Natural Hazard Mitigation
Various Mitigation Efforts Exist, but Federal Efforts Do Not Provide a Comprehensive Strategic Framework
Gao ID: GAO-07-403 August 22, 2007
The nation has experienced vast losses from natural hazards. The potential for future events, such as earthquakes and hurricanes, demonstrates the importance of hazard mitigation--actions that reduce the long-term risks to life and property from natural hazard events. GAO was asked to examine (1) natural hazards that present a risk to life and property in the United States, areas that are most susceptible to them, factors that may be increasing these risks, and mitigation activities that reduce losses; (2) methods for encouraging and impediments to implementing mitigation activities; and (3) collaborative efforts of federal agencies and other stakeholders to promote mitigation. To address these objectives, GAO collected and analyzed hazard data, reviewed population information, conducted site visits to locations with comprehensive mitigation programs, and collected information from relevant agencies and officials.
Natural hazards present risks to life and property throughout the United States. Flooding is the most widespread and destructive of these, resulting in billions of dollars in property losses each year. Hurricanes, earthquakes, and wildland fires also pose significant risks in certain regions of the country. Tornadoes, landslides, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions can also occur in some areas. Population growth in hazard-prone areas, especially coastal areas, is increasing the nation's vulnerability to losses because more people and property are at risk. Climate change may also impact the frequency and severity of future natural hazard events. A variety of natural hazard mitigation activities exist, which are primarily implemented at the state and local level, and include hazard mitigation planning; strong building codes and design standards; and hazard control structures (e.g., levees). For example, strong building codes and design standards can make structures better able to withstand a hazard event and hazard control structures help protect existing at-risk areas. Public education, financial assistance, and insurance discounts can help encourage mitigation. For example, federal, state, and local governments provide financial assistance to promote mitigation and insurance discounts can encourage the use of mitigation measures. However, significant challenges exist to implementing natural hazard mitigation activities. Some of these challenges include the desire for local economic development--often in hazard-prone areas--which may conflict with long-term mitigation goals and the cost of mitigation may limit the amount of activities that occur. FEMA, other federal agencies, and nonfederal stakeholders have collaborated on natural hazard mitigation, but the current approach is fragmented and does not provide a comprehensive national strategic framework for mitigation. Collaboration typically occurs on a hazard-specific basis, after a disaster, or through informal methods. A comprehensive framework would help define common national goals, establish joint strategies, leverage resources, and assign responsibilities among stakeholders.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
GAO-07-403, Natural Hazard Mitigation: Various Mitigation Efforts Exist, but Federal Efforts Do Not Provide a Comprehensive Strategic Framework
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-403
entitled 'Natural Hazard Mitigation: Various Mitigation Efforts Exist,
but Federal Efforts Do Not Provide a Comprehensive Strategic Framework'
which was released on September 24, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
August 2007:
Natural Hazard Mitigation:
Various Mitigation Efforts Exist, but Federal Efforts Do Not Provide a
Comprehensive Strategic Framework:
Natural Hazard Mitigation:
GAO-07-403:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-403, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on
Financial Services, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The nation has experienced vast losses from natural hazards. The
potential for future events, such as earthquakes and hurricanes,
demonstrates the importance of hazard mitigation”actions that reduce
the long-term risks to life and property from natural hazard events.
GAO was asked to examine (1) natural hazards that present a risk to
life and property in the United States, areas that are most susceptible
to them, factors that may be increasing these risks, and mitigation
activities that reduce losses; (2) methods for encouraging and
impediments to implementing mitigation activities; and (3)
collaborative efforts of federal agencies and other stakeholders to
promote mitigation.
To address these objectives, GAO collected and analyzed hazard data,
reviewed population information, conducted site visits to locations
with comprehensive mitigation programs, and collected information from
relevant agencies and officials.
What GAO Found:
Natural hazards present risks to life and property throughout the
United States. Flooding is the most widespread and destructive of
these, resulting in billions of dollars in property losses each year.
Hurricanes, earthquakes, and wildland fires also pose significant risks
in certain regions of the country. Tornadoes, landslides, tsunamis, and
volcanic eruptions can also occur in some areas. Population growth in
hazard-prone areas, especially coastal areas, is increasing the
nation‘s vulnerability to losses because more people and property are
at risk. Climate change may also impact the frequency and severity of
future natural hazard events. A variety of natural hazard mitigation
activities exist, which are primarily implemented at the state and
local level, and include hazard mitigation planning; strong building
codes and design standards; and hazard control structures (e.g.,
levees). For example, strong building codes and design standards can
make structures better able to withstand a hazard event (see fig.) and
hazard control structures help protect existing at-risk areas.
Public education, financial assistance, and insurance discounts can
help encourage mitigation. For example, federal, state, and local
governments provide financial assistance to promote mitigation and
insurance discounts can encourage the use of mitigation measures.
However, significant challenges exist to implementing natural hazard
mitigation activities. Some of these challenges include the desire for
local economic development”often in hazard-prone areas”which may
conflict with long-term mitigation goals and the cost of mitigation may
limit the amount of activities that occur.
FEMA, other federal agencies, and nonfederal stakeholders have
collaborated on natural hazard mitigation, but the current approach is
fragmented and does not provide a comprehensive national strategic
framework for mitigation. Collaboration typically occurs on a hazard-
specific basis, after a disaster, or through informal methods. A
comprehensive framework would help define common national goals,
establish joint strategies, leverage resources, and assign
responsibilities among stakeholders.
Figure: Effect of a Hurricane on Neighboring Structures Built to
Different Versions of Building Codes:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Institute for Business & Home Safety.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), in consultation with other appropriate
federal agencies, develop and maintain a national comprehensive
strategic framework for mitigation. FEMA generally agreed with the
report‘s recommendation.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-403].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Orice Williams (202) 512-
8678 or williamso@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The United States Is at Risk from a Number of Natural Hazards, and Our
Vulnerability Is Increasing:
Communities' Planning and Mitigation Activities Can Help Reduce the
Risk of Losses from Natural Hazards:
While Various Approaches Are Used to Encourage Natural Hazard
Mitigation, Significant Challenges Remain:
A Number of Collaboration Efforts Exist but Do Not Provide a
Comprehensive Strategic Framework for National Natural Hazard
Mitigation Goals:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of Major Flood Disaster Declarations by County, 1980-
2005:
Figure 2: Number of Hurricanes by County, 1980-2005:
Figure 3: Counties That Face Medium to High Seismic Risk:
Figure 4: Number of Wildland Fires over 1,000 Acres by County, 1980-
2005:
Figure 5: Number of Severe Tornadoes by County, 1980-2004:
Figure 6: Counties That Face Moderate to High Landslide Risk:
Figure 7: Effect of a 2004 Hurricane on Structures Built to Different
Versions of Building Codes:
Figure 8: Hurricane Straps in a Home under Construction:
Figure 9: Before and after Photos of a Home with a Defensible Space
against Wildland Fire:
Abbreviations:
BCEGS™: Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule:
CEA: California Earthquake Authority:
CRS: Community Rating System:
DMA 2000: Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000:
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:
FMA: Flood Mitigation Assistance Program:
HMGP: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program:
NEHRP: National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program:
NFIP: National Flood Insurance Program:
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
PDM: Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program:
RFC: Repetitive Flood Claims Program:
SRL: Severe Repetitive Loss Pilot Program:
USGS: U.S. Geological Survey:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
August 22, 2007:
The Honorable Spencer Bachus:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Financial Services:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Bachus:
The hurricane seasons of 2004 and 2005 devastated portions of the
United States resulting in extensive loss of life and damage to
property. Hurricane Katrina alone caused over 1,500 deaths and an
estimated $81 billion in property damages.[Footnote 1] Obligations from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) disaster relief fund
in fiscal year 2004 and 2005 totaled over $43 billion--more than the
approximately $37 billion spent during the previous 10 years. Experts
predict that future natural hazard events in the United States could be
even more damaging and costly. For example, one expert on Atlantic
hurricanes predicts a category 3 hurricane hitting the New York City
area could produce a storm surge of over 20 feet in some areas, flood
local airports and lower Manhattan, and result in extensive economic
disruption. Similarly, experts have estimated that an earthquake in San
Francisco of the same magnitude as the 1906 earthquake could cause as
many as 3,400 deaths, displace up to 250,000 households, and cause as
much as $120 billion in property damage.
The losses to life and property from past natural hazard events and the
potential for similar or worse events in the future show the importance
of taking steps to reduce the impact such events can have on the
nation. Hazard mitigation--actions taken before or after a natural
hazard event to reduce or eliminate the long-term risks to life and
property from natural hazards--can save lives and reduce property
damage, potentially reducing the economic and social costs of natural
hazard events. The potential for large-scale damage, particularly in
densely populated and economically important areas, makes hazard
mitigation an important national issue. A recent cost-benefit analysis
of a sample of hazard mitigation grants awarded by FEMA--the federal
agency that provides leadership in mitigating the effects of natural
hazards--found that every $1 spent on mitigation saved society an
average of $4.[Footnote 2]
Given the importance of natural hazard mitigation and its potential for
reducing future losses caused by natural hazards, this report examines
(1) natural hazards that present a risk to life and property in the
United States, areas that are most susceptible to them, and factors
that may be increasing these risks; (2) mitigation activities that
reduce losses from natural hazards; (3) methods for encouraging and
impediments to implementing mitigation activities; and (4)
collaborative efforts of federal agencies and other stakeholders to
promote mitigation.
To identify the natural hazards that present a risk to life and
property in the United States, we used a comprehensive list of natural
hazards compiled by FEMA and collected and analyzed data on these
hazards. Using these data, we created graphical representations for the
hazards that represent large annual losses to the built environment and
for which long-term mitigation activities exist. These hazards include
floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildland fires, tornadoes, and
landslides. We also reviewed population information and spoke with
officials at several federal agencies to determine natural hazard risks
on a national level and factors that may be increasing these risks. To
address the remaining objectives, we conducted site visits to four
judgmentally selected states. The states represent a variety of natural
hazard risks and geographic locations, have comprehensive mitigation
programs, or were recommended to us by mitigation experts or federal
and state agency officials. We limited the mitigation strategies we
reviewed to those that reduced or eliminated the long-term risk to
people and property from the effects of natural hazards, whether these
activities occurred before or after a natural hazard event. Programs
and activities for preparing to respond in advance to natural hazard
events (e.g., emergency response and training activities), responses to
hazard events, and recovery from hazard events were outside the scope
of our report. We also reviewed previous congressional reports and our
prior reports and testimonies, policy and research documents, and
reports and publications from the federal agencies involved in
mitigation activities. Finally, we interviewed officials at five
federal agencies--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers),
FEMA, U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)--
involved in mitigation activities, state and local emergency management
officials, industry and professional associations, advocacy groups,
building and land-use experts, and a risk modeling firm.
We conducted our work in Baltimore, Maryland; Berkeley, Napa, San
Francisco, and Sacramento, California; Boston, Massachusetts; Boulder,
Denver, Golden, and Fort Collins, Colorado; Deerfield Beach, Miami,
Tampa, and West Palm Beach, Florida; Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Oklahoma;
and Washington, D.C., between March 2006 and June 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Natural hazards present risks to life and property throughout the
United States, and population trends are increasing the nation's
vulnerability to these risks, while climate change is expected to
change the nature of some of the risks themselves. Flooding is the most
common and destructive natural hazard facing the nation and causes
billions of dollars in losses each year. Hurricanes, earthquakes,
wildland fires, tornadoes, and landslides are less widespread but also
pose significant risks to property and residents in susceptible areas.
For example, our analysis of NOAA data showed that hurricanes typically
impact the Atlantic and Gulf Coast states and occasionally Hawaii.
Additionally, according to the USGS, earthquakes pose significant risks
to states on the West Coast and Alaska as well as portions of the
central United States. We also found that most large wildland fires--
which increasingly threaten structures as development continues to
expand in or near wildlands--occur in the western United States,
although smaller fires, which can be equally as damaging as large
fires, also occur in the eastern and southern regions of the country.
Other natural hazards, such as tsunamis and volcanic eruptions also
present risks to portions of the United States. Furthermore, some
natural hazard events can cause another hazard event to occur. For
example, an earthquake can produce a tsunami or may cause levees to
fail and create flooding. Finally, population trends and climate change
are potentially increasing the vulnerability of the nation to losses
resulting from natural hazards. For example, NOAA estimates that
coastal areas, in particular, are among the most rapidly growing areas
in the country; and as we have previously reported, climate change may
increase these hazard risks by altering the frequency and severity of
hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildland fires.[Footnote 3]
A variety of mitigation activities exist that can reduce the risk of
losses from natural hazards. These activities, which are mostly
implemented at the state and local level, include hazard mitigation
planning; the adoption and enforcement of more rigorous building codes;
and the use of hazard control structures such as levees, dams, and
floodwalls or natural protective features such as wetlands and dunes.
Hazard mitigation planning can help communities identify the natural
hazards to which they are susceptible and develop a strategy for
reducing their vulnerability. Many of the strategies identified in
hazard mitigation plans are implemented through land-use planning tools
and development regulations that can prevent or limit development in
hazard-prone areas. Building codes play an important role in making
structures more resistant to the effects of natural hazards. The amount
of protection building codes provide depends on the provisions
contained in the code that address communities' natural hazard risks
and the extent to which communities adopt and enforce these provisions.
When development occurs in hazard-prone areas, buildings can be
designed or retrofitted (modified to improve resistance to hazards) to
increase their chances of surviving known perils. For example, homes
built in areas susceptible to wildland fires can incorporate landscape
techniques, such as maintaining an open area around the structure's
perimeter that limits the amount of vegetation and other flammable
objects. Hazard control structures can help protect areas that are
susceptible to flooding. For example, the city of Napa, California, is
undertaking a large flood protection project that includes levees and
floodwalls to reduce the impact of flooding on the region.
Major impediments exist to the implementation of natural hazard
mitigation activities, however, some methods are available to help
encourage the undertaking of these activities. Mitigation activities
are often constrained by conflicting local interests, cost concerns,
and a lack of public awareness of the risks of natural hazards and the
importance of mitigation. Communities' economic interests can often
conflict with long-term hazard mitigation goals. For example,
communities' desire for economic growth may allow development to occur
in hazard-prone areas (e.g., along the coast or in floodplains).
