Risky Business in the Granite State: Mitigating Natural Hazards at the Local Level by elloni

Risky Business in the Granite State: 1

Mitigating Natural Hazards at the Local Level

Tegan O’Neill - Summer Undergraduate Research Fellow 2013 ByUniversity of New Hampshire, Political Science, Class of 2014

Introduction: This paper examines the role that scientific data plays in shaping disaster mitigation policy and what barriers to implementation, if any, exist in Rockingham and Strafford Counties. Specifically, this research addresses two central questions: how are disaster mitigation policies formed at the local level and what are the challenges to their implementation? Local governments form the foundation of the United States’ disaster mitigation and emergency response paradigm. While state and federal governments provide guidelines and occasional support for mitigation projects, towns and cities are ultimately responsible for both the long term planning and first response in the event of a disaster. Local governments are arguably the most important factor in the success or failure of disaster mitigation in the United States. 1 Despite the importance of local disaster mitigation, there is extremely limited scholarship on how policy is formed and implemented at this level of government.2 Municipal governments operate with fewer resources, fewer leaders and are more responsive to citizens than higher levels of government. 3 The smaller scale of local governments and the responsiveness of local governments to citizen input present potential challenges for local leaders in preparing for disasters. First, the scientific data crucial to mitigating natural hazards may play less of a role in the local decision-‐making processes than at higher levels of government. Second, local governments are responsible for an enormous number of tasks with more tangible and short-‐term benefits than disaster mitigation. Municipalities are also the most responsive levels of government to citizen input, making them the least able to legislate based on abstract futures. While there may only be a 6% chance that a hurricane will make landfall in one’s town, there is a 100% chance that there are ambulances to staff, police to hire, schools to run and potholes to fill, and this poses a challenge for local emergency managers. These issues of capacity and the proximity of local stakeholders to local governments give rise to the paradox of local disaster mitigation. This paper is designed to address what impacts, if any, these issues of scale and local stakeholder proximity have on disaster mitigation in Rockingham and Strafford Counties. In New Hampshire, the need to address this topic is particularly urgent due to trends in development within floodplains, increasingly frequent hazardous weather events, and legislative concerns over the availability of 1 The FEMA Emergency Management Handbook: “Chapter 2 Emergency Stakeholders.” p. 21 2 Clary, Bruce B. “The Evolution and Structure of Natural Hazard Policies” Public Administration Review , Vol. 45, Special Issue: Emergency Management: A Challenge for Public Administration (Jan., 1985), p. 20-‐28. 3 Platt, Rutherford. “Disasters and Democracy: The Politics of Extreme Natural Events.” (1999) pp. xvii

information regarding natural hazards. 4 In addition to this research paper, an interactive natural hazards map was built to illustrate natural hazard risk factors and vulnerable areas in Rockingham and Strafford Counties.

Definitions Local government: The US Census Bureau categorizes local governments into municipalities and towns or townships. “These two types of governments are distinguished primarily by the historical circumstances surrounding their incorporation. In many states, most notably in the Northeast, municipal and township governments have similar powers and perform similar functions.”5 For the purposes of this research, “local government” is defined as the public officials and resources that comprise the administration of a particular town. Natural hazards: "Those elements of the physical environment, harmful to man and caused by forces extraneous to him."6 Natural hazards include atmospheric, geologic, hydrologic and wildfire events. Natural hazards risk factors: Characteristics of the natural environment and human infrastructure that combine to create the potential for destructive natural events. Disaster mitigation: Measures taken prior to natural disasters and events to minimize the impact of hazardous events on humans and human infrastructure. Emergency Management Director: The elected or appointed public official responsible for emergency management and disaster mitigation. 4 New Hampshire House Bill 648: Chapter 179 Laws of 2007. Comprehensive Flood Management Study Commission. Pages 32 to 35 5 U.S. Census Bureau. “Structures of Governments” Available online : <http://www.census.gov/govs/go/definitions.html#m>

6 Burton, I., Robert W. Kates and Gilbert F. White. The Environment as Hazard (New York: Oxford University

Press, 1978)

Assessing Natural Hazard Risk Factors and Vulnerability The first step in mitigating the impacts of natural events is to measure which events are likely to occur, how often they are likely to occur and what impacts they are likely to have if they do occur.7 Methods for natural hazard risk assessments differ, and are a subject of much debate within scientific and governmental circles.8 However, each method takes into account, to some degree, the following factors: • • •

