Hazard mitigation is defined as any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards and their effects. Merely repairing at-risk facilities to their pre-disaster condition does not protect the community from future disaster damages or reduce long-term costs.

Mitigation improvements should always be considered in the rebuilding process. FEMA has the authority to provide Public Assistance funding for cost-effective hazard mitigation measures for facilities damaged by an incident.*

*Robert T. Stafford Act 406(e), 42 U.S.C. 5172 (e), and 44 C.F.R. 206.226(e).

Section 404 assists in implementing long-term hazard mitigation planning and projects following a Presidential major disaster declaration. It provides funds to States, Territories, Tribes, and local communities to protect public or private property through various mitigation measures.

For more details, read FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance or visit the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance page.

Applicants may use both 406 and 404 mitigation funds to implement mitigation measures on the same facility, but not for the same work. Funds from one of these mitigation programs also cannot be used to meet the non-Federal cost share of work funded under the other mitigation program.

A combination of Sections 404 and 406 funding may be appropriate where:

• Section 406 hazard mitigation funding is used to provide protection to the parts of the facility that were damaged by the event
• Section 404 hazard mitigation funding is used to provide protection to the undamaged parts of the facility

A FEMA Site Inspector determined that a 3-mile section of a 10-mile long storm water pipe was damaged during a Presidentially declared disaster.

Repair and mitigation of the 3 miles of damaged pipe would be eligible for Public Assistance funding and Section 406 Hazard Mitigation funding.

These damages and the mitigation proposal for the 3 miles of pipe would be documented in the Public Assistance Grants Portal. The Applicant can begin work on the repair and mitigation of the 3 miles of pipe before the project is approved.

The additional 7 miles of undamaged (or undamaged by the declared event) may be eligible for Section 404 Hazard Mitigation funding.

The Applicant would have to follow the State's application process for these funds and can only begin mitigation of the 7 miles of undamaged pipe once the application is approved.

Hazard mitigation can only be applied to permanent work. Some examples of common hazard mitigation measures include:

• Increasing the number or size of drainage structures to prevent roadway destruction and washout
• Adding wing walls, riprap, stone, gabion baskets (wire mesh filled with stone), or bioengineering to control erosion
• Elevating facilities above the flood elevation
• Securing equipment with hurricane straps
• Elevating electrical transformers to avoid utility damage

Elevate or dry flood-proof components or systems vulnerable to flood damage, including:

• Equipment controls
• Electrical panels
• Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning/machinery rooms
• Emergency generators
• Fuel tanks

When wiring cannot be elevated, replace with equipment suitable for submerged applications.

Bridges vulnerable to flood damage can sometimes be replaced with low-water crossings if traffic counts are low. As the term suggests, low-water crossings are dry when water levels are low but likely to submerge during floods, becoming unsafe for traffic.

Hurricane winds and wind-blown debris can cause significant damage to structures. If windows are broken in high winds, the building's contents become vulnerable to damage.

Storm shutters are one of the most common methods of protection against damage from high winds. They are fastened over windows or other vulnerable openings to protect them and can be made from materials such as corrugated metal, plastic, wood or plywood, and polycarbonates.

A wide range of threats and hazards can cause an incident and result in damage that needs to be repaired.

For an Emergency Declaration, an incident is defined as any instance that the President determines warrants supplemental emergency assistance to save lives and protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe.

For a Major Disaster Declaration, an incident is defined as any natural catastrophe, or regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion.

FEMA organizes threats and hazards into three groups, so they can be better understood and addressed. They are:

• Natural hazards, which result from acts of nature
• Human-caused incidents, which result from the intentional actions of an adversary
• Technological hazards, which result from accidents or the failures of systems and structures

• Repair of roads, bridges, and associated features, such as shoulders, ditches, culverts, lighting, and signs
• Mitigation examples:
• Adding a headwall and wing walls to an existing culvert after a flooding event to prevent future damage to the road surface
• Increasing the size of a culvert to prevent future overtopping/washout of the culvert

• Repair of drainage channels, pumping facilities, and some irrigation facilities
• Repair of levees, flood control dams, and flood control
• The eligibility of these facilities is dependent upon the Applicant providing documentation to establish the pre-disaster capacity and maintains the facility on a regular schedule
• Mitigation examples:
• Elevating equipment and controls of pumping facilities above flood elevations
• Placing riprap at an irrigation canal to prevent a washout

• Repair or replacement of buildings, including their contents and systems, heavy equipment, and vehicles
• Mitigation examples:
• Building floodwalls around buildings to prevent flooding
• Reinforcing buildings with shear walls to withstand seismic forces in an earthquake

• Repair of water treatment and delivery systems, power generation facilities and distribution facilities, sewage collection and treatment facilities, and communications
• Mitigation examples:
• Elevating sewer system access covers to the hydraulic grade line
• Replacing flooded pumps with submersible pumps

• Repair and restoration of parks, playgrounds, pools, cemeteries, mass transit facilities, beaches, and marinas
• This category is also used for any work or facility that cannot be adequately characterized by Categories C-F
• Mitigation examples:
• Elevating filter and pump equipment for pools
• Replacing wood piers or hardening with steel bumpers

It is good practice to implement mitigation measures that fully address the hazard that caused the damage to the facility. Mitigation measures for a damaged facility don't have to be limited to addressing only the specific components of the facility that were damaged.

