Unit 2- Introduction



Unit 2- Introduction

[pic]

Introduce Unit

• Define Hazard Mitigation Methods and Practices: Methods and practices used to analyze, develop, and maximize the effectiveness of hazard mitigation projects

- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices

- Methodology and Criteria for Determining Mitigation Objective

• It is expected that students have a basic working knowledge of Hazard Mitigation issues

2- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices (cont’d)

[pic]

The remaining overall design principles and construction practices are also critical to the selection of effective PA Mitigation Measures

• Future Maintenance Cost Issues – consider long-term costs

• Potential Secondary Impacts of Mitigation Alternatives – adverse impacts, increased risks

• Codes and Standards – mitigation benefits, regulatory requirements

• Active vs. Passive Mitigation – human intervention

• Evaluating Effectiveness of Local Practices – provides list of examples

Notes:

• Inform participants that each of these topics will be covered on the visuals that follow

2- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices (cont’d)

[pic]

Repair and Mitigation

Benefits of a combined approach

• Lowers mitigation project costs by avoiding the need for additional construction mobilization

• Increases mitigation cost-effectiveness by lowering mitigation project costs

• Reduces design and construction time, effort by avoiding redundant labor and materials

• Increases mitigation effectiveness by allowing it to be a more integral part of the repaired facility rather than an add-on measure

Emphasize that in order for the combined approach to be successful, the applicants and FEMA need to identify mitigation measures early in the PA Process

Notes:

• Provide additional, disaster-specific examples of these principles if necessary, and ask participants if they have any experiences they would like to share

2- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices (cont’d)

[pic]

Evaluating Effectiveness of Mitigation Alternatives

Questions to ask when evaluating mitigation effectiveness:

• Technical feasibility - Can the mitigation measure be practically designed and constructed without being cost prohibitive?

- Eligibility requirement under FEMA’s 406 Mitigation Policy (9526.1)

- Technical feasibility is often dependent on the condition of the existing site and facility

- Example: If a slab-on-grade masonry building located in the floodplain is in poor structural condition, with major bearing wall and foundation cracks, it is probably not technically feasible to elevate the structure on piles

• How effective is the mitigation measure at reducing or eliminating future damage (very, somewhat, minimal)? Does the mitigation measure provide protection against future events of higher or lower severity?

- Understanding the effectiveness/level of protection provided by the mitigation measure is essential to assessing its cost effectiveness because project benefits are based on avoided damages during various future events

- Note that an exact determination of effectiveness/level of protection is often easier for some hazards (floods) than for others (earthquakes, tornadoes)

- Example: Flood mitigation by relocation of a facility out of the floodplain is highly effective and provides the maximum level of protection against flood damage (provided it is relocated out of harms way); whereas flood mitigation using a levee only provides protection against flood depths that do not overtop or breach the levee. In some cases, flood mitigation such as dry floodproofing – which is generally effective for floods up to three feet maximum – can actually increase damage during more severe events by trapping water inside the structure (if overtopped) or by collapsing walls, floor slabs, or even the entire structure

Limitations on effectiveness:

• May not be effective for all situations

- Example: Flood mitigation by elevation of structures may not be effective in reducing damage in areas subject to extreme impact forces from large, flood-borne debris

• Dependent on level of hazard

- Example: Wind mitigation designed for hurricane-force winds (74-155 mph) will not be as effective against violent tornadoes of F3 or greater (158-316 mph)

• Maintenance requirements/active measures

- Example: The success of dry floodproofing measures depends on maintenance and placement of flood shields, closing valves, and other protection of openings immediately prior to the event

• Combine with other measures

- Example: The effectiveness of certain earthquake mitigation measures, such as strengthening floor and roof systems with steel chords, can be increased when combined with other measures such as installing tension ties, shear anchors, or collectors (drag struts)

Notes:

• Provide additional, disaster-specific examples of these principles if necessary, and ask participants if they have any experiences they would like to share

References:

• Hazard Mitigation Funding Under Section 406 (Stafford Act), FEMA Policy 9526.1, August 13, 1998

• PA Guide, FEMA 322, pp. 100-101

• Policy Digest, FEMA 321, p. 61

2- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices (cont’d)

[pic]

Floodplain Management Requirements

Be aware of mitigation measures in Riverine and coastal floodplains that:

• Modifies/increases floodplain development – follow the 8-step process outlined in 44 CFR Part 9 and mandated by EO 11988 and EO 11990

• Involves Substantial Damage/Improvement – under the “50% rule”, when the damage repair cost meets or exceeds 50% of the replacement cost, the replacement cost is eligible

Review mitigation project locations on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)

• Floodway development restrictions – check local floodplain ordinance, building codes

• 100-year floodplain requirements

• 500-year floodplain requirements (critical facilities)

• Coastal V Zone and A Zone construction requirements

• Example: Flood mitigation by elevating a structure on fill is not permitted in a coastal V Zone under NFIP regulations

Floodplain management regulations

• 44 CFR Part 9: Floodplain Management

• 44 CFR Parts 59-78: National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

• Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) – restricts Federal expenditures/assistance in designated Coastal Barrier Resource Resources System (CBRS) units

• Executive Orders (EOs) 11988 and 11990 – laws that require Federal agencies to evaluate project impacts on floodplains and wetlands, respectively

Notes:

• Inform participants that the new International Building Code series and ACSE 7 Standards are in compliance with NFIP Regulations, and are recommended for adoption in communities to replace older model building codes and standards that do not adequately address flood and other natural hazards (wind, earthquake)

• Refer participants interested in mitigation and Riverine and coastal floodplains to the Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA 55, Third Edition) or Engineering Principles and Practices for Retrofitting Flood Prone Residential Buildings (FEMA 259, 2nd Edition) for more information

• Inform participants that a basic description of the NFIP may be found on the FEMA website ()

• Provide additional examples of these principles if necessary, and ask participants if they have any experiences they would like to share

References:

• 44 CFR, Parts 9 and 59-78

• EO 11988, EO 11990

• Hazard Mitigation Funding Under Section 406 (Stafford Act), FEMA Policy 9526.1, August 13, 1998

• PA Guide, FEMA 322, pp. 28-31, 92-94, 105-106, 110, 111

• Policy Digest, FEMA 321, pp. 54, 106

2- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices (cont’d)

[pic]

Future Maintenance Cost Issues

Consider maintenance costs in evaluation and benefit-cost analysis

• Initially “Low-cost” mitigation may have high maintenance costs

Mitigation with high maintenance costs

• Often less effective over time because the measures may not be properly maintained, and thus wear out more quickly than ones with a higher initial cost

• May include active mitigation measures that require human intervention to maintain effectiveness

Examples:

• Flood - wet and dry floodproofing measures that depend on valves, shields that must be properly placed and maintained

• Earthquake – securing computers and other equipment with straps that must be connected/anchored to heavier, more stable furnishings to be effective

Notes: Provide additional, disaster-specific examples of these principles if necessary, and ask participants if they have any experiences they would like to share

• Normally, maintenance costs are not eligible for Public Assistance

References:

• PA Guide, FEMA 322, pp. 26-27

2- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices (cont’d)

[pic]

Potential Secondary Impacts

Under FEMA’s 406 Mitigation Policy (9526.1) - Mitigation measures should not negatively impact the facility’s operation or increase the risk from another hazard

Adverse impacts on operations

• Reduced accessibility, efficiency

• Increased operation and maintenance costs

Increased risk of other hazards

• Basic hazard mitigation philosophies for floods (elevate/relocate) vs. high winds (envelope protection/underground sheltering) and earthquakes (ductility/low center of gravity) often contradict one another

• Consider other natural (and even man-made) hazards – and the relative risk of those hazards - as part of your mitigation project

• Example: Many underground utility lines are severed during earthquakes; however, elevating the utilities on poles is not recommended because it increases the risk of damage from wind, ice and severe storm events that are probably more frequent

Notes:

• Provide additional, disaster-specific examples of these principles if necessary, and ask participants if they have any experiences they would like to share

References:

• Hazard Mitigation Funding Under Section 406 (Stafford Act) FEMA Policy 9526.1, August 13, 1998

2- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices (cont’d)

[pic]

Codes and Standards

May achieve mitigation if:

• Repair/replacement of damaged facility triggers applicable code/standard; and

• Implementation of code/standard decreases vulnerability of future damage

Verify PA eligibility of codes and standards

• Apply to the repair work being performed. If a facility needs repair work only, then upgrades would apply to the damaged elements only.

• Be appropriate to the pre-disaster use of the facility

• Be reasonable, formally adopted, in writing, and implemented prior to the disaster declaration date.

• Apply uniformly to all facilities of the type being repaired within the applicant’s jurisdiction.

• Be enforced during the time it was in effect.

• Inform local officials that the new International Building Code series and ACSE 7 Standards are strongly recommended for adoption in communities to replace older model building codes and standards that do not adequately address natural hazards (flood, wind, earthquake)

• Inform participants that PA eligibility requirements will be covered in detail later in this unit

• Provide disaster-specific examples of these principles if necessary, and ask participants if they have any experiences they would like to share

2- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices (cont’d)

[pic]

Active vs. Passive Mitigation

Active mitigation measures require some degree of human intervention to be fully effective

• Examples of Active Mitigation

- Flood - dry and wet floodproofing techniques that depend on the installation of flood shields over doors and other openings prior to the event

- Wind - storm shutters that depend on installation or securing of shutters

- Earthquake – securing computers and other equipment that depend on the securing of equipment with straps or other fasteners

Passive mitigation measures do not require any human intervention to be fully effective

• Examples of Passive Mitigation

- Flood – elevation and relocation of structures (no additional intervention needed)

- Wind – improving roof sheathing and improving connections between the roof framing and walls (no additional intervention needed)

- Earthquake – installation of shear walls or cross bracing (no additional intervention needed)

Passive measures are preferable

• Active mitigation measures should be avoided if possible, especially for natural hazards where there is little or no warning time such as flash floods, tornadoes or earthquakes

Notes:

• Provide additional, disaster-specific examples of these principles if necessary, and ask participants if they have any experiences they would like to share

References:

• Engineering Principles and Practices for Retrofitting Flood Prone Residential Buildings, FEMA 259, 2nd Edition, June 2001, p. I-5

2- Overall Design Principles and Construction Practices (cont’d)

[pic]

Evaluating Effectiveness of Local Practices

Local practices may achieve mitigation through the use of:

• Improved construction techniques such as compaction of loose soils to a specified, tested density

• Improved construction materials such as replacing unreinforced masonry with reinforced masonry or concrete

Does the applicant have any requirements or preferences for mitigation?