Additionally, the cost to communities to implement and maintain hazard
mitigation policies as well as the cost to property owners to make
their structures hazard resistant also limits the amount of hazard
mitigation activities that occur. The lack of public awareness about
natural hazards and risks also constrains efforts to implement new
mitigation activities. Efforts to overcome these impediments include,
public education and outreach, financial and other types of assistance,
and insurance discounts. An example of public education is the Firewise
Communities program, which conducts educational activities for local
policy makers, home owners, and developers about wildland fire risks
and methods to reduce these risks. Additionally, financial assistance
is provided by federal, state, and local agencies to promote mitigation
activities. For example, at the federal level, FEMA offers assistance
to states and local communities through natural hazard mitigation grant
programs. At the local level, communities can use economic incentives
such as tax benefits to encourage mitigation activities. Finally,
insurance discounts can also encourage communities and individuals to
undertake mitigation measures.
The approach currently used for natural hazard mitigation efforts,
while collaborative, tends to occur on a hazard-specific basis,
typically after a disaster, or through informal methods and does not
provide a comprehensive strategic framework for mitigation. Successful
mitigation efforts require collaboration among federal, state, and
local government agencies, and a variety of nongovernmental entities,
because mitigation activities are implemented at the state and local
level. We identified a number of collaborative methods for mitigation,
including developing national mitigation strategies or interagency
programs dedicated to reducing losses from particular natural hazards.
For example, several federal agencies have developed a national
strategy for reducing the risks that wildland fires pose to
communities, which identifies the stakeholders responsible for
completing tasks to accomplish this goal. Agency officials said that in
addition they collaborate on mitigation efforts through a variety of
informal mechanisms such as teleconferences and discussions on specific
projects or initiatives. The federal government also collaborates on
mitigation activities through partnerships with state and local
governments and other nongovernmental entities to develop broad
community support for mitigation activities. However, these efforts are
fragmented and do not provide a comprehensive national strategic
framework for mitigation. In the past, FEMA developed a comprehensive
strategic framework through the creation of the National Mitigation
Strategy that sought to strengthen partnerships among all levels of
government and the private sector.[Footnote 4] Various provisions of
federal laws stress the importance of national efforts in natural
hazard mitigation and highlight FEMA's leadership role in such efforts.
The absence of a comprehensive framework makes it difficult to ensure
that the federal government is effectively identifying hazard risks and
that those undertaking mitigation efforts are working collectively.
Further, without such a framework federal efforts may not be leveraging
resources and developing synergies across the various hazard-specific
mitigation efforts to accomplish common national natural hazard
mitigation goals.
To more effectively identify natural hazard risks, minimize the effects
of hazards before they occur, and reduce overall future hazard losses
to the nation, we recommended that the Administrator of FEMA, in
consultation with other appropriate federal agencies, develop and
maintain a national comprehensive strategic framework for mitigation
that incorporates both pre-and postdisaster mitigation efforts. The
framework should include items such as common mitigation goals;
performance measures and reporting requirements; the role of specific
activities in the overall framework; and the roles and responsibilities
of federal, state, and local agencies, and nongovernmental
stakeholders.
We requested comments from FEMA, NOAA, USGS, the Corps of Engineers,
and the Forest Service. The Department of Homeland Security, which
provided written comments on behalf of FEMA, generally agreed with our
conclusions and recommendation (see app. II). FEMA's comments supported
setting a national comprehensive strategic framework and common
mitigation goals. But the letter added that the agency believed that it
was inappropriate for FEMA to dictate mitigation decisions to the local
level and thus disagreed with setting performance measures and
reporting requirements. Mitigation activities could benefit from
performance measures to ensure that crosscutting agency goals are
consistent and that program efforts are mutually reinforcing. With such
practices in place, FEMA, in consultation with other federal agencies,
could more effectively partner with and develop buy-in from state and
local agencies and nongovernmental stakeholders. Trend analysis and
progress reporting toward goals, both of which FEMA cited as more
appropriate, would be consistent with our recommendation and could be
effective in measuring the success of a comprehensive strategic
mitigation framework.
The Department of the Interior, which provided written comments on
behalf of USGS, also agreed with the recommendation and stressed the
importance of a strategy being built collectively by FEMA in
partnership with other federal agencies. We have reprinted the
Department of the Interior's written comments in appendix III, and we
discuss them in greater detail near the end of this letter. The Corps
of Engineers, Forest Service, and NOAA did not provide written
comments. However, they generally agreed with the report but did not
comment on the recommendation.
Background:
The rising costs of natural hazard events have led many to recognize
the benefits of hazard mitigation. Obligations from FEMA's disaster
relief fund grew from $2.8 billion in 1992 to $34.4 billion in 2005 as
a result of a series of unusually large events and the increasing
federal role in assisting communities and individuals affected by
disasters. Given these increasing costs, Congress passed the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) to establish a national hazard
mitigation program to (1) reduce the loss of life and property, human
suffering, economic disruption, and resulting disaster assistance costs
from natural hazard events and (2) provide a source of predisaster
mitigation funding that would assist states and local governments in
implementing effective hazard mitigation measures.[Footnote 5] It also
established several initiatives designed to improve state and local
hazard mitigation planning--the process these governments use to
identify risks and vulnerabilities associated with natural hazards and
to develop long-term strategies for protecting people and property in
future hazard events.
FEMA, within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for
leading the country's efforts to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and
recover from disasters. In recent years, FEMA has made hazard
mitigation a primary goal in its efforts to reduce the long-term
effects of natural hazards. For example, FEMA provides guidance for
state and local governments to use in developing their hazard
mitigation plans, reviews and approves these plans, and administers a
number of hazard mitigation grant programs to provide funds to state
and local governments to undertake mitigation activities. Table 1
describes FEMA's hazard mitigation grant programs and their fiscal year
2006 funding levels.
Table 1: FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs:
Grant program: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP);
Description: Provides funds to communities to reduce or permanently
eliminate future risk to lives and property from natural hazards. HMGP
funds projects in accordance with priorities identified in state,
tribal, or local hazard mitigation plans and enables mitigation
measures to be implemented during recovery from a disaster;
Fiscal year 2006 funding (millions): Approx. $581.
Grant program: Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM);
Description: Provides funds to communities for hazard mitigation
planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a
disaster event. Funding these plans and projects reduces overall risks
to life and property and the future cost of recovering from a disaster
event;
Fiscal year 2006 funding (millions): $50.
Grant program: Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA);
Description: Provides funds to communities to implement cost-effective
measures that reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to
buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures insured under the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP);
Fiscal year 2006 funding (millions): $28.
Grant program: Repetitive Flood Claims Program (RFC);
Description: Provides funds to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk
of flood damage to structures insured under the NFIP that have had one
or more claim payment(s) for flood damages. Eligibility is limited to
those communities that cannot meet the requirements of the FMA program
for various reasons;
Fiscal year 2006 funding (millions): $10.
Grant program: Severe Repetitive Loss Pilot Program (SRL);
Description: Provides funds to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk
of flood damage to severe repetitive loss residential properties that
are insured under the NFIP. Severe repetitive loss properties are
residential properties that have incurred flood losses that resulted in
either (1) four or more flood insurance claims payments that each
exceeded $5,000, with at least two of the payments occurring within a
10-year period or (2) two or more flood insurance claims payments that
cumulatively exceed the value of the property;
Fiscal year 2006 funding (millions): $40.
Source: FEMA.
Note: All grant program funding represents appropriations levels, with
the exception of HMGP funding, which represents obligated levels.
[End of table]
FEMA also manages the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which
was established by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.[Footnote
6] The NFIP enables property owners in participating communities to
purchase flood insurance as protection against flood losses.[Footnote
7] When a community chooses to join the NFIP, it must adopt and enforce
the minimum floodplain management regulations established by the
program, which are designed to reduce future flood damages. Currently,
over 20,300 communities participate in the NFIP. According to FEMA, it
is estimated that $1.2 billion in flood losses are avoided annually
because of community implementation of the floodplain management
requirements of NFIP. In addition to providing flood insurance and
helping to reduce flood damages through floodplain management
regulations, the NFIP identifies and maps the nation's floodplains.
These maps help communities identify their flood risks and are used in
implementing floodplain management regulations.
While FEMA's hazard mitigation responsibilities span all natural
hazards, other federal agencies that participate in hazard mitigation
primarily focus their efforts on particular hazards. Hazard mitigation
activities conducted by other federal agencies include providing
training, disseminating information, and conducting regional
assessments. Many federal agencies have responsibilities related to
natural hazard mitigation. Some of these agencies include the
following:
* USGS, within the Department of the Interior, is responsible for
helping to reduce losses from hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
and volcanic eruptions. USGS provides scientific information that
communities can use when developing plans for reducing losses
associated with these hazards. Other agencies also rely on USGS
information to help them fulfill their responsibilities regarding
natural hazards. For example, NOAA's National Weather Service relies on
USGS real-time streamflow information for developing flood forecasts
and data from USGS-supported seismic networks as a primary input for
tsunami warnings.
* Five federal agencies--the Forest Service within the Department of
Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land
Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service
within the Department of the Interior--all work to minimize losses
resulting from wildland fires. For example, these five agencies work to
restore the health of the nation's forests and grasslands to increase
resilience to the effects of wildland fires.
* NOAA, within the Department of Commerce, focuses on the condition of
the oceans and the atmosphere and conducts activities to reduce losses
associated with natural hazards such as hurricanes, tornadoes, coastal
flooding, and tsunamis. For instance, NOAA's National Weather Service
routinely uses outreach, education, and planning to help communities
mitigate these natural hazards. NOAA also works with coastal
communities to provide financial, technical, and training support to
develop more robust hazard mitigation and land-use plans and improve
building code and design standards.
* The Corps of Engineers builds flood damage reduction projects
throughout the country. Typically these projects include levees, flood
walls, channels, and small dams that help reduce losses associated with
floods. Generally, communities fund a portion of the construction costs
of the projects and agree to operate and maintain them.
Although FEMA provides leadership for reducing the country's losses
caused by natural hazards, it routinely collaborates with other federal
agencies as well as state and local governments, among others.
Collaboration is a tool that federal agencies use to work with one
another and with various stakeholders, generally through partnerships
with state and local governments and communities. In previous work, we
identified key practices that could help enhance and sustain federal
agency collaboration.[Footnote 8] These activities include (1) defining
and articulating a common outcome; (2) establishing mutually
reinforcing or joint strategies; (3) identifying and addressing needs
by leveraging resources; (4) agreeing on roles and responsibilities;
(5) establishing compatible policies, procedures, and other means of
operating across agency boundaries; (6) developing mechanisms to
monitor, evaluate, and report on results; (7) reinforcing agency
accountability for collaborative efforts; and (8) reinforcing
individual accountability for collaborative efforts.
The United States Is at Risk from a Number of Natural Hazards, and Our
Vulnerability Is Increasing:
Flooding is the most common and destructive hazard facing the nation,
but earthquakes, hurricanes, wildland fires, tornadoes, and landslides
are also significant risks in certain regions. For example, while
floods are potential hazards in most parts of the country, hurricanes
are most likely to occur on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, and large
wildland fires have mostly affected the western United States. The
risks caused by natural hazards are exacerbated by the fact that one
natural hazard can lead to another. Earthquakes, for instance, can
cause tsunamis, landslides, and flooding due to levee failures. In
recent years, however, the risk posed by natural hazards has been
increasing, fueled by factors that include population trends and the
potential effects of climate change. Many hazard-prone regions are
experiencing significant population growth, among them the coast of
Florida--the most hurricane-prone state in the country--where the
population increased by 75 percent between 1980 and 2003. Finally,
climate change is potentially increasing the risks faced by some areas
by altering the frequency and severity of hurricanes, tornadoes, severe
thunderstorms, and wildland fires, and other weather-related events.
Flooding Is the Most Widespread Hazard in the United States, but Other
Hazards Affect Specific Regions:
Several natural hazards such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and wildland
fires pose risks to certain areas of the United States. Floods,
however, are the most common and destructive hazard in the United
States, and all states are likely to experience some degree of
flooding. There are many different kinds of floods, including, regional
floods, flash floods, floods resulting from dam and levee failures, and
storm surge floods. Floods can result in the loss of lives, extensive
damage to property and agriculture, and large-scale disruptions to
business and infrastructure, such as transportation and water and sewer
services. According to our analysis of FEMA data, counties in the Gulf
Coast states experienced the greatest concentration of major flood
disaster declarations from 1980 through 2005 (fig. 1).[Footnote 9]
Additionally, because flooding is so widespread, it presents risks to a
large segment of the population. For example, we found that between
1980 and 2005, approximately 97 percent of the U.S. population lived in
a county that experienced at least one declared flood disaster; about
93 percent lived in counties that had experienced two or more flood
disaster declarations; and 45 percent lived in counties that had
experienced six or more flood disaster declarations.[Footnote 10] NOAA
estimates that floods cause about 140 deaths each year, and the Corps
of Engineers estimates floods cost $6 billion in average annual losses.
Economic losses continue to rise, in part, due to increased
urbanization and coastal development.
Figure 1: Number of Major Flood Disaster Declarations by County, 1980-
2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data.
Note: Figure represents areas where past flooding disasters have
occurred. It may not reflect future flooding risks, as mitigation
activities may have occurred in some areas.
[End of figure]
Hurricanes typically produce violent winds, heavy rains, and storm
surges and can result in flooding, coastal erosion, and ecological
damage. While Florida has the greatest chance of experiencing a major
hurricane (category 3 or higher), our analysis of NOAA data shows that
states along the entire Atlantic coast, particularly North Carolina,
the Gulf Coast states, and occasionally Hawaii are also at significant
risk for hurricanes.[Footnote 11] Additionally, we found that
approximately 29 percent of the U.S. population lived in a county that
experienced at least one hurricane from 1980 through 2005. During this
same time, counties in eight states--Alabama, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia--
experienced five or more hurricanes (fig. 2). Before 2005, Hurricane
Andrew, which occurred in 1992, was the single most costly hurricane in
terms of private insurer losses, causing $22.3 billion in losses (in
2006 dollars).[Footnote 12] Comparatively, Hurricane Katrina caused
$39.3 billion in private insurer losses (in 2006 dollars).[Footnote 13]
Figure: Hurricane Saffir-Simpson Scale:
A hurricane is a tropical cyclone in which the maximum sustained
surface wind speed (1 minute average) is 74 mph or greater. Hurricane
intensity is measured on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane scale, which
classifies hurricanes on a scale of 1 to 5, based on the sustained wind
speed. Storm surge values depend on the slope of the continental shelf
and shape of the coastline and are expressed as general estimates.
[See PDF for image]
Source: NOAA.
[End of figure]
Figure 2: Number of Hurricanes by County, 1980-2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of NOAA data.