Environmental characteristics Human Infrastructure and Development Historical events

The first indicator for natural hazard risk factors, environmental characteristics, is the most obvious gauge of the likelihood that certain events will occur, but is also the most difficult to measure.9 Many destructive natural events occur infrequently. These low-‐likelihood, high impact events can be predicted with limited success using statistical methods such as Poisson curve analysis. However, these analyses often only take into account historical occurrences, and do not account for changes in climate patterns or land use.10 Environmental characteristics are also sometimes measured through community experience. Local knowledge of natural features and community memory of past natural disasters often inform hazard mitigation policies at the local level.11 While many methods exist for measuring environmental characteristics, the measurements of environmental characteristics that are based on scientific studies are the most appropriate for the purposes of disaster mitigation.12 Currently, natural hazard risks are measured and reported by federal agencies including the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S.D.A Forest Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as well as state sources such as the New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands and the New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning. While most of this data is published, it is often not made available in a format that is easily accessible or useful to New Hampshire’s citizens and 7 FEMA Emergency Management Handbook. Chapter 2. pp. 3-‐5 8 UN International Strategy for Disaster Resilience “Reducing Disaster Risks through Science.” Full Report of the 2009 UNISDR Scientific and Technical Committee. pp. 10. 9 Cutter, Susan L. and Ahearn, Joseph A. “Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. Vol. 55, Iss. 2, 2013. pp. 25-‐29. 10 Grossi, Patricia, Chandu Patel and Howard Kunreuthe. “Catastrophe Modeling: A New Approach to Managing Risk.” Huebner International Series on Risk, Insurance and Economic Security. Springer Press. January 2005. pp.34-45. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.

emergency planners13. While the importance of science-‐driven natural disaster mitigation policy is globally recognized, little effort has been made to study the use of scientific data on the local level. A 2013 report commissioned by the New Hampshire State Legislature exposed an urgent need for more comprehensive scientific risk assessment to improve disaster mitigation practices in the state.14 In addition to information about environmental characteristics, information about development patterns and land use are important for hazard mitigation. Generally, the greatest damages occur where areas of high population density are located in areas of high risk for natural hazards. In order to illustrate the confluence of hazardous areas and high population densities, an interactive map was created. The map displays population densities at the block level (darker shades of blue indicate higher population densities.) In addition, slightly opaque floodplain overlays were added, to demonstrate where these areas overlap. 15 For example, Newmarket, shown above, has a highly developed downtown area that is confluent with both 100 year flood zones and floodways. In addition, this map illustrates the probabilities that the following events will take 13 New Hampshire House Bill 648: Chapter 179 Laws of 2007. Comprehensive Flood Management Study Commission. p. 32-‐35 14 Ibid. 15 Map is available at http://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/teganelloni.NatHaz.html

place over a period of 50 years, based on studies conducted by the University of Colorado, USGS, USDA, FEMA, • • • • • • • •

Hurricane Landfall Hurricane force wind gusts Tropical Storm landfall Tropical Force wind gusts Floods Drought Earthquakes Wildfires (links to daily wildfire risk assessment, no long-‐term studies have been conducted)

Generally, the map reflects the fact that New Hampshire’s development patterns are confluent with flood zone areas, and that wind hazards are also a significant natural hazard in the area. For more detailed information, please visit the map at http://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/teganelloni.NatHaz.html.

The Development of Natural Hazard Mitigation Policy The first piece of congressional disaster legislation passed in the United States was to provide assistance to Portsmouth, New Hampshire after an extremely destructive fire.16 Two hundred and ten years later, natural disaster management policy has undergone several transformations. Prior to the Flood Control Act of 1936, disaster policy in the United States was almost exclusively reactionary. All of the disaster legislation passed during this period was crisis-‐driven, passed by Congress for the aid of victims in the wake of disasters.17 As the United States’ economy grew, the riverfront and coastal areas that were so profitable for commerce were built up rapidly. It soon became clear that where trade comes by water so do disasters, mostly in the form of floods and storms. As a result, the patterns of development in much of the early American hubs, including those in New Hampshire, are confluent with areas with high natural hazards risk factors.18 The lack of focus on disaster preparedness, combined with these settlement 16 Clary, Bruce B. “The Evolution and Structure of Natural Hazard Policies” Public Administration Review , Vol. 45, Special Issue: Emergency Management: A Challenge for Public Administration (Jan., 1985), pp. 25-‐27 17 Ibid. 18 Arnold, Joseph L. “The Evolution of the Flood Control Act of 1936” Office of History, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988 pp. 15-‐17.

