for

response and recovery costs during a federally declared disaster. Federal Way has a history of

successfully recovering the overtime costs from those efforts. Neither the cost to repair damaged

facilities nor the response costs will be available if the department doesn’t have an approved plan

by November 1, 2003.

The Federal Way Fire Department should also follow the steps listed in Appendix A to

develop the hazard mitigation plan. By following this outline the department should meet all of

the requirements of the 2000 Hazard Mitigation Act. Once this is accomplished the department

should forward the plan to the FEMA Regional Office for approval.

Other fire departments considering hazard mitigation planning should follow the same

steps as Federal Way Fire Department and enjoy the same benefits for their community.
 30

REFERENCES

FEMA, Author, Post-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance for State and Local

Governments, September 1990, pg. 82, 86.

FEMA, Author, Report on Costs and Benefits of Natural hazard Mitigation, March 1997, pg. 2,

9, 13, 19, 21, 24, 29.

Housner, George W. Natural Hazard Mitigation, Bostid Developments, Fall/Winter 1988, pg. 1,

2.

McLoughlin, Dave, FEMA publishes new primer on mitigation, Hazard Monthly, February

1988,

pg. 9.

Moore, Richard T. Towards a National Mitigation Strategy, Responder Magazine, 1994, pg. 18.

Montane, Vincent, The Disaster threat and corporate safety, Disaster Recovery Journal,

July/Aug/Sept 1990, pg. 10.

National Fire Academy, Author, Executive Analysis of Fire Service Operations in Emergency

Management, Student Manual, March 2001, pg. 4-28, 4-31.

Newkirk, Ross T, The increasing cost of disasters in developed countries: A challenge to local

planning and Government, Journal of Contingencies and Crises Management, September 2001,

pg. 159.

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5156 § 104 P.L.

106-390, 2002.

Seyffert, John D., Expert Advice on making hazard mitigation part of positive planning, Hazard

Monthly, February 1998, pg. 8.

 31

Washington State, Author, Washington State Hazard Mitigation Strategy, January 2000, pg. 14,

15.

Washington Military Department, Emergency Management Division, Author, Keeping Hazards

from Becoming Disaster: A mitigation Workbook for Local Governments, June 2002, pg. 4.
 32

Appendix A

FEMA Mitigation Plan Requirements

Sample plan outline

I. Preliminaries

A. Letter of Transmittal From Governor

B. Preface

C. Acknowledgements

D. Executive Summary

E. Table of Contents

F. List of Figures

G. List of Appendices

II. Introduction

A. Purpose

B. Scope

C. Authority

D. Goals and Objectives

E. Definitions

III. Hazard Identification and Evaluation

A. Hazard Evaluation

1. Types of Hazards

2. Frequency, Magnitude, and Distributions

 33

B. Vulnerability Assessment

1. Historical Damages

2. Current Exposure

3. Future Exposure

C. Risk Information

1. Loss Potential

2. Potential Impact of No Action

3. Liability Potential

IV. Capability Assessment

A. Legal Framework

1. Enabling Legislation

2. Executive Orders

3. Policy Memorandums

B. Governmental Organization

1. Roles of Different Levels and Internal Organization

C. Existing Mitigation Plans, Programs and Structures

1. Local Government

2. State Government

3. Federal Government

V. Proposed Mitigation Activities

A. Implementation and Monitoring

1. Role of State Hazard Mitigation Officer

2. Responsibilities of Lead Agencies

 34

3. Periodic Reporting Requirements

B. Evaluation

1. Continued Relevancy of Goals and Objectives

2. Effectiveness of Mitigation Strategies and Measures

C. Maintenance

1. Periodic Plan Updates

2. Future Enhancements
 35

Appendix B

Hazard Mitigation Survey Letter

August 22, 2002

Dear Emergency Manager,

The Federal Way Fire Department is starting work on a hazard mitigation plan. We are currently
planning to work with King County Office of Emergency Management on a regional plan. I am
also working on a National Fire Academy EFOP research paper.

If you would spend a few minutes and answer the questions on the enclosed survey it will help
with both the fire departments plan, and my research for the Fire Academy.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at either 253-946-7240, or e-mail at
jet@federalwayfire.org.

Thank you for your assistance,

Jerry E. Thorson
Fire Marshal
 36

Appendix C

Fire Department Hazard Mitigation Survey

Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. The answers will be used to
evaluate mitigation planning for the Federal Way Fire Department and in a National Fire
Academy Applied Research Paper.

1. What does the term “hazard mitigation plan” mean to you?

2. Describe what you believe are the benefits to having a fire department mitigation plan.

3. Does your department have a hazard mitigation plan?

4. If the answer to question 3 was no, why not?

5. What natural and man made disasters could your department realistically expect to occur in
the near future? In other words, what would a hazard vulnerability analysis identify are
potential hazards in your jurisdiction.