Constructing floodwalls around damaged facilities

• Installing new drainage facilities (including culverts) along a damaged road
• Dry floodproofing both damaged and undamaged buildings that contain components of a system that are functionally interdependent

Components that could be damaged but aren't immediately apparent:

• Electrical systems, insulation, flooring

Measures that can be taken to prevent or reduce damage:

• Wet-proofing, dry-proofing, installation of backflow devices
• Hurricane straps (roof-framing and walls), securing roof sheathing, anchoring ancillary structures to their foundations
• Strengthening window glass, installing hurricane shutters
• Replacing gable vents, reinforcing entry doors

Other hazards the above mitigation methods are effective against:

• Flooding, storm surge, hydrodynamic forces, debris impact forces, high winds

Advantages of bioengineering solutions are:

• Low cost and lower long-term maintenance cost than traditional methods;
• Low maintenance of live plants after they are established
• Environmental benefits of wildlife habitat, water quality improvement and aesthetics
• Improved strength over time

Bio-engineering includes the use of vegetation in civil engineering construction. It also extends to environmental modifications such as:

• Surface soil protection
• Slope stabilization
• Watercourse and shoreline protection
• Windbreaks
• Vegetation barriers (including noise barriers and visual screens)
• The ecological enhancement of an area

Think about what types of damage your community could sustain during an incident. What measures can you take in advance to prepare for and mitigate future damage?

Now consider what kinds of repetitive losses you sustain. These are areas where mitigation could benefit your community.

It is also worth trying to mitigate hazards that have only happened once, since an incident that's happened before could recur in the future.

To learn more about hazard mitigation program development, you can explore the following resources:

• FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance page
• FEMA Earthquake Mitigation Handbook
• FEMA Flood Mitigation Handbook
• FEMA Hurricane Mitigation Handbook
• FEMA Wildfire Mitigation Handbook
• E0871: Maximizing Mitigation
• E0239: 406 Hazard Mitigation
• Program Delivery Manager
• 406 Specialist
• State or Local Floodplain Manager
• State Mitigation Officer
• Neighboring Communities
• State Historic Preservation Officer
• Academic Institutions
• Environmental nonprofits such as:
• Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
• EDA Environmental

FEMA considers a number of different factors when making determinations of eligibility.

• Disaster-related damage
• Cost-effectiveness
• Technical feasibility
• Environmental and historic preservation compliance
• Impact on operations and surrounding area
• Impact on vulnerability to another hazard

Mitigation measures must directly reduce the potential of future, similar damage to the facility. In general, hazard mitigation projects authorized under Section 406 focus on mitigation measures for the damaged parts of damaged facilities.

Some examples of comprehensive mitigation measures include:

• Constructing floodwalls around damaged facilities
• Installing new drainage facilities (including culverts) along a damaged road
• Dry flood-proofing both damaged and undamaged buildings that contain components of a system that are functionally interdependent (i.e., cases where the entire system is jeopardized if any one component of the system fails)

FEMA evaluates this type of proposal on a case-by-case basis. If FEMA determines mitigation measures to undamaged portions ineligible as 406 Hazard Mitigation, the Applicant may request Section 404 funding from the Recipient to provide protection to undamaged portions, while utilizing Section 406 mitigation funds to provide protection to damaged portions.

Mitigation measures must be cost-effective. FEMA defines cost-effectiveness as:

• The benefits of a hazard mitigation project exceed the costs
• The Benefit-Cost Ratio is greater than one (BCR > 1)

Cost-effectiveness does not mean always selecting the least expensive alternative. The long-term costs and benefits need to be assessed.

Three different methods may be used to determine cost-effectiveness:

• 15-percent rule
• 100-percent rule (Appendix J in the Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide)
• Benefit-Cost Analysis

Determining cost-effectiveness will be discussed more in the next lesson.

The goal of mitigation is to support Applicant implementation of good projects that will reduce the risk of damage during and against future incidents without compromising a facility against other types of disasters. A mitigation measure should:

• Address the hazard that occurred
• Be realistic and feasible

Find out whether the Applicant has 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 local government building may not wish to mitigate against earthquakes using exterior cross bracing for aesthetic reasons or because the bracing can block windows.