[End of figure]
Earthquakes are a sudden slipping or movement of a portion of the
earth's crust that releases energy in the form of seismic waves, which
can cause shaking and damage over large distances. USGS has estimated
that 39 states face significant earthquake risk. Our analysis showed
that approximately 41 percent of the U.S. population resided in
counties that face medium to high seismic risk. While the risk is
concentrated on the West Coast, USGS states that Alaska is the most
earthquake-prone state and one of the most seismically active regions
in the world, experiencing a magnitude 7 earthquake almost every year
and a magnitude 8 or greater earthquake every 14 years (on average). In
addition to these areas, the New Madrid seismic zone (which is located
in parts of Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee) also
faces medium to high seismic risk (fig. 3). Historically, some of the
largest earthquakes in United States have been recorded along the New
Madrid fault, and USGS predicts that the region has a 25 to 40 percent
chance of experiencing a magnitude 6 or greater earthquake in the area
in the next 50 years. Although earthquakes occur with less frequency in
the eastern and central United States, according to USGS, a smaller
magnitude earthquake in these regions would be just as damaging as a
higher magnitude earthquake in the western United States. For example,
according to USGS, because of geologic conditions, an earthquake in the
east or central part of the country would be felt over a much larger
area, and infrastructure in these regions is older and has not been
built to withstand earthquake shaking. Similar to a hurricane, a single
earthquake can cause great losses. For example, the 1994 earthquake in
Northridge, California, caused approximately $59.8 billion in direct
losses (in 2006 dollars). FEMA estimates future average annual
earthquake losses in the United States at $5.6 billion a year.
Table: Earthquake Magnitude and Intensity:
Earthquake magnitude is a measure of the size of an earthquake and is
based on ground motions recorded on seismographs. Intensity measures
the strength of shaking produced by the earthquake at a certain
location and is determined from effects on people, structures, and the
natural environment.
Magnitude: 1.0-2.9;
Intensity: Effects: I: Not felt except by a very few.
Magnitude: 3.0-3.9;
Intensity: Effects: I: Felt only by a few persona at rest. III: Felt
quite noticeably by persons indoors.
Magnitude: 4.0-4.9;
Intensity: Effects: IV: Felt indoors by many, outdoors by a few during
the day; V: Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened.
Magnitude: 5.0-5.9;
Intensity: Effects: VI: Felt by all. Damage slight. VII: Damage
negligible in buildings of good design and constuction; considerable
damage in poorly built or badly designed structures.
Magnitude: 6.0-6.9;
Intensity: Effects: VII: (see above); VIII: Damage slight in specially
designed structures; damages great in poorly built structures. IX:
Damage considerable in specially designed structures. Buildings shifted
off foundations.
Magnitude: 7.0 and higher;
Intensity: Effects: VIII: (see above); IX : (see above); X: Some well-
built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures
destroyed with foundations. XI: Few if any masonry structures remain
standing. Bridges destroyed. XII: Total damage.
Source: USGS.
[End of table]
Figure 3: Counties That Face Medium to High Seismic Risk:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of USGS data.
[End of figure]
Wildland fires, which can be triggered by lightning strikes or human
activity, play an important ecological role in wildland areas. On
average, 100,000 wildland fires are reported each year, but 95 percent
are quickly extinguished. Fires that escape initial suppression can
grow into large, high-intensity fires that burn quickly and can
threaten structures in the wildland-urban interface--the area where
structures and other development meet or intermingle with wildlands.
According to our analysis, nearly 24 percent of the U.S. population
lived in a county where a wildland fire burned over 1,000 acres from
1980 through 2005. Figure 4, which shows the number of these large
wildland fires, also shows that they are most likely to occur in
western states and Florida. In eight western states--Arizona,
California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming--over
80 percent of the population lived in a county that experienced a
wildland fire of over 1,000 acres during the 25-year period we
analyzed. According to Forest Service officials, fires less than 1,000
acres can be equally damaging to structures in other parts of the
United States, especially in the eastern and southern regions of the
country. Additionally, the officials noted that in some western regions
of the country, some of the large wildland fires that occur play an
important ecological role and may pose less of a threat to life and
property because they occur in less populated areas. As we previously
reported, wildland fires burned an average of 6.1 million acres per
year between 2000 and 2004 and burned an average of about 850 homes
each year since 1984.[Footnote 14]
Figure 4: Number of Wildland Fires over 1,000 Acres by County, 1980-
2005:
[See PDF for image]
SOurce: GAO analysis of Desert Research Institute data.
Note: Figure represents areas where past wildland fires have occurred.
It may not reflect future wildland fire risks, as mitigation activities
may have occurred in some areas.
[End of figure]
A tornado is a violently rotating column of air extending from a
thunderstorm to the ground. The most violent tornadoes are capable of
tremendous destruction, with damage paths as wide as a mile and as long
as 50 miles. In an average year, about 1,000 tornadoes are reported
across the United States. While tornadoes have been documented in every
state, NOAA data show that the central states are most likely to
experience the most severe tornadoes--those with wind speeds of 158
miles per hour or greater.[Footnote 15] "Tornado Alley," an area
covering a stretch of land from central Texas to northern Iowa and from
central Kansas and Nebraska to western Ohio, has the highest tornado
activity in the nation (fig. 5). Another significant zone of tornado
frequency is the central southeast United States, including Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee. From 1980 through 2004, five
states--Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas--each had one
county that experienced five or more severe tornadoes. Tornadoes pose a
significant risk to life, causing an average of 80 deaths and over
1,500 injuries a year. Tornadoes can also be costly. For example, NOAA
estimates that approximately once per decade, a devastating tornado in
the United States has caused $1 billion or more in damages.
Figure: Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale:
Tornadoes are classified on the 6-point Enhanced Fujita Tornado Damage
Scale using estimates of wind speed based on the level of damage. The
scale uses 3-second gusts estimated at the point of damage based on a
judgment of eight levels of damage to different types of structures.
[See PDF for image]
Source: NOAA.
[End of figure]
Figure 5: Number of Severe Tornadoes by County, 1980-2004:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of NOAA data.
Note: Figure represents areas where past tornadoes have occurred. It
may not reflect future tornado risks.
[End of figure]
Landslides are the movement of a mass of rock, debris, or earth down a
slope and can range from a rapidly moving rock avalanche to a more
slowly moving earth slide and ground failure. The greatest landslide
damage occurs in the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains, as well as the
Pacific Coast regions, but USGS data show that all 50 states can
experience landslides and other ground-failure problems (fig. 6). We
found that from 1980 through 2005, approximately 66 percent of the U.S.
population lived in an area where the landslide risk was moderate to
high. Landslides can have a significant adverse effect on
infrastructure and threaten transportation corridors, fuel and energy
conduits, and communications linkages. USGS estimates that landslides
cause, on average, $3.5 billion in damage repair and between 25 and 50
deaths a year.
Figure 6: Counties That Face Moderate to High Landslide Risk:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of USGS data.
Note: Figure represents areas where past landslides have occurred. It
may not reflect future landslide risks.
[End of figure]
Other hazards also present risk to portions of the United States. Some
of these hazards, including thunderstorms, extreme heat, and winter
storms can occur in most areas of the country. Tsunamis--a series of
long waves generated by any large-scale disturbance of the sea--can
occur in all U.S. coastal regions, but according to NOAA, the west
coast, Alaska, and Hawaii are the most vulnerable.[Footnote 16]
Although less frequent than other hazards in the United States,
tsunamis are a significant natural hazard with great destructive
potential. For example a 1964 Alaska tsunami led to 110 deaths, some as
far away as Crescent City, California. In addition, according to USGS,
in the past few hundred years volcanoes have erupted in Alaska,
California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.[Footnote 17] Since 1980, 45
eruptions and 15 cases of notable volcanic unrest have occurred at 33
U.S. volcanoes.
In addition to the risk that an individual hazard poses, some hazards
present multiple risks because they can cause another hazard to occur.
For example, hurricanes often produce torrential rain that, in addition
to causing floods, can trigger landslides or breach levees. Hurricanes
can also damage trees in wildland areas, increasing wildland fire risk
in these areas by creating fuel accumulation.[Footnote 18] Earthquakes
can cause tsunamis, landslides, and flooding (e.g., due to levee
failures). For example, the devastating December 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami was triggered by an earthquake. In addition, drought can
contribute to wildland fires, which can induce other hazards, including
floods and landslides. The degradation of soil in an area burned by a
wildland fire prevents vegetation from growing back, including features
that would hold the soil in place during heavy rains. Consequently,
landslides are more likely to occur in burned areas.
Population Trends and Climate Change Are Increasing the Nation's
Vulnerability:
Population growth in hazard-prone areas and the resulting increase in
development in these areas are increasing the vulnerability of the
nation to losses resulting from natural hazards. According to a study
conducted by NOAA, coastal areas are among the most rapidly growing and
developed areas in the nation, with a large percentage of the U.S.
population living in coastal counties.[Footnote 19] These areas are
susceptible to hurricanes, earthquakes, flooding, and other natural
hazards. For example, the coastal population in Florida grew by 7.1
million people, a 75 percent increase, from 1980 to 2003. According to
the study, Florida led all coastal states in issuing building permits
for single-and multifamily housing units in coastal counties from 1999
to 2003.
Additionally, the number of people living on the California coast grew
by almost 10 million between 1980 and 2003, putting more people and
property at risk from earthquake damage. Los Angeles County experienced
the greatest increase in population of all coastal counties from 1980
to 2003. A study on the potential damage that an earthquake could cause
in downtown Los Angeles found that damages from such an event would
likely fall between $82 billion and $252 billion.[Footnote 20] Other
areas prone to natural hazards are also experiencing significant
population growth and development. For example, many of the fastest-
growing areas in the United States are in the wildland-urban interface,
and development in these areas increases the threat of wildland fires.
Experts estimate that between 1990 and 2000, 60 percent of all new
housing units in the United States were built in the wildland-urban
interface, and that in by 2000 about 38 percent of housing units
overall were located in these areas. Additionally, urban growth in
tornado-prone areas, which in many cases were previously sparsely
populated, is increasing the chances that a tornado will hit a heavily
developed area. For example, in February 2007, a series of tornadoes
damaged over 1,500 homes in 4 central Florida counties, 2 of which have
been among the 100 fastest-growing counties in the nation in recent
years.
Further, as we have previously reported, key scientific assessments
indicate that climate change is expected to alter the frequency or
severity of weather-related natural hazards themselves, increasing the
nation's vulnerability to such hazards.[Footnote 21] Global
temperatures have increased in the last 100 years and are projected to
continue to rise over the next century. Scientific assessments suggest
that the potential effects of climate change on weather-related events
could be significant. For example, increasing temperatures may impact
communities by altering the frequency or severity of hurricanes,
tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, and wildland fires. For example,
Forest Service officials told us that effects of climate change, such
as drought, can increase the risk of wildland fires, especially east of
the Mississippi River because of the high density of vegetation and
population. We also reported that experts found that global sea levels
rose several centimeters during the past century, potentially
increasing the magnitude of hurricane storm surges in some areas.
Rising sea levels can also increase coastal inundation and erosion in
low-lying areas, resulting in property losses.
Communities' Planning and Mitigation Activities Can Help Reduce the
Risk of Losses from Natural Hazards:
Hazard mitigation planning activities help communities identify risks
from natural hazards and develop mitigation strategies to reduce these
risks. The strategies can be implemented through land-use planning
tools such as the acquisition of hazard-prone land and development
regulations that provide a way to reduce vulnerability over the long
term. Building codes and design standards also can be used to help
reduce losses from natural hazards by creating structures that are
better able to withstand a hazard event. State and local building codes
can be designed to reflect communities' hazard risks and can specify
more rigorous requirements to address these hazards. Additionally,
design, construction, and landscaping features can be included in
structures built in hazard-prone areas. For example, construction
features such as hurricane straps, which provide extra support in
connecting the roof to a building, can help reduce damages during
hurricanes. Finally, hazard control structures such as levees, dams,
and floodwalls can help protect existing at-risk developments from
flood losses.
Planning Efforts Can Help Reduce Losses from Natural Hazards:
The best time for communities to take steps to address their natural
hazard risks is before a disaster occurs. Hazard mitigation planning,
which occurs at the state and local level, helps communities assess
their natural hazards risks and develop mitigation strategies. The
process typically involves a range of stakeholders, including
neighborhood and environmental groups, local businesses, and others.
The involvement of stakeholders is an important component to the
planning process because it assists in identifying the most vulnerable
populations and facilities in the community and in creating community
support to implement the plan. The assessment can include gathering
information on the types, locations, and potential extent of natural
hazards and the types and numbers of buildings, infrastructure, and
critical facilities located in hazard areas. Finally, based on a
community's assessment of its risks, stakeholders can identify
mitigation goals and objectives.
As a condition for receiving hazard mitigation assistance, states and
local communities must develop hazard mitigation plans and have FEMA
approve them.[Footnote 22] According to FEMA, all 50 states have
approved plans, and approximately 60 percent of the U.S population
lives in communities with approved local mitigation plans. One county
emergency management official with whom we spoke said that a local
mitigation plan is an important component of a community's mitigation
program. He noted that developing such a plan requires examining other
local plans (e.g., community development and capital improvement plans)
to ensure that mitigation goals and objectives are consistent with
other community goals. Incorporating elements of communities' hazard
mitigation plans into community development plans can facilitate the
implementation of hazard mitigation goals. A land-use planning expert
told us that incorporating mitigation plans into other long-term
strategies not only helps with implementation but also can prevent long-
term mitigation objectives from being overlooked when communities
develop other short-term objectives. Additionally, a state emergency
management department official told us that local mitigation plans are
particularly important because they establish a consistent long-term
hazard mitigation approach for local governments to take that survives
the high staff turnover rates local governments often face.
Communities' development and other plans can be implemented through
land-use planning tools and development regulations that provide a way
to reduce vulnerability to natural hazards over the long-term. For
example, communities can acquire hazard-prone land and retain it as
open space in order to limit development in the most at-risk areas,
particularly in floodplains and coastal zones. Acquiring flood-prone
properties permanently eliminates losses from properties that flood
repeatedly. Communities can also use zoning to designate how land will
be used, control such features as building density and lot sizes, and
restrict building in hazardous areas through the use of setbacks--
minimum distances between development and hazardous areas. For example,
coastal zone management regulations can impose setbacks to control
construction near the coast. Another method of limiting development in
hazard-prone areas is the process of subdivision that divides a large
lot into any number of smaller lots as a means of facilitating
development. "Clustering," for instance, allows developers to build the
same number of units on their land by placing more buildings on the
less hazardous areas and limiting development in the more hazardous
areas.