patterns, lead to highly destructive flood events in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s. These floods exacerbated the economic issues caused by the Great Depression, shifting public attention towards disaster mitigation. In addition, science and engineering had progressed, by this time, to the point at which effective mitigation practices could actually be enacted.19 Disaster mitigation has been a central part of the disaster policy since this legislation was passed. The major pieces of natural disaster legislation that have been passed since the 1936 Flood Control Act have stressed mitigation as a crucial component of disaster management. The Disaster Relief Act of 1950, The Disaster Relief Act of 1974 and the Robert T. Strafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 all contain language stressing the importance of mitigation. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was established in 1979 to “enable the federal, state, and local governments to address a broad spectrum of emergency management functions.”20 FEMA has been the agency responsible for implementing emergency response and disaster mitigation policy since 1979. While FEMA has begun to address the issue of disaster mitigation at the state and local levels, it has become evident that these federal measures to require action at the state and local level are “not self-‐implementing.”21 According to Clary, this lack of success leads to “questions about the capacity and/or willingness on the part of the state and local governments to undertake strong mitigation measures.”22

Local Disaster Mitigation: Capacity and Stakeholder Proximity Modes of decision-‐making and policy implementation at the local level vary enormously from those of the state and national governments. The differences with the greatest significance for emergency managers are those of capacity and stakeholder proximity. “Capacity” can be used to describe a wide range of governmental characteristics, but most often refers to the ability or inability of a government to achieve objectives.23 For purposes of this paper, a local government’s disaster mitigation “capacity” is the sum of the resources it has access to and can dedicate to mitigating the impacts of natural hazards. These resources include time, funding, access to expert knowledge, the ability to interpret that knowledge and the 22 Ibid., 20 Ibid, 26

21 Bea, Kieth. “Federal Emergency Management Policy ChangesAfter Hurricane Katrina: A Summary of Statutory

Provisions” Nov. 15 2006. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.

22 Clary, Bruce B. “The Evolution and Structure of Natural Hazard Policies” Public Administration Review , Vol.

45, Special Issue: Emergency Management: A Challenge for Public Administration (Jan., 1985), p 27.

23 Gargan, John J. “Consideration of Local Government Capacity” Public Administration Review , Vol. 41, No. 6

(Nov. -‐ Dec., 1981), pp. 649-‐658

ability to mobilize public support for mitigation practices. With regards to natural hazards mitigation policy, a local government’s capacity can impact both the policymaking process and implementation. A local government’s capacity to plan and implement disaster mitigation strategies is dependent upon its resources. The governmental resources most important to mitigating disasters include:24 • • •

Funding Public Support Data

Funding : The first of these resources is most often the one in least supply: funding. Funding is crucial for implementing mitigation practices, gathering new data and hiring mitigation-‐related personnel. Unfortunately, funding is also the perennial problem for most public officials at the local level. “Most often, the local government budget reflects the overall health of the local economy and is the place where public scrutiny is focused.”25 Where local economies are strong, budgets are less strained. However, the 2008 recession had a particularly large impact on municipal governments across the country. A Survey of local governments conducted in 2010 found that more than 60% of local governments had to implement hiring freezes and pay cuts in order to compensate for smaller budgets.26 New Hampshire was not insulated from the recession or its impacts.27 In 1999, Rutherford Platt pointed out the problem that the lack of funding presents for emergency managers. As the federal and state governments are generally required to pay for most of the damage caused by large natural disasters, local governments and individuals have no incentives to avoid developing or building up hazardous areas.28 Local governments have more urgent, short-‐term needs with more tangible benefits, and as a result, may not be willing to “pony up the dough” based on abstract predictions about natural events. Public Support: Public support is inextricably tied to the funding issue. “Stakeholder proximity” refers to the proclivity for local governments to be more responsive to the public than higher levels of government. Local stakeholders including voters, property owners, public officials and interest groups, have much 24 Board on Natural Disasters. “Mitigation Emerges as Major Strategy for Reducing Losses Caused by Natural Disasters” Science, New Series, Vol. 284, No. 5422 (Jun. 18, 1999), pp. 1943-‐1947 25 Ibid. 26 “Survey Findings: The Great Recession and the State and Local Government Workforce.” The Center for State and Local Government Excellence. January 2010. 27 Johnson, Kenneth M., "New Hampshire demographic trends reflect impact of the economic recession" (2010).