Most mitigation measures alter the pre-disaster condition of a facility, which affects compliance with environmental and historic preservation laws, regulations, and Executive Orders.

Environmental and historic preservation compliance includes cultural considerations and public outreach, accounting for how the changes will affect the rest of the community.

A historic building in Missouri, owned by a city government, has flooded several times and is located in the floodplain. This building is on the National Historic Register and is visited by tourist, which generates additional income for the city.

Hazard mitigation measures often impact more than the facility that has been damaged. They can affect the hazard risk to other facilities, the function of services, and the local economy.

Applicants need to understand the impact that their projects will have on the surrounding area. Hazard mitigation for one facility can affect future protective measures for others, potential need for temporary facilities, and impact the function for utilities or basic infrastructure facilities during future disasters.

Example: Water control measures to prevent flooding in one area might divert water to another location, damaging a power plant or water supply utility. In this case, the benefits of the initial mitigation measure would be outweighed by the collateral damage.

The 26th Ward Wastewater Treatment Plant in New York City during Hurricane Sandy, was flooded. Effluent from the plant contaminated the flood waters, and the plant was closed.

Consider:

• What is the impact on the economy?
• Will school need to be closed?
• Will traffic need to be diverted?

Many times, mitigation measures will impact more than the facility that is damaged. The surrounding facilities can be part of the impact or become impacted, based on mitigation measures.

A mitigation measure designed to reduce the risk from one hazard can sometimes increase vulnerability to another. For example, a proposed method of fireproofing a door or windows might have the unintended effect of trapping people inside if the building floods.

The failure of a mitigation measure can also have a cascading effect on hazards it was not designed to address. Levees are designed to hold back flood water, but when New Orleans levees were overwhelmed during Hurricane Katrina, flood damage was not the only result.

Flooded streets were impassable, hindering evacuation and limiting the mobility of emergency response personnel. Additionally, flood damage to utilities such as electricity, water, and sewage were interrupted and in some cases created more safety concerns.

Consider the following hazard mitigation measures. Which mitigation measures are likely to impact vulnerability to other hazards? Are any likely to affect the community in a negative way?

Examples:

• Constructing floodwalls around damaged facilities
• Installing new drainage facilities along a damaged road (e.g. culverts)
• Dry flood-proofing both damaged and undamaged buildings that contain components of a system that would be jeopardized if any one component of the system fails
• Slope stabilization to protect facilities:
• Riprap
• Retaining walls or gabion baskets
• Geotextile fabric
• Use of disaster-resistant materials for power poles

The following should be included in the Hazard Mitigation Proposal process:

• Demonstration of event-related damage
• A pre-disaster cost estimate; or what it will cost to restore the facility to its pre-disaster condition
• Documentation of cost of historical damages for the Benefit-Cost Analysis, if required
• Consideration of environmental and historic preservation
• Documents submitted to FEMA's 406 mitigation specialist
• Posting all documents to Grants Portal

Depending on your project, certain documentation may be required outside of what is listed here.

When applying to use Public Assistance funds to repair a facility, you must inform FEMA if you wish to include changes or improvements. Failure to do so can negatively impact your funding.

By definition, Section 406 Hazard Mitigation measures generally involve making changes to the original facility.

The Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide establishes three methods to determine whether a project is cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness of most 406 Hazard Mitigation projects is determined by either the 15% or 100% rule. However, these rules may exclude some otherwise cost-effective projects.

If the mitigation measure is not cost-effective based on the first two criteria, FEMA, Recipient, and Applicant will work together to develop a Benefit-Cost Analysis to determine whether it is cost-effective.

FEMA considers mitigation measures to be cost-effective if the cost for the mitigation measure does not exceed 15% of the total eligible repair cost (prior to any insurance reductions) of the facility or facilities for which the mitigation measure applies.

If the costs exceed 15% of the total eligible repair cost, consider the 100% rule.

FEMA also considers mitigation measures to be cost-effective if:

• The mitigation measure is specifically listed in Appendix J: Cost-Effective Hazard Mitigation Measures of the Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide
• The cost of the mitigation measure does not exceed 100% of the eligible repair cost (prior to any insurance reductions) of the facility or facilities for which the mitigation measure applies

The items listed in Appendix J were derived from historical mitigation measures FEMA has determined to be cost effective.

If the project costs more than 15% of the total eligible repair cost or 100% of the damaged element repairs, then conduct a Benefit-Cost Analysis.

Many mitigation measures that do not meet either the 15% or 100% rule prove to be cost-effective based on a Benefit-Cost Analysis. The Applicant must demonstrate through an acceptable benefit-cost analysis methodology that the benefits of the mitigation measure exceed the cost of implementing it.