Communities also use other types of planning, such as capital
improvement planning, which guides decisions on investing in new
infrastructure and repairing and replacing existing infrastructure.
Capital improvement planning can prevent damage to infrastructure by
making sure it is not built in hazard-prone areas and requiring that
existing infrastructure located in such areas be strengthened to
provide additional resilience during natural hazards. Capital
improvement plans can include activities such as raising bridge heights
in flood-prone areas and improving the seismic strength of buildings at
risk from earthquakes. Additionally, these plans can be used to guide
development away from hazard-prone areas by, for example, not extending
water and sewer lines and other utility services into these areas.
California's history of earthquakes has focused attention on the need
to strengthen the state's infrastructure against seismic risks. A
seismic safety expert estimated that between 1989 and 2006,
approximately $15 billion was spent on seismic improvements for
utilities and transportation systems in the San Francisco Bay area.
Some of these capital improvement examples include the following:
* The California Department of Transportation has rebuilt or
retrofitted most of the major roadway bridges in the San Francisco Bay
area.
* The Bay Area Rapid Transit system is currently undergoing a major
seismic retrofit of its entire system.
* Seismic improvements have also been made for gas, electric, and water
systems.
Building Codes and Design Standards Can Lead to More Durable Structures
That Provide Protection from Natural Hazards:
Building codes, the minimum acceptable standards that are used to
regulate the design and construction of the built environment, play an
important role in improving the resilience of structures to natural
hazards. Because states and localities have the authority to adopt
building codes, these codes vary throughout the country.[Footnote 23]
Some states choose to adopt statewide building codes that can help
ensure a minimum level of building quality. However, statewide building
codes do not necessarily apply to all structures--for example, they may
apply only to state-owned buildings, schools, or other public
buildings. In Iowa, statewide building codes apply only to structures
built with state funds or owned or leased by the state. Additionally,
states may give local communities the right to opt out of a statewide
code and adopt a local building code.
Many states and localities base their codes on model building codes
that are developed on a national level by groups made up of building
industry and other professionals. These codes reflect a consensus among
building experts on the appropriate level of protection that codes
should provide.[Footnote 24] Model codes incorporate disaster-
resistant standards for hazards such as wind, earthquakes, floods, and
wildland fires and are specific to the type of structure being built
(e.g., new commercial and residential buildings, existing buildings
that undergo renovation or alteration, and structures built in wildland-
urban interface areas). As of January 2007, the majority of states had
adopted some version of a model building code for commercial and
residential structures. Additionally, some local jurisdictions within
states that have not adopted a statewide model code have adopted model
codes on their own. However, according to an insurance services company
that assesses the effectiveness of communities' building code
enforcement throughout the country, there are about 5,000 communities
throughout the United States that have not adopted building
codes.[Footnote 25]
Model building codes can be modified by state and local authorities to
reflect local hazard risks and can require more rigorous requirements
to address these hazards. For example, in the hurricane-prone state of
Florida, the Florida Building Code requires that structures built in
areas vulnerable to high winds have windows and glass doors that are
designed to withstand the impact of wind-borne debris or mandates the
use of shatter-resistant glass or shutters. The California Building
Code incorporates, among other things, specific seismic requirements to
make structures more resilient to earthquakes and requirements for fire-
resistant roofing, windows, and building exteriors for structures in
wildland-urban interface areas.
Building officials, mitigation experts, and industry groups all
commented that enforcing building codes is critical in order to
effectively mitigate natural hazard losses. Studies revealed that
damage from the 1994 Northridge earthquake would have been reduced if
the seismic provisions of building codes had been properly enforced.
Reports following Hurricane Andrew in 1992 also found that inadequate
code enforcement resulted in significant losses from the hurricane.
Enforcement of building codes generally occurs at the local building
department level and ensures that builders comply with the standards
specified in the codes so that structures provide the level of
protection for which they were designed. Enforcement includes
activities such as approving permits for new structures or structures
undergoing renovation, reviewing construction plans for compliance with
the building code, and inspecting construction sites to ensure that
construction is proceeding according to the reviewed plan.
When a community adopts and enforces revised building codes designed to
improve structural integrity, losses from natural hazard events can be
reduced. State and local building code and other local government
officials told us that structures built to newer building code
standards performed better during natural hazard events than those
built to earlier standards. For example, building code officials in
California explained that when reviewing the damage from the Northridge
Earthquake, they found that older buildings suffered substantially more
damage than newer buildings built using seismic mitigation measures.
Figure 7 shows the damage resulting from Hurricane Charley in 2004 to
two structures in Florida that are located across the street from one
another. The structure on the left, which is an older building, was
completely destroyed, while the structure on the right, whose
construction was subject to a recent building code, performed well
during the storm.
Figure 7: Effect of a 2004 Hurricane on Structures Built to Different
Versions of Building Codes:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Institute for Business & Hone Safety.
[End of figure]
Specific construction, design, and landscaping features can be
incorporated into structures built in hazard-prone areas to improve
their ability to withstand a natural hazard event. For example,
specific construction features such as hurricane straps, which provide
extra support in connecting the roof to a building, in areas subject to
hurricane-level winds, can help reduce damages during hurricanes (fig.
8).
Figure 8: Hurricane Straps in a Home under Construction:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Institute for Business and Home Safety.
[End of figure]
For homes built in wildland-urban interface areas, landscaping
techniques can be applied around the perimeter of a structure. By
managing the vegetation and reducing or eliminating flammable materials
within 30 to 100 feet of a structure, property owners and developers
can create a defensible space that substantially reduces the likelihood
that a wildland fire will damage or destroy the structure (fig. 9).
Figure 9: Before and after Photos of a Home with a Defensible Space
against Wildland Fire:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Institute for Business & Home Safety.
[End of figure]
Existing structures can also be made more resistant to natural hazards
through retrofitting, or modifying a structure to improve its
resistance to hazards. While retrofitting may not bring a structure up
to the most recent building code standards, it will help existing
structures better withstand natural hazard events. Retrofitting
techniques exist for a number of natural hazards, such as hurricanes,
earthquakes, floods, and wildland fires. For example, garage doors are
vulnerable to hurricane winds because of their size and the strength of
the materials used to construct them. If a garage door fails during a
storm, it can lead to more severe damages to a home, especially to the
roof. However, these doors can be reinforced with horizontal or
vertical bracing. Additionally, homes can be retrofitted by anchoring
the structure to its foundation, reducing the possibility that the
house will move off its foundation during an earthquake or hurricane.
Hazard Control Structures and Natural Protective Features Can Protect
At-Risk Areas:
Hazard control structures such as levees, dams, and floodwalls provide
protection in flood-prone areas and can reduce associated losses. These
structures are typically used to protect existing at-risk developments,
such as buildings located in floodplains, and provide a certain level
of flood protection. They may not provide absolute flood protection,
however, because a flood could exceed the intended level of protection,
as Hurricane Katrina's storm surge did, allowing floodwater to breach
the levees and floodwalls in New Orleans. However, flood control
structures can prevent extensive damage in many cases. For example, the
city of:
Napa developed a flood protection project that incorporates several
flood mitigation activities and a combination of hazard control
structures, including levees, floodwalls, and other structures, to
achieve a 100-year flood protection level.[Footnote 26] The project is
expected to save $26 million annually in flood damage costs when it is
completed. According to a city of Napa official, had the project been
completed it would have prevented all flood damage that occurred from
the flood on New Year's Eve in 2005.
Protecting, restoring, and enhancing natural protective features such
as floodplains, wetlands, beaches, dunes, and natural drainage ways can
also help mitigate a community's vulnerability to damage from storms
and associated flooding. Floodplains and wetlands, for instance, serve
as natural buffers, absorbing excess rainfall and limiting the effects
of floods on the built environment. Coastal wetlands can absorb storm
surge, while beaches and dunes provide physical protection from storm
surge. Over time, some of these natural storm protection features have
suffered damages and losses as a result of development pressures. A
number of communities have adopted policies designed to protect these
natural protective features. For example, federal, state, and local
government resources have been spent in Florida to restore and enhance
these natural protective features, including beach and dune
restoration.
While Various Approaches Are Used to Encourage Natural Hazard
Mitigation, Significant Challenges Remain:
Federal, state, and local governments provide a variety of financial
and other assistance to encourage natural hazard mitigation activities.
For example, at the federal level, FEMA offers assistance to states and
local communities through grant programs such as the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (HMGP). At the local level, communities can use economic
incentives such as tax benefits to encourage mitigation activities.
Insurance discounts can also encourage communities and individuals to
undertake mitigation measures. However, despite these methods of
encouraging mitigation, several impediments exist to implementing
mitigation activities. For example, mitigation efforts are often
constrained by conflicting local interests, cost concerns, and a lack
of public awareness of the risks of natural hazards and the importance
of mitigation.
Financial and Other Assistance Can Help Encourage Some Communities and
Individuals to Take Action:
Federal, state, and local agencies are taking steps to provide direct
assistance to some communities to reduce losses from natural hazards
although not all communities have the means to take full advantage of
this assistance. This assistance can help communities overcome some of
the impediments they face in undertaking mitigation activities by, for
example, providing funding to assist in implementing mitigation
activities and offering incentives to encourage mitigation activities.
At the federal level, FEMA provides funding and technical assistance to
help communities reduce losses from natural hazards. To provide states
with an incentive to undertake more proactive mitigation activities,
DMA 2000 authorized the grant of additional HMGP funds to states where
a disaster area is declared if the state has prepared a more advanced
hazard mitigation plan.[Footnote 27] States that demonstrate that they
have integrated their hazard mitigation plans with other state or
regional planning (e.g., comprehensive and capital improvement plans);
effectively administer, implement, and assess existing mitigation
programs; and are committed to a comprehensive state mitigation program
receive additional funding to conduct mitigation activities. According
to FEMA officials, as of May 2007, only 11 states had completed
advanced mitigation plans and were eligible for this additional
funding.
With the exception of the flood mitigation grant programs, FEMA's grant
programs generally do not specify the hazards that communities must
mitigate or the types of activities they must undertake but instead
leave these decisions to local communities. For example, in Oklahoma,
state officials decided to focus their attention on saving lives during
tornado events and developed the Safe Room Program.[Footnote 28] Using
FEMA HMGP funds from a tornado event in 1999, the state offered refunds
of up to $2,000 for home owners who built safe rooms in their homes.
Some local community hazard mitigation officials with whom we met,
however, said that the HMGP application process is complex and time and
resource intensive, and that long delays can occur in receiving
mitigation funds. Delays in receiving grant funds can lead to
additional obstacles for local communities. One local mitigation
official told us that delays in receiving grant funds prevents the city
from being more cost-effective in terms of mitigation. She stated that
it would be most effective to conduct mitigation activities immediately
after a storm event, when damages are being repaired, rather than
waiting for HMGP funds to become available. According to FEMA, while
states have up to 1 year from the date of a disaster declaration to
apply for HMGP funds, the approval process can begin much earlier
following a disaster if state and local officials have previously
identified viable mitigation projects that are consistent with state
and local mitigation plans.
Although mitigation grant funds may be available to communities, not
all communities are able to capitalize on these opportunities. For
example, most of FEMA's grant programs fund up to 75 percent of the
mitigation project costs and require local communities to produce the
remainder of the funds needed for mitigation projects. Oklahoma state
emergency management officials with whom we met noted that although
local communities might have several mitigation programs available to
them, often, communities do not have the resources needed to provide
their share of the cost. The officials further commented that this
problem tends to affect many of the smaller communities in the state
and that these communities should be careful not to commit themselves
to too many mitigation projects.
FEMA also offers support to communities by providing technical
assistance on hazard mitigation, offering guidance on how communities
can develop hazard mitigation plans and identify the areas most at risk
from hazards. For example, FEMA developed and provides training on a
loss estimation software program (i.e., HAZUS-MH) that analyzes
potential losses caused by floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes that
communities use to determine where to focus their mitigation efforts.
FEMA also provides information directly to help residents and business
owners choose the type of flood insurance policy that best suits their
needs through its FloodSmart Web site and marketing program aimed at
increasing flood insurance coverage nationwide. In addition, FEMA
provides multihazard design, construction, and retrofit guidance at no
cost for various stakeholders, including design professionals, local
officials, homebuilders, home owners, and other building owners.
A number of other federal agencies assist communities in reducing their
risk to natural hazards. These agencies generally focus their programs
on a specific hazard or hazardous area and work with communities to
reduce their natural hazard risks. For example, at the federal level,
five wildland fire management agencies work to manage losses resulting
from wildland fires by providing grants or other kinds of assistance to
help reduce fuels on private land.[Footnote 29] Through grant programs,
these agencies provide funding to state forestry agencies and local
fire departments for equipment, training, risk assessment, fire
prevention work, and public information and education activities.
Similarly, NOAA assists U.S. coastal states through financial and other
types of assistance to protect the nation's coastal communities. By
partnering with states and local authorities, NOAA helps communities
conduct coastal hazards planning and administer state or local land-use
programs that guide more prudent development in hazardous coastal
areas. Other federal agencies offer a number of programs that can be
used to address communities' natural hazard mitigation needs. For
example, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development has flexibility to use Community Development Block Grant
program funds when available to assist communities recovering in
presidentially declared disaster areas. These activities can include
the acquisition and reconstruction of properties damaged by a natural
hazard event.[Footnote 30]
State and local governments often have their own programs to promote
mitigation that can operate alongside federal programs, including
direct subsidies for mitigation activities and services that promote
mitigation. Because state and local governments determine the types of
programs they implement, the programs can be tailored to focus on a
specific local hazard. Examples from communities we visited include the
following:
* The Florida Department of Financial Services operates the My Safe
Florida Home Program to help Florida residents identify ways to
strengthen their homes to reduce damages from hurricanes. The program
offers a free home inspection to home owners that meet income and other
eligibility requirements to help them identify appropriate mitigation
techniques and provides matching grants of up to $5,000 to make the
recommended mitigation improvements.
* The city of Berkeley, California, encourages private property owners
to conduct seismic retrofit activities by allowing property owners to
use a portion of the transfer tax on the sale of a property to fund
seismic retrofit work. If owners choose not to use this portion of the
tax to fund retrofit activities for their property, this portion goes
to the city. The city also subsidizes mitigation by waiving building
permit fees on seismic retrofit projects.