The Carsey Institute at the Scholars' Repository. Paper 97.

28 Platt, Rutherford. “Disasters and Democracy: The Politics of Extreme Natural Events.” (1999) pp. xvii

more access to local leaders than they have to state and federal officials.29 Voters and community members often have direct access to the legislative process, and are able to vote on specific measures in town hall meetings. Additionally, small interest groups are highly effective in mobilizing public support over issues at the local level. This presents difficulties for emergency managers who have to compete for funds with other projects and initiatives. This may particularly difficult where the public is not well informed of the potential impacts of natural hazards. Data: The scientific data that is crucial to mitigating natural hazards may play less of a role in the local decision-‐making processes than at higher levels of government. Recent scholarship suggests that scientific data plays a limited role in municipal decision-‐making processes due to the lack of funding for local data-‐collection and the lack of scientific expertise among public administrators and officials.30 Disaster governance that is not data-‐driven can result in gaps where unlikely, but plausible events are ignored and changes in environmental risk are not considered.

Survey Methodology In order to measure how funding, data and public input effect mitigation policy in Rockingham and Strafford Counties, a survey of emergency managers in was conducted. The goal of the survey was to gather information regarding the sources of information that shape natural hazards mitigation policy on the local level, and what barriers, if any, exist to implementing mitigation practices. These counties were chosen because they have the highest population densities in the state and their development patterns are confluent with areas of high risk, making them the most vulnerable to human and economic losses in the case of a natural disaster.31, 32 The survey included the following questions: 1. How long have you served as emergency manager? 2. Have you been involved in updating your town’s disaster mitigation or preparedness plan while serving as emergency manager? If yes, how recently did you participate in updating your town’s mitigation or preparedness plan? 29 RTI International Working Paper “Public Participation and Local Government: An Analysis of Four U.S. models” Available online < http://www.rti.org/pubs/public_part_paper.pdf> 30 New Hampshire Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, Hazard Mitigation Multi-‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 Appendix F: Threat and Hazard Mitigation Assessment. February 2013, Concord, NH. 31 U.S. Census Burea. “Census of Local Governments” 2010. Available online

<http://www.census.gov/govs/cog/>

32 State of New Hampshire Multi-‐Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2013 (DRAFT). Prepared by the New

Hampshire Departments of Safety and Homeland Security and Emergency Management

10 3. When writing or updating disaster mitigation or preparedness plans, what sources of information are used to evaluate your town’s natural disaster risk factors? (Please rank from most-used sources to least used, with the most-used source being given a “1,” the next most-used given a “2,” etc. For sources that are not used, please mark with “N/A.”) 4. If scientific reports are used to help evaluate your town’s natural disaster risk factors, which agencies or private entities publish these reports? (For example the National Weather Service, U.S. Geological Survey, etc.) 5. Do you consider scientific reports or data on natural hazards to be easy to access and interpret? 6. Does your town hold natural disaster drills or table-top exercises? If yes, how often? 7. What sources of information, if any, are not currently available to you that would benefit your town’s natural disaster mitigation plan? 8. What is the greatest challenge that you face as an emergency manager when planning for and mitigating the impacts of natural disasters?

Questions 1 and 2 were aimed at gauging the emergency manager’s personal experience with the mitigation policy process. Questions 3, 4, and 7 directly address the sources of information used in forming hazard mitigation policies. Question 5 addresses the accessibility of scientific data to planners at the local level. Question 6 measures one aspect of implementation that involves community participation. Question 8 directly addresses the challenges that the local emergency manager faces. For the purpose of this research, the population being studied was local emergency managers in Rockingham and Strafford Counties. Due to the small size of the population, the entire population was included in the sample size. Of the 46 emergency managers included in the sample, 21 emergency managers chose to participate in the study. As a result of the small population being studied, inferential statistics are not applicable to the survey results. However, descriptive statistics may still be used on a sample size this small, due to the fact that it represents 46% of the population.33 33 Healey, Joseph F. “Statistics: A Tool For Social Research.” 8. Ed. pp. 45-‐51.

Results

Sources of Information

•

Historical Records were ranked as the second most important source of information regarding natural hazards. 38% of respondents indicated that historical records were the most-‐used source of natural hazards data. 43% of those surveyed responded that historical records were used in equal proportion to other sources of information 14% of respondents ranked citizen input as the second or third most-‐used source of information 5% ranked citizen input as the least-‐used source of information, and 0% responded that citizen input was not used as a source of information.