• Understanding applicant requirements and preferences for mitigation is critical to the selection of suitable measures that will be technically feasible and cost effective

• Example: The owner and occupants of a public building may not wish to mitigate against earthquakes using exterior cross bracing for aesthetic reasons or because the bracing can block windows

Notes:

• Provide additional, disaster-specific examples of these principles if necessary, and ask participants if they have any experiences they would like to share

References:

• Hazard Mitigation in the Public Assistance Program, FEMA Response and Recovery, Infrastructure Division, dated April 10, 2001

2- Methodology & Criteria for Determining Mitigation Objective (cont’d)

[pic]

Relocation

Permanent relocation of a damaged facility out of a hazardous area may be eligible for Public Assistance if the relocation project is:

• required by an applicable Federal, State or local standard (such as a floodplain management regulation) or if the facility is subject to repetitive heavy damage;

• cost effective when project costs are compared to future damages; and

• not barred by other FEMA regulations or policies

Eligible relocation project costs include demolition and removal of the old facility, land acquisition, construction of a new facility, and ancillary facilities such as roads and utilities

Once a relocation project is approved, the old site is not eligible to receive future Federal funding, unless it is converted to open space use with minimal park facilities

Under 406 (PA) mitigation, relocation is typically associated with movement of critical public facilities located within a floodplain or severe seismic hazard area that suffer major damage from a declared disaster (damage cost > 50% of replacement cost)

Relocation of other facilities is generally handled under 404 (HMGP) mitigation

Notes:

• Remind participants that differences between 406 and 404 mitigation were discussed in Unit 2 of this course

• Refer participants interested in additional information on the differences between 406 and 404 mitigation should refer to pages 98-99 of the FEMA Public Assistance Guide

References:

• PA Guide, FEMA 322, pp. 31-32, 98-99

• Policy Digest, FEMA 321, pp. 60, 61, 104, 106

2-Methodology & Criteria for Determining Mitigation Objective (cont’d)

[pic]

Code Upgrades

Examples of code upgrades used as mitigation include the following:

• Adopting latest building codes and standards (2000 IBC, ASCE 7, NFPA) in place of existing model building codes (NBC, SBC, UBC)

• Adopting repair/reconstruction code provisions to allow post-disaster repairs to exceed the codes and standards of the original construction

• Improving local floodplain management ordinance (CRS – Community Rating System – awards insurance discounts to communities that exceed NFIP minimums)

Verify eligibility of code/standard using the FEMA “five criteria.” The code or standard must:

• Apply to the work being performed

• Be appropriate to the pre-disaster use of the facility

• Be reasonable, formally adopted, in writing, and implemented prior to disaster

• Apply uniformly to all facilities of the type being repaired

• Be enforced during the time it was in effect

Notes:

• Provide additional, disaster-specific examples of these principles if necessary, and ask participants if they have any experiences they would like to share

References:

• Stafford Act, Sections 406(e) and 409 (PA Guide, Appendix B)

• 44 CFR, Sections 206.221(i) and 206.226(b) (PA Guide, Appendix C)

• PA Guide, FEMA 322, pp. 27-28, Policy Digest, FEMA 321, p. 17

2-Methodology & Criteria for Determining Mitigation Objective (cont’d)

[pic]

Non-Structural Mitigation

Definition: mitigation of non-structural building elements (i.e. elements whose failure would not lead to a collapse of the structure, such as exterior facing, interior partitions and fixtures, utilities and contents) to reduce the risk of damages and casualties

Examples of non-structural mitigation techniques

• Elevate utilities to protect them from inundation and debris impact during floods and coastal storms

• Anchor tall bookshelves and filing cabinets to protect them from toppling in an earthquake

• Anchor overhead or pendant lighting systems to prevent them from collapse during an earthquake

• May also apply to hazard insurance coverage covering buildings and contents

Non-structural mitigation measures may require eligibility review

References:

• Flood Mitigation Handbook for Public Facilities, FEMA Region X, February 28, 2002

• Earthquake Mitigation Handbook for Public Facilities, FEMA Region X, February 28, 2002

• PA Guide, FEMA 322, p. 101

-----------------------

Unit 2- Methods and Practices

(45 minutes)

SM 4-4

SM 4-5

SM 4-6

SM 4-8

SM 4-14

SM 4-15

SM 4-16

Notes:

SM 4-17

SM 4-19

SM 4-21

SM 4-23

SM 4-25

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download