* The Boulder County Land Use Department assists home owners'
associations by providing grants to conduct fuel management in
neighborhoods that are at high risk from wildland fires. The grant
recipients reduce their wildland fire risk by cutting tree limbs and
clearing other debris from their properties, and the waste is chipped
and used to heat county office buildings.
Insurance Premium Discounts Can Encourage Some Communities and Home
Owners to Undertake Mitigation Efforts:
Insurance premium discounts can promote mitigation by rewarding
property owners for actions they take to reduce the effects of natural
hazards. At the federal level, the NFIP Community Rating System (CRS)
encourages communities to reduce their flood risks by engaging in
floodplain management activities. CRS provides discounts on flood
insurance for individuals in communities that establish floodplain
management programs that go beyond the minimum requirements of NFIP.
Depending on the level of activities that communities undertake in four
areas--public information, mapping and regulatory activities, flood
damage reduction, and flood preparedness--communities are categorized
into 1 of 10 CRS classes. A Class 1 rating provides the largest flood
insurance premium reduction (45 percent) to communities, while a
community with a Class 10 rating receives no insurance premium
reduction.
Mitigation officials with whom we spoke said they believe that the CRS
insurance discounts are an effective means of encouraging communities
that participate in NFIP to undertake more aggressive flood mitigation.
For example, an official from the Palm Beach County Division of
Emergency Management noted that the county's CRS rating of 6 entitles
flood insurance policyholders in all 37 jurisdictions in the county to
a 25 percent reduction in their flood insurance premiums. A city of
Napa official said that one of the goals of the Napa River Flood
Protection Project is to improve the city of Napa's CRS rating from a
Class 7 to a Class 5--a change that would increase the flood insurance
policyholder discount by an additional 10 percent. Although these
discounts are available, less than 5 percent of the communities
participating in NFIP participate in the CRS program.[Footnote 31]
Furthermore, CRS classes 1 through 4 each contain only one community.
Of these four communities, Roseville, California has a Class 1 rating
and is the only community in the United States eligible for the maximum
flood insurance premium discounts of 45 percent. According to FEMA,
approximately 1,055 communities will have flood insurance discounts
beginning October 1, 2007, which represents about two-thirds of NFIP
flood insurance policies.
States and communities can also provide opportunities for property
owners to receive insurance premium discounts by participating in the
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS™) program, which
was developed by ISO.[Footnote 32] Through the program, communities are
assessed according to the building codes adopted in a community,
amendments to the code, and how well the codes are enforced. The BCEGS™
program places particular emphasis on reducing losses caused by natural
hazards, especially losses caused by hurricanes, tornadoes, and
earthquakes. Once assessed, communities receive a BCEGS™
classification, which is provided to insurers to use as an underwriting
tool. Insurance companies can voluntarily opt to use this information
to offer rate discounts to property owners that live in these
communities. According to the officials who developed the program,
however, data are not available on the extent to which it is being used
as an underwriting tool. The officials also commented that they do not
believe many insurance companies are using it for this
purpose.[Footnote 33]
Some states also use insurance discounts to promote mitigation. In
Florida, private insurance companies are required by law to offer a
discount for structures that incorporate wind mitigation
components.[Footnote 34] In California, state law requires the
California Earthquake Authority (CEA)--a privately financed but
publicly managed state agency--to offer a 5-percent discount on
retrofitted homes that were built before 1979 and that meet other
specifications.[Footnote 35] However, according to information provided
by CEA, only about 12 percent of California residents have earthquake
insurance. In addition, the CEA Mitigation Program Coordinator stated
that it is unclear to what extent insurance premium discounts are an
incentive to encourage individual homeowners to undertake earthquake
mitigation activities. Also, city officials whom we met with in Florida
said that discounts are not very effective for creating incentives for
home owners because of the increasing insurance premiums in that state.
For example, according to the Florida Financial Services Commission,
the largest private insurer in Florida increased its rates by 66
percent in 2006.
Public Education and Outreach Can Help Raise Awareness of Natural
Hazards and Mitigation:
Individuals and communities must understand the hazards that pose a
risk to them and the options for reducing those risks in order to make
informed decisions not only about mitigation but also about where to
live, purchase property, or locate a business or critical facility.
Several state and local officials told us that individuals are often
unaware of the risks they face. For example, one county mitigation
official in Florida explained that the state's population continues to
grow and that most of the new residents were unfamiliar with the
state's hazard risks and mitigation options because they come from out
of state. Public education and training campaigns help to ensure that
communities and individuals receive adequate information on the hazards
they face as well as the options for reducing their risk. Education and
outreach programs are valuable components of mitigation programs and
can take many forms, including distributing educational materials to
individuals, organizing community events that discuss mitigation
options, and incorporating hazard information into school curriculums.
A number of entities conduct education campaigns on natural hazards to
a variety of audiences--the public, home owners, business owners,
builders, and developers. For example, the Firewise Communities
program, which is made up of nongovernmental organizations and federal
agencies, educates home owners about steps they can take to protect
their homes from wildland fires and state and local officials about
steps they can take to help educate home owners.[Footnote 36] The
program is also used to educate developers who are building homes in
the wildland-urban interface about the various landscaping and other
mitigation features that can be incorporated into developments to help
reduce the risk of damage due to wildland fires. In addition to large
national programs, we observed a variety of different public education
campaigns at the state and local level during our field work. For
example:
* The city of Deerfield Beach, Florida, created a nonprofit
organization to educate city residents on how to mitigate hurricane
risks. The nonprofit is based in the Disaster Survival House, a home
that was built by a major insurance company and donated to the city to
show how a house can be built to withstand a catastrophic hurricane.
The house serves as an educational center for schoolchildren and the
public and as a showcase of building techniques and mitigation measures
for builders and home owners.
* Tulsa, Oklahoma, conducts an annual public outreach campaign using
information displays and brochures that are placed throughout the area
in fast food restaurants. The brochures outline hazards that pose a
risk to the community, such as tornadoes, floods, and wildland fires
and provide information on how individuals can protect themselves and
their property.
When communities take actions to increase public awareness of the
hazards citizens face and the options available to reduce them,
communities may be more likely to take progressive actions to solve
hazard problems. For example, when citizens in Napa, California, were
educated about the flood hazard in the community and the options being
proposed to address the risk, the community voted to increase the sales
tax to fund the local portion of a flood mitigation project. The city
of Berkeley, California--another community that has undertaken
considerable public education and outreach efforts--has the highest
percentage of seismically retrofitted buildings in the San Francisco
Bay area. The city has also passed a number of bond initiatives to fund
mitigation activities and has been successful in recruiting residents
to assist in promoting mitigation activities. However, public awareness
alone cannot always overcome some of the difficulties communities have
in promoting mitigation activities such as lacking the necessary
funding to undertake mitigation activities and the perception that
individuals may have that a disaster will not happen in their
community.
Conflicting Interests Can Impede Local Mitigation Efforts:
Hazard mitigation goals and local economic interests often conflict,
and the resulting tension can often have a profound effect on
mitigation efforts. As we have previously reported, local governments
may be reluctant to take actions to mitigate natural hazards for a
number of reasons, such as local sensitivity to such measures as
building code enforcement and land-use planning and the conflict
between hazard mitigation and development goals.[Footnote 37] For
example, community goals such as building housing and promoting
economic development may be higher priorities than formulating
mitigation regulations that may include restrictive development
regulations and more stringent building codes. In particular, local
government officials we contacted commented that developers often want
to increase growth in hazard-prone areas (e.g., along the coast or in
floodplains) to support economic development. These areas are often
desirable for residences and businesses, and such development increases
local tax revenues but is generally in conflict with mitigation goals.
For instance, during our visit to Tulsa, Oklahoma--a community that has
repeatedly experienced dangerous floods--local officials expressed
their opposition to a project proposed by developers to construct an
island in the Arkansas River. The proposed project would create a 40-
acre man-made island with residential and commercial development in the
river. According to city officials, this development would be
downstream from the Keystone Dam, which in the past has had to release
water that has resulted in flooding downstream, and the proposed
project would be located in an area that is vulnerable to such
flooding. The Tulsa officials said that this project highlights the
conflict between economic development and mitigation efforts, as
developers are promoting the project as economic development for the
city, while emergency management officials are not in favor of the
project due to the potential for damage to the proposed islands and
other properties downstream.
Land-use planning experts told us that the short-term perspective of
some local elected officials can conflict with long-term community
efforts such as limiting growth in hazard-prone areas or adopting
strong building codes. Political pressures can also play a large role
in communities' choice of mitigation activities. National building code
officials stated that in some communities, exemptions and variances to
existing building codes are made because of political pressure. For
example, mitigation experts commented that because of political
pressures in Florida, counties located in the Panhandle were originally
exempt from stricter statewide building codes for hurricane protection.
The exemption was removed from law at the end of the 2006 Florida
Legislative session, and buildings in these counties now have to comply
with the more stringent hurricane protection requirements of the
Florida Building Code. Additionally, in some communities political
support for implementing mitigation activities is lacking. For example,
during our field work in Colorado, officials told us that while some
communities in the state have adopted model building codes, many
jurisdictions are "home rule" communities that often resist federal and
state regulations, which local citizens view as government
intervention. Federal, state, and local officials all cited the
importance of political support in implementing mitigation actions and,
said that without political support, the amount of mitigation
activities that occur would be limited.
Costs Concerns May Hinder Mitigation Efforts:
Local communities may encounter difficulties in implementing and
maintaining mitigation-related policies due to cost concerns. Local
communities can incur large expenses in implementing certain mandatory
mitigation requirements, such as hazard mapping, land-use planning, and
local ordinances to address natural hazard risks. For example, the
California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires cities and counties to
use seismic hazard zone maps in their land-use and building permit
process.[Footnote 38] However, according to a 2005 American Planning
Association report on landslide hazards and planning, local planning
and building officials have been apprehensive about the financial costs
of compliance, which requires the use of hazard maps, regional and site-
specific hazard assessments, and amendments to local
regulations.[Footnote 39] Additionally, maintaining mitigation-related
policies can be difficult for communities because of the costs and
resources involved. For example, the process of updating local building
codes is resource intensive, and although newer codes may provide
better protection from natural hazards, local communities may choose
not to adopt them because of the associated expenses (i.e., the
adoption and implementation process and the training of building code
officials and inspectors on the updated code). Further, information on
local natural hazard risks may need to be updated periodically, a
process that can be time consuming and expensive. The Oklahoma Water
Resources Board floodplain manager told us that updating floodplain
maps to reflect changes in local development is expensive because it
could require hiring outside engineering contractors.
Financial constraints may also limit communities' decisions to
eliminate or limit development in hazard-prone areas. For example, an
effective way for communities to eliminate development in high-risk
areas is to acquire land and retain it for open space. However,
property acquisition is expensive and can require long-range planning,
multiple funding sources, and political support. Communities,
particularly those dependent on new development for economic growth,
can also face resistance to limiting the amount of development that is
allowed to occur in hazard-prone areas and may be hesitant to imposing
strong mitigation requirements. For example, implementing density
restrictions that reduce the amount of development that can occur in a
hazard-prone area can result in a perceived or real decrease in the
value of land and make the area less attractive for development.
Private property owners are also influenced by cost considerations when
deciding whether to implement hazard mitigation. For example, many home
owners may be reluctant to pay for the additional costs of features
that exceed local building codes, such as reinforced concrete walls,
fire-resistant building materials, and flood-proofing features, all
which add to the cost of building a home. According to building
experts, for most home owners and potential home buyers cost is the
primary factor in deciding whether to include mitigation features in
new or existing homes. Officials from the National Association of
Homebuilders told us that the economic cost of mitigation measures
should be considered, because every $1,000 increase in median home
prices can price about 240,000 home buyers out of the market. During
our field work in Lehigh Acres, Florida, officials from the Institute
for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) told us that not all new home buyers
were willing to spend the additional costs for incorporating mitigation
measures, especially first-time buyers. IBHS has developed standards
for building hurricane-resistant homes. According to IBHS officials,
incorporating these standards can add about 10 to 15 percent to the
total cost of building a home. The officials also added that the fact
that appraisers often do not include the added costs of mitigation
features into the appraised home value is another impediment to
mitigation that needs to be addressed. FEMA officials pointed out that,
in addition to the cost of mitigation features, the benefits they
provide should be communicated to individuals when they purchase a
home.
For existing buildings, the high cost of retrofitting has also been
cited as an impediment to implementing mitigation measures. In 1986,
California enacted a law that required local governments in high
seismic regions to inventory unreinforced masonry buildings, that were
known to perform poorly during earthquakes and to establish a program
for reducing losses from these buildings.[Footnote 40] According to an
estimate prepared by a California Seismic Safety Commission structural
engineer, about two-thirds of over 25,000 unreinforced masonry
buildings that have been inventoried in California have been
retrofitted or demolished. However, about 8,000 buildings in high
seismic regions have not been retrofitted, primarily because of the
high cost of retrofitting. For example, the cost to retrofit an average-
size 10,000-square-foot building is about $400,000. As a result, some
buildings that do not generate sufficient income to pay for the cost of
retrofitting have been left vacant. Further, a study that assessed the
risks and losses of potential earthquakes in the New York, New Jersey,
and Connecticut region determined that retrofitting thousands of
buildings in New York would be "impractical and economically
unrealistic."[Footnote 41] This decision was made despite the fact that
New York City faces moderate seismic risk and contains a large number
of unreinforced masonry buildings used primarily as housing or for
commercial purposes. In 1995, New York City passed its first seismic
building code, which will help to ensure that new construction meets
these standards. However, because these standards do not apply to
buildings built prior to 1995, even a moderate earthquake could cause
much damage to the existing building stock.
Lack of Rigorous Building Code Enforcement Impedes Hazard Mitigation:
Building code officials and others with whom we spoke told us that
improvements are needed to address the lack of rigorous enforcement of
building codes in the United States. According to ISO officials, of
approximately 19,000 communities assessed through the BCEGSTM program,
only 5 communities have received the highest classification that
indicates exemplary commitment to building code enforcement. The ISO
officials also commented that building departments in most of the
communities they review conduct more inspections per day than is
feasible to provide rigorous code enforcement. National building code
officials told us that many local building departments do not have the
adequate funds and staffing levels to conduct proper code enforcement.
Additionally, they commented that low funding levels can affect the
amount of training local building inspectors receive and thereby reduce
their ability to enforce the code.