•

Citizen Input was the source of information identified as “most used” by the respondents. 40% of respondents indicated that citizen input was the most-‐used source of information, followed by 27% who responded that citizen input was as equally used as the other sources of information listed. 26% of respondents ranked citizen input as the second or third most-‐ used source of information 7% ranked citizen input as the least-‐used source of information, and 0% responded that citizen input was not used as a source of information.

•

Scientific data from private groups was ranked as the most-‐used source of information regarding natural hazards data by 7% of respondents 21% of respondents indicated that they did not use scientific data from private groups at all. 50% of respondents reported that they either did not use, or used this source of information minimally.

Scientific Data from Government agencies was ranked by 37% of respondents as equal to other sources of information. 6% of respondents claimed that government data was the most-‐used source of information 51% of respondents ranked government data as being used less-‐ often than citizen input and historical records.

Community Engagement

•

33% of emergency managers reported that their communities participate in table-‐top exercises or drills. 42% of emergency managers reported that their communities did not participate in these events 25% reported that their communities were planning to begin participating in these events.

Emergency Mgt. Experience

•

The average number of years of experience for emergency managers surveyed was 10.46. However, due to the small sample size and the presence of several very experienced emergency managers, this average does not reflect the actual overall experience level of emergency managers in the area. 41% of respondents had 0 to 5 years of experience, and 25% had 5 to 10 years of experience as emergency manager

Greatest Challenges

•

According to the respondents, the greatest challenges to local emergency management was the “perennial lack of funding” and the public attitude that disasters will not happen in their community. “It is always going to happen to someone else,” wrote one respondent. Another wrote “MINDSET. People don't believe it will happen here and as a consequence don't want to invest money in it.”

•

Regional Planning Commissions (including the Rockingham Planning Commission and the Strafford County Planning Commission, as well as the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, are the organizations that local emergency planners work with most closely. Few respondents reported directly working with FEMA and no other federal organizations were cited

Intergovernmental Cooperation

Conclusions These preliminary results indicate that issues of local capacity and stakeholder proximity are impacting disaster mitigation practices in Rockingham and Strafford County. However, after further discussion with emergency managers and a review of the towns’ hazard mitigation plans, it became clear that scientific data is well-‐used on the county and state levels and that state and regional leadership is compensating for the lack of capacity at the town level. While cooperation between levels of government seems to be contributing to science based mitigation policies in Rockingham and Strafford Counties, the implementation of these policies at the town level is still limited by public outlook. The public attitude that disasters, apart from the occasional snow storm, won’t occur in a community appears to be prominent in Rockingham and Strafford Counties. Moreover, as the natural hazard map illustrates, there are significant probabilities that natural hazards such as wind gusts, could occur in this area. Emergency managers in this area are faced with the challenge of communicating the reality of natural hazards despite the public tendency to underestimate or ignore them. In addition, most of the emergency management directors in Rockingham and Strafford Counties are also the fire chief or police chief in their communities. While this may be helpful in integrating emergency management and disaster mitigation into the town’s everyday functions, it also places an enormous task on an already busy public official. Further, this dual role creates a bargaining problem for the emergency manager, who can not vie for funds for one aspect of his or her job without necessarily reducing funds for the other. In other words, the Police Chief who is also the emergency manager is faced with the difficulty of bargaining for funds for new police cars and backup generators at the same time. Further research on the benefits or negative impacts of integrating the emergency management director’s role into the police and fire departments would shed light on this issue. Regional leadership appears to have an enormously beneficial impact on disaster mitigation policy. Scientific data collected and provided by the Rockingham Planning Commission, Strafford County Planning Commission and Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission were used in all 40 of the region’s Hazard Mitigation Plans. Further, the regional commissions

facilitate communication between the local, state and federal levels to ensure that these Hazard Mitigation Policies are written and updated every three to four years. Further research regarding the role of regional organizations in disaster mitigation, especially the amount of input local leaders are given in the process when regional organizations are involved, would be valuable for state and federal agencies hoping to improve inter-‐governmental communication on disaster mitigation. This project has gathered new data that sheds light on the little-‐studied role of local emergency managers in disaster mitigation. These results indicate that the public’s outlook and their ability to influence local budgets presents a major challenge for local planners. In addition, the information gathered in this study also suggests that regional leadership is helping shape science-‐driven natural hazards mitigation policy at the local level.