6. Is your department prepared to deal with those hazards?

7. What elements should be included in a fire department mitigation plan?

8. Are you aware of any local, state or federal requirements for fire departments to have a
hazard mitigation plan?

9. What resources would you use if you were to develop a hazard mitigation plan?
 37

10. Would your department be interested in developing a countywide hazard mitigation plan?

11. Would you like to receive a copy of the results of this survey? (If yes, please give your
mailing address).

Please return the completed survey form to:

Jerry Thorson Or fax to 253-5297206

Federal Way Fire Department
31617 1 Ave So.
Federal Way, WA 98003

Sincerely,

Jerry E. Thorson
Fire Marshal
 38

Appendix D

Fire Department Hazard Mitigation Survey Results

Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. The answers will be used to
evaluate mitigation planning for the Federal Way Fire Department and in a National Fire
Academy Applied Research Paper.

1. What does the term “hazard mitigation plan” mean to you?

A plan to reduce the risks to people and property from natural hazards
Preventing a hazard from occurring, actions to eliminate the hazard
A plan to mitigate an emergency that requires either a single resource or a
regional response.
To implement actions, which eliminate risk from hazards, or reduce the severity
of the affects of hazards on people and property.
A pre-plan of possible emergencies which might be expected to occur with tasks.
A set of strategies intended to lessen the impacts and reduce the vulnerabilities
associated with known hazards.
A documented plan dealing with the hazard risks associated with a region or
jurisdiction. The plan addresses areas identified in a hazard analysis where a
jurisdiction would reduce the impact of a particular hazard.

2. Describe what you believe are the benefits to having a fire department mitigation
plan.
Saves lives and property, speeds recovery
We should always have a plan to deal with known or potential hazards
We can prepare resources ahead of the actual event, staffing, training, finance,
etc.
The leadership of the fire department working with city, and county government
is of critical importance.
You won’t have to wing the incident when it occurs. Training. Consistency
Reduced costs of responding to preventable tragedy. Protection of life, property
and environment through proper engineering.
A more prepared response to high impact incidents, awareness of the hazards and
impacts of those hazards.

3. Does your department have a hazard mitigation plan?

In part, not totally
Our disaster plan performs the same function
Yes
Yes, we fall within the scope and plan of the King County Emergency Operations
Plan
Yes, we call the airports our emergency plan
Yes a wide range of policies, surface water management, steep slope protection,
etc.
Yes, it needs refinement and additional sections.
 39

4. If the answer to question 3 was no, why not?

Working on plan
Redundant
N/A – 5

5. What natural and man made disasters could your department realistically expect to
occur in the near future? In other words, what would a hazard vulnerability
analysis identify are potential hazards in your jurisdiction.
Flood, storm, earthquake
Earthquake, windstorm, winter storm, transportation, Haz Mat, flooding, terror
attack.
Earthquake, storms, Haz Mat, terror attack, wildland fires, plane crash
Civil disorder, drought, earthquake, energy shortage, fire, floods, food supply
contamination, Haz. Mat. Landslide, severe storm, terrorism, transportation
accident. Utility outage, water supply contamination.
Aircraft incident, water rescue, sabotage, hijack, structural fire, bomb, MCI,
natural disaster, radiological, power failure, evacuation
Winter storm, earthquake, windstorm, urban fire, stream flooding, transportation,
Haz. Mat. Utility failure, phone failure, etc.
Flooding, earthquake, inclement weather, wildland/urban interface fire, earth
filled damn failure, conflagration, civil unrest, WMD, volcanic eruption,
transportation Haz. Mat.

6. Is your department prepared to deal with those hazards?

Yes 3
Not all
Refer to the answer in #3.
For some of them, we are very well prepared; for others, we have a long way to
go.
A qualified yes, we are dependant on the network of support from mutual aid.

7. What elements should be included in a fire department mitigation plan?

Type of hazards, occurrences of hazards, locations
Response/operational expectations, how to coordinate with other agencies
Fire department operations, may overlap with city manager
Respondent listed 17 elements of the King County Emergency Operations Plan,
along with excepts of the plan that were considered too lengthy to include here.
For the full text see the King County, Washington, Emergency Operations Plan.
Definitions, facilities, jurisdictional responsibilities, procedures, communications,
security, transportation, post incident procedures.
Risk and vulnerability analysis, mitigation strategy list, and action plan to
accomplish the strategies.
Hazard identification, risk analysis, mitigation, response, and recovery.

8. Are you aware of any local, state or federal requirements for fire departments to
have a hazard mitigation plan?
 40

Only local jurisdiction

Some state requirement (or is it FEMA)?
None specific except what is noted below.
King County Emergency Operations Plan
No 2
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 enacted by Congress

9. What resources would you use if you were to develop a hazard mitigation plan?
Public involvement, existing plans, records
Experience of personnel
NFPA, Washington administrative Code, state and federal documents, FEMA,
etc.
I would use the processes and resources that developed the King County
Emergency Operations Plan.
(Airport) FAA, other large airports or cities that have working plans.
Washington Emergency Management Division brochure, census data, local
planning department.
Federal Comprehensive emergency Planning Guide, examples from other
jurisdictions, NFA LRC.

10. Would your department be interested in developing a countywide hazard mitigation

plan?
No Yes 2 Possibly 3

11. Would you like to receive a copy of the results of this survey? (If yes, please give your
mailing address).
N/A

Please return the completed survey form to:

Jerry Thorson Or fax to 253-5297206

Federal Way Fire Department
31617 1 Ave So.
Federal Way, WA 98003

Sincerely,

Jerry E. Thorson
Fire Marshal