Limited Public Awareness Constrains Mitigation Activities:
Efforts to adopt new mitigation activities and strategies have been
constrained by the general public's lack of awareness and understanding
about natural hazards and risk. Individuals often also have a
misperception that natural hazard events will not occur in their
community and are not interested in learning of the likelihood of an
event occurring. For example, in California--where public perceptions
of natural hazard risk are high--some mitigation measures have been
implemented, such as strengthening transit systems, bridges, and
highways. However, in other parts of the country, where seismic risk is
high but damaging earthquakes occur less frequently (e.g., New Madrid
seismic zone), public awareness of the risk is lower, and fewer
mitigation measures are in place. Additionally, land-use experts and
mitigation officials told us that it is often difficult for the public
to perceive natural hazard risk or believe that a natural hazard event
will occur in their community. However, public skepticism is
significantly reduced immediately following natural hazard events, and
mitigation activities are often conducted during such periods--for
example, the adoption of more stringent building codes after Hurricane
Katrina and the seismic retrofitting requirements approved after major
earthquakes in California.
Limited public awareness may also be a result of the complexity of the
information that is needed for individuals to understand their hazard
risks. Local community decision makers may not fully understand the
science involved in predicting the probability of natural hazard events
such as earthquakes, making it difficult for a community to develop
appropriate mitigation plans. For example, USGS officials cited the
complexity of geologic science as a challenge to communicating
information on hazards. The officials also said that the ability of
decision makers to develop mitigation strategies for their communities
depended on the availability of appropriate and easily understandable
information. As a result, programs to improve public awareness and
education are long-term and require sustained effort.
A Number of Collaboration Efforts Exist but Do Not Provide a
Comprehensive Strategic Framework for National Natural Hazard
Mitigation Goals:
Collaboration among federal, state, and local agencies as well as
nongovernmental stakeholders on natural hazard mitigation efforts tends
to occur on a hazard-specific basis, typically after a disaster, or
through informal methods. These efforts include developing national
mitigation strategies or interagency programs dedicated to reducing
losses from particular natural hazards. In addition, as a way to
promote collaboration among all mitigation stakeholders, the federal
government develops partnerships with state and local governments,
professional associations, nongovernmental groups, businesses,
academia, and individual community members--partnerships that are
critical to the success of any mitigation program. Although the current
approach includes some key practices on collaboration, it is fragmented
and does not provide a comprehensive strategic framework that combines
both pre-and postdisaster mitigation activities. Without such a
framework, the federal government may not be effectively identifying
and managing all natural hazard risks nationwide.
Some Collaboration Exists among Mitigation Stakeholders:
Mitigation efforts often involve many federal agencies that have
defined missions and different programs to achieve mitigation goals
related to a specific hazard. Successful mitigation efforts require
collaboration not only among federal agencies but also between state
and local government agencies as well as a variety of nongovernmental
entities, because natural hazard mitigation activities are primarily
implemented at the state and local level. Accordingly, participation
and, ultimately buy-in from a broad range of stakeholders--including
state and local agencies, businesses, professional associations,
nonprofit organizations, academia, and members of the community--are
vital to the success of any mitigation effort. We identified a variety
of ways that federal agencies collaborate with each other and with
nonfederal stakeholders. The collaboration efforts are often aimed at
establishing approaches to working together; clarifying priorities,
roles and responsibilities; and aligning resources to accomplish common
outcomes.
First, consistent with key practices in collaboration, federal agencies
involved in mitigation create hazard-specific strategies and programs
for reducing losses from specific natural hazards.[Footnote 42] These
strategies and programs detail the roles and responsibilities for the
federal agencies involved in reducing hazard losses and show how the
agencies will work together to achieve that goal. For example:
* The National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy, which was
developed in 2003 by USGS, recognized that while there are many
stakeholders involved in landslide mitigation in the United States,
there is little collaboration of mitigation activities.[Footnote 43]
The strategy recommends that collaboration be improved among federal,
state, and local agencies in order to (1) establish more effective
partnerships with the academic and private sectors and (2) better
leverage resources. To eliminate duplication of efforts, the strategy
names the federal agencies responsible for leading each activity--a key
practice in collaboration. The strategy addresses the need for
increased public awareness and education about landslides and names
FEMA and USGS as the agencies responsible for leading the development
of information and education programs.
* The 10-year Comprehensive Strategy for reducing wildland fire risks
to communities and the environment involves many federal and nonfederal
stakeholders.[Footnote 44] This strategy provides a collaborative
framework to assist communities in implementing mitigation measures.
Both the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior worked with the
other stakeholders to develop a plan to implement the
strategy.[Footnote 45] The plan identifies tasks associated with
reducing losses from wildland fires, including identifying the level at
which collaboration should occur as well as the stakeholders
responsible for leading the task. For example, one task was to compile
examples of local zoning ordinances and state planning efforts that
have successfully reduced risks associated with wildland fire. The plan
also specifies that collaboration should occur at the national, state,
and local levels and that the National Association of Counties and the
National Association of State Foresters would have leadership roles.
* The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) is an
interagency program created to reduce risks to life and property in the
United States that result from earthquakes.[Footnote 46] In 2004,
Congress established the Interagency Coordinating Committee to plan,
manage, and coordinate the NEHRP.[Footnote 47] This committee consists
of FEMA, USGS, the National Science Foundation, Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Office of Management and Budget, and, as the lead
agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The
agencies are working together to develop a NEHRP strategic plan and a
coordinated interagency budget. The program also seeks to improve
earthquake hazards identification and risk assessment methods. Each
agency's mission, although separate and distinct, has been integrated
into a complementary program that seeks to promote earthquake
mitigation.
Second, federal agencies typically collaborate on mitigation activities
after a disaster event in the areas that have been impacted. For
example, the Department of Homeland Security issued the National
Response Plan in December 2004, intending it to be an all-discipline,
all-hazards plan establishing a single, comprehensive framework for the
management of domestic incidents when federal involvement is necessary.
The plan contains one component on postdisaster mitigation that
addresses long-term community recovery and mitigation, but does not
address predisaster mitigation efforts.[Footnote 48] Specifically, the
plan provides a collaborative mechanism to assist communities that have
been impacted by a disaster to (1) identify appropriate federal
programs and agencies, (2) avoid duplication of assistance, and (3)
ensure follow through of hazard mitigation efforts. These efforts can
include developing long-term recovery plans for communities impacted by
a disaster, that identify priorities in rebuilding and improving hazard
resistance in new structures. FEMA is responsible for leading the
effort to implement this component and is supported by six primary
federal agencies as well as a number of other agencies that have a
supportive role.[Footnote 49]
Third, agency officials said that they also use a variety of informal
mechanisms to collaborate on their mitigation activities. These
officials discussed frequent, informal communication such as e-mails,
teleconferences, and discussions at regional or local conferences or
workshops that occurs on specific projects or initiatives. For example,
FEMA officials said that officials from other agencies such as the
Departments of Transportation and Energy frequently consult with FEMA
staff on flood mitigation in compliance with an executive order on
floodplain management.[Footnote 50] NOAA agency officials also
commented that collaboration occurs when agency officials assist in
conducting training for other federal agencies. For example, the
National Weather Service provides guest instructors for a week-long
FEMA training course for emergency managers.
Finally, federal agencies collaborate through partnerships with local
government leaders, volunteer groups, the business community, and
individual citizens to implement mitigation activities. Several state
and local officials with whom we spoke cited Project Impact--one of
FEMA's previous predisaster mitigation programs--as a model in helping
to develop broad community support for predisaster mitigation
activities.[Footnote 51] Local officials from each of the former
Project Impact communities that we visited emphasized that the strength
of the original public-private partnerships formed during Project
Impact was a key reason their communities' mitigation efforts have been
sustainable. The program provided small, one-time grants directly to
communities and empowered leaders in those communities to build
effective partnerships and encourage private sector financial
participation before disasters occurred. For example, Deerfield Beach,
Florida--the first Project Impact community--established a program that
created partnerships with FEMA, IBHS, and four local lending
institutions to provide interest free loans from local banks to help
community businesses conduct wind resistance mitigation activities,
such as installing impact-resistant glass and shutters, to reduce the
effects of high winds.
The Current Approach to Collaboration on Natural Hazard Mitigation Does
Not Provide a Comprehensive Mitigation Framework for the Nation:
While collaboration on specific hazard mitigation efforts occurs in a
variety of ways, the current approach does not provide a strategic
framework for coordinating nationwide pre-and postdisaster mitigation.
In the past, such strategic frameworks were developed by FEMA and the
Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, of which FEMA is a
participant.[Footnote 52] These frameworks shifted the focus from
reacting to natural disasters to proactive coordinated pre-and
postdisaster mitigation efforts.[Footnote 53] In 1998, we reported that
FEMA had taken a strategic approach to mitigation, in part through the
development of a National Mitigation Strategy.[Footnote 54] This
strategy called for strengthening partnerships among all levels of
government and the private sector and set forth major initiatives,
along with timelines, in a number of areas, including leadership and
coordination. For example, the strategy required that within 1 year
mitigation considerations be integrated into the management and
operation of all federal programs that affect the built environment and
that a Federal Interagency Mitigation Task Force convene to more
closely coordinate federal mitigation authorities, among other things.
While these strategies helped to provide a strategic framework for
natural hazard mitigation in the past, the current approach tends to
occur on a hazard-specific basis, typically after a disaster event, or
through informal methods and does not create a similar framework.
Various provisions of federal laws have stressed the importance of
national hazard mitigation. For example, recognizing that expenditures
for federal disaster assistance were increasing without the likelihood
of corresponding reductions in losses from natural disasters, DMA 2000,
provides, among other things, a framework for linking pre-and
postdisaster mitigation initiatives with public and private interests
to ensure an integrated, comprehensive approach to disaster loss
reduction. It requires establishing a federal interagency taskforce for
the purpose of "coordinating the implementation of predisaster hazard
mitigation programs administered by the Federal Government."[Footnote
55] DMA 2000 further requires that the Administrator of FEMA serve as
the chairperson of the taskforce, indicating the leadership role FEMA
is expected to provide nationwide for all hazards. DMA 2000 also
recognizes the need for nonfederal stakeholder involvement by including
state and local governments in the taskforce. While this taskforce has
yet to be created, the stated purpose of the taskforce, which is
"coordinating the implementation of predisaster hazard mitigation
programs administered by the Federal Government," is consistent with
the need for the creation of a comprehensive national strategic
framework for mitigation.
The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Post-Katrina
Reform Act), requires major changes to FEMA that are designed to
increase the effectiveness of preparedness and response to catastrophic
disasters.[Footnote 56] The act defines emergency management as "the
governmental function that coordinates and integrates all activities
necessary to build, sustain, and improve the capability to prepare for,
protect against, respond to, recover from, or mitigate against
threatened or actual natural disasters, acts of terrorism, or other man-
made disasters."[Footnote 57] Moreover, the act defines FEMA's primary
mission as reducing the loss of life and property "by leading and
supporting the nation in a risk-based comprehensive emergency
management system of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and
mitigation."[Footnote 58]
While the current approach to collaboration on natural hazard
mitigation often includes some key practices for collaboration, it
tends to occur on a hazard-specific basis, typically after a disaster
event, or through informal methods. This fragmented approach does not
provide a comprehensive strategic framework for federal agencies and
other stakeholders to collectively work toward accomplishing common
national hazard mitigation goals. For example, while federal agency
officials with whom we spoke discussed a variety of specific mitigation
activities, it was unclear how these efforts fit into a comprehensive
strategic framework for mitigation. Similar to the framework provided
by the National Response Plan for managing domestic incidents and the
frameworks provided in past national mitigation strategies, a
comprehensive national framework for pre-and postdisaster mitigation
would, among other things, define common national goals, establish
joint strategies, leverage resources, assign roles and
responsibilities, and develop performance measures and reporting
requirements.
A comprehensive strategic framework focused on mitigation activities
that occur both before and after natural hazard events could strengthen
FEMA's ability to assess whether all mitigation efforts are working
together to accomplish national hazard mitigation goals that adequately
prepare the nation for its natural hazard risks. Without such a
framework, the federal government may not be effectively identifying
and managing all natural hazard risks nationwide. Moreover, the current
approach does not ensure that collective mitigation efforts are working
together in a manner that leverages resources and develops synergies
across various hazard-specific mitigation efforts.
Conclusions:
No state in the country is immune to the risk from a natural hazard, be
it floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, or wildland fires and
large percentages of the U.S. population live in areas susceptible to
more than one of these hazards. In particular, the coastal areas of the
country, which contain a large portion of the nation's population and
have experienced substantial growth, are susceptible to many natural
hazards. Moreover, the implications of climate change, which may lead
to more frequent storms and sea-level rise, increase the vulnerability
and risks associated with hazard events. All of these factors present
increasing risks to life and property throughout the United States and
increasing expenditures by the federal government in the wake of a
disaster. As seen in recent years, the level of destruction that a
natural hazard event can cause can be devastating to those who
experience it and pose major challenges to the federal government,
which plays a key role in disaster recovery and assistance. As more
people migrate to hazard-prone areas such as Florida and California,
the need for a comprehensive strategic framework for natural hazard
mitigation takes on new significance because these areas are subject to
multiple hazards. Additionally, according to the National Institute of
Building Sciences, hazard mitigation activities have been found to be a
sound investment with every $1 FEMA provides communities for mitigation
activities, resulting in an average of $4 in future benefits. While the
federal government plays a key role in natural hazard mitigation
efforts, measures such as hazard mitigation planning, development
regulations, and the adoption and enforcement of strong building codes
are ultimately the responsibility of local jurisdictions, which make
decisions on the extent of development and on how and where new
developments are built. Therefore, finding ways to effectively partner
with and develop buy-in from state and local governments is critical to
any federal mitigation effort.
Federal agencies, particularly FEMA, play an important role in
establishing and promoting collaboration on natural hazard mitigation
and in developing a national mitigation framework that includes
nonfederal stakeholders as active participants in efforts to reduce
losses from natural hazards. While the current approach to
collaboration on natural hazard mitigation involves a mix of methods
and may be useful on a hazard-specific basis or for a particular hazard
event, having a fragmented approach does not take full advantage of
synergies that may exist among the different mitigation stakeholders.