A Benefit-Cost Analysis is based on a comparison of the total eligible cost for the mitigation measure to the total value of expected benefits to society.

Benefits include reductions in:

• Damage to the facility and its contents
• The need for Emergency Protective Measures
• The need for temporary facilities
• Loss of function
• Casualties (typically included only for earthquake, tornado, and wildfire mitigation)

Some factors that a Benefit-Cost Analysis should also take into account include:

• The population affected
• Historical data
• Historical damage records
• Hydrology and hydraulics studies
• Damage frequency assessment
• Change in development of land

Each disaster should have access to a Benefit-Cost Analysis specialist. This specialist makes the Benefit-Cost Analysis calculations. Most counties will have someone in engineering and planning who can do the same.

There are a number of other tools and resources you can use to develop a Benefit-Cost Analysis:

• Benefit-Cost Analysis software: Make sure the version you are using is up to date and has the most current national guidelines for cost codes
• Third-party professionals: Individuals, such as the State Public Assistance Representative, can provide further guidance
• Recipient: The Recipient can also provide useful guidance when developing a Benefit-Cost Analysis
• FEMA courses:
• E0239: 406 Hazard Mitigation
• E0276: Benefit-Cost Analysis: Entry Level
• FEMA has Benefit-Cost Analysis software that provides appropriate Benefit-Cost Analysis methodologies. However, it is the Applicant or Recipient's responsibility to gather the necessary information and provide it to FEMA. FEMA Benefit Cost Analysis

Once the Benefit-Cost Analysis has been calculated, it can be submitted to FEMA along with the other documentation for your hazard mitigation project.

FEMA validates the Benefit-Cost Analysis by reviewing the methodology and the supporting documentation provided by the Applicant.

There are two general types of mitigation: active and passive.

• Active mitigation: Mitigation measure that require human intervention (or power) to operate properly
• Passive mitigation: Mitigation measures that require no human intervention (or power) to operate properly

Passive measures are preferable and tend to be more sustainable; 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.

Active hazard mitigation measures require some degree of human intervention to be fully effective. Active migration is considered 406 Hazard Mitigation if it is tied to a damaged element.

Examples of active mitigation:

• Flood - Flood-proofing techniques that require the installation of flood shields over doors and other openings prior to the event
• Wind - Installing or securing storm shutters

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

Examples of passive mitigation:

• Flood - Elevation and relocation of structures
• Wind - Improving roof sheathing and the connections between roof framing and walls
• Earthquake - Installing or securing shear walls or cross bracing

As a result of Hurricane Zena, the windows of the Hazard County Courthouse were impacted and shattered by flying debris. During the recovery process, the Applicant has claimed this damage and is requesting funds to replace the windows. The Applicant wishes to request 406 Hazard Mitigation in order to prevent the failure of the courthouse windows during a future disaster event.

The Applicant is considering the following two options for 406 Hazard Mitigation:

• Active Mitigation: Installation of accordion roll-down shutters to be placed on the building and deployed prior to a hurricane
  
• Passive Mitigation: Glass upgrade to impact-resistant glass

Note: Mitigation options to protect windows from wind events include, but are not limited to, the Applicant's considerations.

Direct and indirect benefits of the mitigation:

• Direct benefit: Limiting and/or preventing failure of the building windows and the need to replace them following an event
  
• Indirect benefit: Limiting and/or preventing the destruction of components and contents inside the building that would be exposed to storm winds and rain if the windows break

The Applicant is making the following considerations in selecting active and passive hazard mitigation measures:

• Active Mitigation: The measure is effective as long as there is enough pre-event lead time and staff are available to deploy the measure
  
• Passive Mitigation: Impact resistant glass is robust, but still may break upon impact during extreme events

Applicants should propose the mitigation method that is most advantageous to their specific need and capability.

During Hurricane Sandy, both the New York University Langone Medical Center and LaGuardia Airport lost power. Each facility had generators to provide emergency power, but neither was adequately prepared for the flooding that occurred.

When the generators were flooded, the medical center and airport lost back-up power, interrupting service and endangering lives.

In response, the Langone Medical Center and LaGuardia Airport have used Section 406 Hazard Mitigation funding to elevate their back-up generators and reduce the risk of power-loss during any future flooding.

The town of Beaver Creek, Kansas is subject to flooding and runoff resulting in heavy water flow through buried pipes, exceeding their capacity.

However, wastewater treatment is considered an integrated and interdependent process. Damage to an ineligible component of the plant affects the function of the whole system, including eligible components.

After reviewing the case, the Recovery Branch approved dry floodproofing for the entire wastewater treatment plant as Section 406 Hazard Mitigation.