For example, given that many natural hazards are related, such as
hurricanes and flooding or wildland fires and landslides, there may be
opportunities to leverage resources and for stakeholders responsible
for specific hazards to collaborate with other stakeholders on related
hazards, such as coordinating earthquake mitigation efforts with
tsunami mitigation efforts. The creation of a strategic framework for
pre-and postdisaster mitigation among all stakeholders nationwide could
help overcome some of the challenges faced in implementing mitigation
efforts and would help define common national goals for mitigation,
identify risks, establish joint strategies across federal and state
programs, leverage resources across agencies, assign lead roles and
responsibilities, and include mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and
report on results. FEMA's new organizational changes and
responsibilities under the Post-Katrina Reform Act call for the agency
to provide Federal leadership in promoting such a strategic framework
for mitigation. The federal government could benefit from a
comprehensive strategic framework, which could help to effectively
identify national natural hazard risks, minimize the effects of hazards
before they occur, and reduce overall future hazard losses to the
nation.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Administrator of FEMA, in consultation with other
appropriate federal agencies, develop and maintain a national
comprehensive strategic framework for mitigation that incorporates both
pre-and postdisaster mitigation efforts. The framework should include
items such as common mitigation goals; performance measures and
reporting requirements; the role of specific activities in the overall
framework; and the roles and responsibilities of federal, state, and
local agencies, and nongovernmental stakeholders.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to FEMA, NOAA, USGS, the Corps of
Engineers, and the Forest Service for review and comments. The
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Interior
provided written comments on behalf of FEMA and USGS, respectively,
that are discussed below and presented in appendix II and III.
FEMA generally agreed with our conclusions and recommendation but noted
that we did not adequately reflect the success of the floodplain
management requirements associated with NFIP, including the community
rating system. We added language that FEMA suggested on the estimated
annual losses avoided because of NFIP floodplain management activities.
However, analyzing the overall effectiveness of floodplain management
activities was beyond the scope of this report.
FEMA also noted that it supported a national comprehensive strategic
framework and setting common mitigation goals. However, the agency
disagreed with setting performance measures and reporting requirements
on a process that takes place largely at the local level. The letter
stated that it would be inappropriate for FEMA or any other federal
agency to dictate mitigation activities, outside of ensuring that
mitigation plans and grant applications met the eligibility
requirements defined in authorizing statutes and regulations. We agree
that local communities are responsible for identifying natural hazard
risks and for setting mitigation priorities. But mitigation activities
could benefit from having federal agencies set performance measures to
ensure that crosscutting agency goals are consistent and that program
efforts are mutually reinforcing. With such practices in place, FEMA,
in consultation with other federal agencies, could partner with and
develop buy-in from state and local agencies and nongovernmental
stakeholders. Trend analysis and reporting requirements, both of which
FEMA cited as a more appropriate measure, would be consistent with our
recommendation and could be effective in measuring the success of a
comprehensive strategic mitigation framework.
FEMA also commented that it participates on the Subcommittee on
Disaster Reduction, which coordinates the scientific and technical
aspects of risk identification and reduction across the federal
government. The letter states that the subcommittee accomplishes
several of the objectives identified in our recommendation. We added
language clarifying that FEMA participates on the subcommittee. We cite
the subcommittee as an example of a governmentwide group that has
shifted its focus from reacting to natural disasters to proactively
coordinating pre-and postdisaster mitigation efforts using science and
technology. We see the subcommittee as an important component of, but
not a substitute for, a national comprehensive strategic framework for
mitigation.
USGS wrote that the agency agreed with the need for a comprehensive
strategy and emphasized that USGS believed in the importance of
developing such a strategy together with FEMA and in equal partnership
with the other agencies. A jointly developed national strategy could
play a clear role in preparing for and dealing with natural hazards.
USGS added that it would be helpful if the report identified the
challenges associated with developing such a national framework. While
identifying all the challenges was beyond the scope of this report, we
did illustrate several of the obstacles to implementing a comprehensive
strategic framework for mitigation--including the fragmented federal
approach to mitigation--which does not take full advantage of synergies
that may exist among mitigation stakeholders. Additionally, USGS stated
that it would be helpful if we identified those programs that have
delivered the best value in mitigation and the areas in which
mitigation practices would be most effective. We agree with USGS that a
discussion of successful mitigation practice is important. In this
report, for example, we describe a variety of mitigation activities
that exist to reduce the risk of losses from natural hazards, including
hazard mitigation planning, the adoption and enforcement of more
rigorous building codes, and the use of hazard control structures.
The Corps of Engineers, Forest Service, and NOAA orally commented that
they agreed with the report but did not comment specifically on the
recommendation. Technical comments provided by the agencies have been
incorporated in this report where appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of
this report to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee
on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; the Chairman of the House
Committee on Financial Services; the Secretaries of Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, and Interior; and other
interested parties. This report will also be available at no charge on
GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Please contact me at (202) 512-8678 or williamso@gao.gov if you or your
staff have any questions about this report. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Orice M. Williams:
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to examine the (1) natural hazards that present a
risk to life and property in the United States, areas that are most
susceptible to them, and factors that may be increasing these risks;
(2) mitigation activities that reduce losses from natural hazards; (3)
impediments to implementing and methods for encouraging mitigation
activities; and (4) collaborative efforts of federal agencies and other
stakeholders to promote mitigation.
To examine the natural hazards that present a risk to life and property
in the United States, we used a comprehensive list of natural hazards
compiled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in a
guidance document for individual and community preparedness. The list
includes floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, thunderstorms and lightning,
winter storms and extreme cold, extreme heat, earthquakes, volcanoes,
landslides and debris flow (mudslides), tsunamis, fires, and wildland
fires. For the purposes of our analysis, we did not include fires
because most home and other structure fires are human induced. To
identify areas that are most susceptible to natural hazard risks, we
created national, county-level maps that show the level of risk for
each hazard. We limited our analysis to the 50 states and the District
of Columbia. Additionally, we did not create maps for all natural
hazards and narrowed the list of hazards we mapped to the following:
floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildland fires, tornadoes, and
landslides. These natural hazards were chosen based on the following
criteria. First, we limited the scope of the word "property" in FEMA's
definition of hazard mitigation--actions taken to reduce or eliminate
the long-term risks to life and property from the effects of hazards--
to the built environment and, therefore, did not map hazards that
result mainly in losses to agriculture. Next, we focused on hazards for
which available mitigation activities are long-term loss reduction
measures and not those that primarily focus on monitoring, warning
systems, emergency response, and evacuations. Finally, we focused on
the natural hazards that represent large annual losses in the United
States (where data were available.)
To develop our natural hazard risk maps, we used data from a variety of
sources. We used historical hazard data from 1980 to 2005 as a
representation of current hazard risk for floods, hurricanes, and
wildland fires. For tornadoes, we limited our analysis of historical
data from 1980 to 2004. Earthquake and landslide risk were mapped based
on the level of future risk for an event occurring. The data used for
each of the maps are explained below. We determined these data sources
to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
* Floods - As a proxy for flood risk, we used FEMA data on counties
that experienced a major disaster declarations for flooding.
* Hurricanes - We obtained data on historical hurricane tracks from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Coastal
Service Center, which show the track for the eye of a hurricane, to
develop the hurricane hazard map. In order to identify counties
affected by a hurricane, we used a buffer of 50 miles around the data
representing the eye of a hurricane. The 50-mile estimate was based on
29 miles for the eye of the storm and an additional 21 miles for the
outer area of high winds. This is roughly equivalent to NOAA's
terminology of a hurricane "strike" or "near strike."
* Earthquakes - We obtained data representing seismic risk from the
U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Mapping
Project. Risk is depicted as acceleration value. Areas with a value of
less than 5 were considered low risk, 5 to 15 as medium risk, and over
15 as high risk.
* Wildland fires - We used the Federal Wildland Fire Occurrence Data
maintained by the Desert Research Institute to represent wildland fire
risk. These data are based on information compiled by the U.S. Forest
Service (Forest Service), Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Some
records in the database were missing latitudinal and longitudinal
information. Therefore, our map only includes fires for which this
information was available.
* Tornadoes - We obtained historical tornado data from the NOAA's
National Weather Service that are available for download from
[hyperlink, http://www.NationalAtlas.gov]. We limited our analysis to
tornado events with an F3 (severe) or higher level as measured on the
Fujita Scale, because F3 or higher tornadoes cause significant property
damage. Not all records in the database included latitude and longitude
information; therefore, our map only includes those tornadoes for which
latitude and longitude data were available. Additionally, data were
only available through 2004.
* Landslides - We obtained data representing the susceptibility and
incidence of landslides from USGS. We used USGS' classification of
areas of high and moderate risk and overlaid it with county data.
Counties that contained areas of both high and moderate risk were
reclassified as "combination of high and moderate risk."
We also reviewed the annual losses associated with some of these
natural hazards, when data were available, and factors that may be
increasing natural hazard risk. As there is no comprehensive source of
loss information for natural hazards, we used estimates developed by
the federal agencies responsible for overseeing each natural hazard. We
adjusted the loss estimates from some historical hazard events to 2006
dollars using the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers. To
identify factors that may be increasing natural hazard risks, we
reviewed 2000 U.S. Census data, population information, and studies on
climatology. We also reviewed previous congressional reports and our
reports and spoke with officials at several federal, state, and local
agencies.
To examine the mitigation activities that exist to reduce losses from
natural hazards and the performance of these activities, we conducted
site visits to four judgmentally selected states including--California,
Colorado, Florida, and Oklahoma. We selected the locations based on the
following criteria: (1) the locations represent a variety of natural
hazard risks and geographic locations; (2) Florida and Oklahoma have
Enhanced State Hazard Mitigation Plans and, therefore, comprehensive
mitigation programs, and California has an Enhanced State Hazard
Mitigation Plan that is pending FEMA approval; and (3) mitigation
experts and federal agency officials recommended locations to visit
within these states. In each of these states, we met with state and
local officials to discuss mitigation activities that had been
undertaken or are planned, and examples of the performance of some of
the activities. Many of the local communities we visited were part of
FEMA's former Project Impact program. We also visited the Natural
Hazards Research Center in Boulder, Colorado to review an extensive
collection of research on natural hazards. Additionally, we reviewed
FEMA's Best Practices and Case Studies Portfolio; prior GAO reports;
state and local hazard mitigation plans submitted to FEMA under DMA
2000; and numerous other reports, summaries, and studies on natural
hazard mitigation activities. We also discussed the types of existing
mitigation activities with officials from federal agencies that oversee
natural hazard mitigation programs, and with mitigation and planning
experts. In addition, we met with industry, nonprofit, and professional
organizations; model building code organizations; an insurance services
company; and a risk modeling firm to discuss the variety of mitigation
methods that exist.
To examine impediments that exist to the implementation of mitigation
activities and methods used to promote mitigation, we reviewed
congressional reports, our previous reports and testimonies, and
background documents related to each of the natural hazards within the
scope of our review. These included policy and research documents on
floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, tornadoes, and landslides,
as well as documents on other natural hazards. We also gathered and
analyzed information, documents, reports, and publications from each of
the federal agencies we contacted, including FEMA, USGS, NOAA, the
Corps of Engineers, and the Forest Service. In addition, we reviewed
information provided by professional associations, advocacy groups,
nonprofit organizations, and knowledgeable individuals from the
academic and research communities, such as the American Society of
Civil Engineers, the American Planning Association, Wildlife
Federation, and the University of Colorado at Boulder. To examine the
various approaches used to encourage mitigation, we conducted
interviews, conference calls, and site visits with federal, state, and
local officials and members of the academic community to obtain
detailed information and specific examples of methods used to promote
mitigation.
To examine collaborative efforts of federal agencies and other
stakeholders to promote mitigation, we conducted literature reviews of
prior reports on natural hazard mitigation, land-use, research, and
policy documents from federal, state, and local government agencies,
and documentation from nongovernmental stakeholders. We also reviewed
our previous reports on federal agency collaboration and summarized the
results of these reports to identify elements for effective
collaboration among federal agencies and between federal agencies and
nonfederal participants. In addition, we consulted with individuals
knowledgeable about natural hazards, mitigation, and the role of
federal agencies in promoting collaboration on natural hazard
mitigation activities. To examine ways federal agencies and nonfederal
participants collaborate on mitigation we interviewed federal officials
involved in mitigation-related activities, state and local officials,
and industry association representatives. To identify the federal
agencies that play key roles in natural hazard mitigation, we
considered federal agencies that promote mitigation through (1) hazard
mitigation grant programs; (2) technical assistance; (3) regional risk
assessments, including mapping of hazard risk; (4) information
dissemination; and (5) programs that specifically target the reduction
of risks caused by natural hazards. We also determined that it was not
feasible to include all federal agencies that play a role in mitigation
within the scope of this review and excluded agencies that play
supplementary, support, and/or secondary roles in natural hazard
mitigation. Based on these considerations, we subsequently contacted
five federal agencies as part of this review, including FEMA, NOAA,
USGS, the Corps of Engineers, and the Forest Service.
We conducted our work in Baltimore, Maryland; Berkeley, Napa, San
Francisco, and Sacramento, California; Boston, Massachusetts; Boulder,
Denver, Golden, and Fort Collins, Colorado; Deerfield Beach, Miami,
Tampa, and West Palm Beach, Florida; Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Oklahoma;
and Washington, D.C., between March 2006 and June 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
Homeland Security:
August 9, 2007:
Ms. Orice Williams:
Director, Financial Markets And Community Investment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D. C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Williams:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office report Natural Hazard Mitigation: Various
Mitigation Efforts Exist, but Federal Efforts Do Not Provide a
Comprehensive Strategic Framework, GAO 07-403.
General Comments
Floodplain Management - The report does not adequately reflect the
extent to which the floodplain management requirements, associated with
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), have become established
across the nation and make a difference. It is estimated there are $1.2
billion dollars of losses avoided annually because of NFIP floodplain
management activities. Not only are there 20,300 communities
participating in the NFIP (which is mentioned) but there is a vibrant
network of local and state officials who are on the "front lines"
making permit decisions that reduce the impact of flooding on a daily
basis. It would seem the report might want to highlight this success,
without dwelling on it. In fact, the creation of the network of
mitigation professionals (as you know, largely due to the efforts of
the associations of state floodplain managers (ASFPM) and the Emergency
Management Institute's training programs) is a very effective
"framework", if not model, that might be replicated to address other
hazards. While there are some compliance issues, floodplain management
is entrenched. Over 20,000 communities have floodplain management
ordinances. There is an abundance of technical resources and guidance
materials. The authors might want to capture this, possibly even in the
context of "what can we learn" from the floodplain management approach
to mitigation.
CRS Community Rating System – Details/accomplishments/history should be
laid out and summarized in the beginning of the audit report.
The following is our response to the recommendation.
Recommendation:
We recommend that the Director of FEMA, in consultation with other
appropriate federal agencies, develop and maintain a national
comprehensive strategic framework for mitigation that incorporates both
pre- and post-disaster mitigation efforts. The framework should include
items such as common mitigation goals; performance measures and
reporting requirements; the role of specific activities in the overall
framework; and the roles and responsibilities of federal, state, and
local agencies, and nongovernmental stakeholders.
Response:
FEMA is in agreement with most of the recommendation and conclusions of
the report. FEMA supports the setting of a national comprehensive
strategic framework and setting common mitigation goals. FEMA disagrees
with setting performance measures and reporting requirements on a
process that largely occurs at local levels of government. Local
communities are responsible for making most mitigation decisions with
respect to identifying risks in their communities and setting hazard
mitigation priorities that mitigate those risks. It would he
inappropriate for FEMA, or any other Federal entity, to dictate
mitigation direction at the local level, outside of ensuring that
mitigation plans and grant applications meet essential eligibility
requirements as defined by authorizing statutes and regulations. FEMA
recommends that trend analysis and progress reporting toward goals is
more appropriate to measure the success of a comprehensive strategic
mitigation framework.
The Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction (SDR) of the Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and Technology
Council, was created to, among other things, "establish clear national
goals for Federal science and technology investments for disaster
reduction" and to "identify and coordinate opportunities for the U.S.
Government to collaborate with state, local, and foreign governments,
international organizations and private/academic/industry groups in the
science and technology of disaster reduction."[Footnote 59] The role
the SDR is to coordinate the scientific and technical aspects of risk
identification and risk reduction across the Federal government. FEMA
See Charter of the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and Technology
Council. fully participates in the SDR, which accomplishes several of
the objectives identified in the report's recommendation.
Once again we thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report
and provide comments.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Steven J. Pecinovsky:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
Office Of The Secretary:
Washington, D.C. 20240:
August 3, 2007:
Mr. Andy Finkel:
Assistant Director of Financial Markets and Community Investment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Finkel:
Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior (DOI) with the
opportunity to review the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
draft report entitled, "Natural Hazard Mitigation: Various Mitigation
Efforts Exist, but Federal Efforts Do Not Provide a Comprehensive
Strategic Framework" (Report Number GAO-07-403).
The GAO staff is to be commended for conducting a well-researched
examination of the Nation's natural hazard mitigation efforts. The
draft report provides a good summary of selected issues relating to
natural hazards within the United States and some of the planning and
mitigation efforts to reduce the risk of losses.
We agree with the need for a comprehensive strategy and wish to
emphasize the importance of such a strategy being built collectively by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency in equal partnership with other
agencies that have a clear natural disaster role. We are pleased to see
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) recognized as
an example of how Federal agencies work together to create a hazard-
specific strategy to reduce losses from earthquakes and to collaborate
on mitigation activities after a disaster. This partnership is a model
that could be used in addressing the report's major recommendations.
NEHRP reaches across Federal agencies and into States to foster
mitigation activities, from community–level predisaster mitigation to
national-scale post-disaster coordination. NEHRP also provides clear
economic incentives (in the form of building codes) for mitigation
activities, something the report cites as a general limitation of
Federal programs.
Consistent with the report's recommendations, the USGS recently
launched a multi-hazard monitoring, assessment, research and
coordination demonstration project in Southern California. This project
promises to serve as a test case for multi-hazard assessment and
coordination that can be applied in other regions. The project relies
heavily on local partnerships to transform results into practice, a key
need identified in the report.
In concluding that the current approach to institutional collaboration
on natural hazard mitigation does not provide a comprehensive
mitigation framework for the Nation, it would be helpful if the report
identified the challenges associated with developing such a national
framework. It would also be helpful for GAO to examine which programs
have delivered the best value in mitigation and where the greatest
strides in mitigation could be made if we dedicated ourselves to the
effort. As further context, the report could address whether other
nations have developed national frameworks for mitigation that can
provide good examples.
The report mentions new reforms such as the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006 that take an all-hazards approach to
emergency management, but it would benefit from describing how such
reforms address the report's recommendations and what other efforts are
needed. Finally, we note the draft report focuses mainly on losses of
life and property, but it is important to recognize the impact of
social, agricultural, and environmental losses in addressing total
losses.
We hope these comments will aid you in preparing the final report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
James E. Cason:
Associate Deputy Secretary:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Orice Williams, (202) 512-8678 or williamso@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the person named above, Andy Finkel, Assistant Director;
Nicholas Alexander; Emily Chalmers; Leo Chyi; Isidro Gomez; Eileen
Harrity; Christine Houle; Kai-Yan Lee; John Mingus; Marc Molino; Omyra
Ramsingh, and William Sparling made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Preliminary estimate as reported by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration in August 2006. Estimate is in 2006 dollars.
[2] National Institute of Building Sciences, The Multihazard Mitigation
Council, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to
Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities (Washington, D.C.:
2005).
[3] GAO, Climate Change: Financial Risks to Federal and Private
Insurers in Coming Decades are Potentially Significant, GAO-07-285
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2007).
[4] FEMA, National Mitigation Strategy: Partnerships for Building Safer
Communities (Washington, D.C.: 1995).
[5] Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-390, 114 Stat.
1552 (codified at various sections of title 42 of the U.S. Code).
[6] The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-448, title
XIII, 82 Stat. 572 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 4001 et seq.)
[7] Our use of the term "community" throughout this report refers to
FEMA's definition of "community" for the NFIP. FEMA's definition
includes, among others, any state or area or political subdivision
thereof, or any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, which
has authority to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations
for the areas within its jurisdiction. See 44 C.F.R. § 59.1 (2006). In
most cases, a community is an incorporated city, town, township,
borough, or village, or an unincorporated area of a county or parish.
[8] We defined "collaboration" broadly to include interagency
activities that others have previously defined as cooperation,
coordination, integration, or networking. For this report, we used this
definition of "collaboration" to describe coordination among federal
agencies as well as between federal agencies and nonfederal
stakeholders. See GAO Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can
Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-
15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
[9] Following a disaster, and upon the request of a state governor, the
President may issue a major disaster declaration that triggers a range
of assistance from federal agencies. See 42 U.S.C. § 5170.
[10] We used Census 2000 data as our population estimates for the
number of people living in areas that experienced a natural hazard
event from 1980 through 2005 or are at risk from earthquakes and
landslides. The Census Bureau defines "county" and "equivalent entity"
as the primary legal subdivision of most states. In Louisiana, these
subdivisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties,
the county equivalents are boroughs, a legal subdivision, and census
areas, a statistical subdivision. Four states (Maryland, Missouri,
Nevada and Virginia) have one or more cities that are independent of
any county and thus constitute primary subdivisions of their states.
The District of Columbia has no primary divisions, and the entire area
is considered equivalent to a county for statistical purposes. In
Puerto Rico, municipios are treated as county equivalents.
[11] We did not analyze data for U.S. territories, but they are also
subject to hurricanes.
[12] Estimates were adjusted using the calendar year Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers, with 2006 as the base year.
[13] Estimate as of February 2006. Private insurer loss estimates for
Hurricane Katrina are likely to change as the extent of losses becomes
better known.
[14] GAO, Wildland Fire Suppression: Lack of Clear Guidance Raises
Concerns about Cost Sharing between Federal and Nonfederal Entities,
GAO-06-570 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2006).
[15] For the purposes of this report, we classified tornadoes with wind
speeds greater than 158 miles per hour as severe tornadoes. This
analysis was based on tornadoes using the Fujita (F) scale where winds
of 158 miles per hour begin the category for severe tornadoes (F3). As
of February 1, 2007, NOAA began using the Enhanced Fujita (EF) scale
for tornado ratings and its category for severe tornadoes (F3) begins
with a wind speed of 136 miles per hour.
[16] Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands also face significant tsunami
risk.
[17] Some of the most active U.S. volcanic regions also include Pacific
territories, especially the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas
Islands.
[18] Fuel refers to the dead and living materials in a natural
environment that will burn. This can include dead and living grasses,
twigs, branches, and trees.
[19] U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Population Trends Along the
Coastal United States: 1980-2008, September 2004.
[20] E.H. Field, H.A. Seligson, N. Gupta, V. Gupta, T.H. Jordan, and
K.W. Campbell, Loss Estimates for a Puente Hills Blind-Thrust
Earthquake in Los Angeles, California, Earthquake Spectra, vol. 21, no.
2, (2005) pp., 329-338.
[21] GAO-07-285.
[22] Hazard mitigation assistance includes FEMA's Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program funding.
Although local communities are required to have an approved hazard
mitigation plan to receive this funding, in extraordinary circumstances
HMGP funds can be awarded to communities that agree to develop a hazard
mitigation plan within 12 months of receiving the project grant.
[23] The exception is factory-built manufactured homes that are
transported to sites for installation and are subject to federal
construction and safety standards established by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development pursuant to the National Manufactured
Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, title VI of Pub.
L. 93-383, 88 Stat. 633, 700 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 5401
et seq.) See 24 C.F.R. pt. 3280 (2006). However, each state may
establish and enforce standards for the stabilizing and support systems
of manufactured homes and for the foundations on which manufactured
homes are installed, as long as such standards are consistent with
Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations.
[24] Two organizations currently develop model building codes in the
United States. They are the International Code Council, which develops
various model codes referred to as the International Codes, and the
National Fire Protection Administration (NFPA), which develops the NFPA
5000 Building Construction and Safety Code.
[25] This company does not operate in five states. Accordingly, this
estimate of the number of communities without building codes represents
only the 45 states in which it operates.
[26] A 100-year flood is one that has a 1 in 100 chance (1 percent) of
occurring in any given year.
[27] See Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act § 322 (codified at 42
U.S.C. § 5165); see also 44 C.F.R. pt. 201 (2006). FEMA refers to these
plans as enhanced hazard mitigation plans. An enhanced mitigation plan
qualifies a state for HMGP funds totaling 20 percent of the total
estimated eligible Stafford Act disaster assistance for a particular
disaster, compared with 7.5 percent for a state with a standard plan.
[28] A safe room is a shelter that provides protection during tornado
and other wind events.
[29] These agencies include the Forest Service within the Department of
Agriculture; and the Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bureau of Land
Management; Fish and Wildlife Service; and the National Park Service,
within the Department of the Interior.
[30] See 42 U.S.C. § 5321; 24 C.F.R. pt. 570.
[31] According to FEMA officials, the individuals in participating
communities account for 67 percent of NFIP policyholders.
[32] The BCEGSTM was developed by ISO, which is an independent
statistical, rating, and advisory organization that serves the
property/casualty insurance industry.
[33] The exception is in Florida where insurance companies are required
by law to offer discounts on wind protection premiums based on a
community's BCEGSTM rating, and communities that do not participate in
the program are assessed a 1 percent surcharge on wind protection
premiums.
[34] Florida Statute § 627.0629 requires insurance companies to offer
Florida homeowners "discounts, credits, or other rate differentials."
for construction techniques that reduce damage and loss in windstorms.
[35] Cal. Ins. Code § 10089.40(d).
[36] Firewise Communities is jointly sponsored by the International
Association of Fire Chiefs, National Emergency Management Association,
National Association of State Foresters, National Fire Protection
Association, FEMA, U.S. Fire Administration, Forest Service, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the National Park Service. Numerous state and local fire and
forestry officials also participate in Firewise program activities.
[37] GAO, Disaster Assistances: Information on Federal Disaster
Mitigation Efforts, GAO/T-RCED-98-67 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28, 1998).
[38] See Cal. Pub. Res. Code, §§ 2690 et seq; Cal. Code of Regs., tit.
14, §§ 3270 et seq.
[39] American Planning Association, Landslide Hazards and Planning,
(Chicago, IL: September 2005).
[40] Cal. Gov't Code §§ 8875 et seq.
[41] Tantala, M., Nordenson G., et al, "Earthquake Risks and Mitigation
in the New York | New Jersey | Connecticut Region," NYCEM, The New York
City Area Consortium for Earthquake Loss Mitigation, Final Summary
Report, MCEER-03-SP02, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, 2003.
[42] GAO-06-15.
[43] USGS, National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy--A Framework
for Loss Reduction, USGS Circular 1244 (Reston, Virginia: 2003).
[44] "A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to
Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy,"
August 2001.
[45] "A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to
Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Strategy Implementation Plan,"
December 2006.
[46] See the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-
124, § 5, 91 Stat. 1098 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 7704).
[47] See National Earthquakes Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization
Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-360, title I, § 103, 118 Stat. 1669
(2004). Prior to the 2004 act, an ad hoc interagency committee had been
the coordinating mechanism for the NEHRP with FEMA as the lead agency.
See Pub. L. No. 96-472, Title I, § 101, 94 Stat. 2257 (1980).
[48] The component is "Emergency Support Function #14 - Long-Term
Community Recovery and Mitigation Annex." We did not evaluate the
effectiveness of this annex in this report. In prior work, however, we
have evaluated portions of the National Response Plan. See GAO Disaster
Assistance: Better Planning Needed for Housing Victims of Catastrophic
Disasters, GAO-07-88 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2007).
[49] These agencies include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development and the Treasury, as
well as the Small Business Administration.
[50] Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the
extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with
the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and
indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a
practicable alternative. 3 C.F.R. 117 (1977), amended by Exec. Order
121148, 3 C.F.R. 412 (1979).
[51] Project Impact was one of FEMA's predisaster mitigation programs
that began in 1997 and ended in fiscal year 2002. It was replaced by
the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program.
[52] The Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction is an element of the
President's National Science and Technology Council and facilitates
national strategies for reducing disaster risks and losses that are
based on effective use of science and technology.
[53] FEMA, National Mitigation Strategy: Partnerships for Building
Safer Communities (Washington, D.C.: 1995); National Science and
Technology Council, Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Natural Disaster Reduction, Reducing the Impacts of
Natural Hazards: A Strategy for the Nation (Washington, D.C.: 1992);
National Science and Technology Council, Committee on the Environment
and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Natural Disaster Reduction,
Natural Disaster Reduction: A Plan for the Nation (Washington, D.C.:
1996).
[54] GAO, Disaster Assistance: Information on Federal Disaster
Mitigation Efforts, GAO/T-RCED-98-67 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28, 1998).
[55] Pub. L. 106-390, § 103, 114 Stat. at 1557 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §
5134).
[56] Pub. L. No. 109-295, title II, 120 Stat. 1355, 1394 (2006)
(codified at various sections of titles 6 and 42 of the U.S. Code).
[57] Pub. L. No. 109-295, title II, § 602(7), 120 Stat. 1355, 1394
(2006) (codified at 6 U.S.C. § 701).
[58] Pub. L. No. 109-295, title II, § 611(11), 120 Stat. 1355, 1396-97
(2006) (codified at 6 U.S.C. § 313).
[59] See Charter of the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, Committee
on Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and Technology
Council.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov (202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: