Hazard Mitigation
Proposed Changes to FEMA's Multihazard Mitigation Programs Present Challenges Gao ID: GAO-02-1035 September 30, 2002Over the past 12 years, federal disaster assistance costs have totaled more than $39 billion (in fiscal year 2001 dollars)--a nearly fivefold increase over the previous 12-year period--as a result of a series of unusually large and frequent disasters and an increasing federal role in assisting communities and individuals affected by disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the lead agency for providing federal disaster relief, has provided the bulk of the assistance to help those in need respond to and recover from disasters. As the costs for disaster assistance have risen, FEMA has made disaster mitigation a primary goal in its efforts to reduce the long-term cost of disasters and has developed mitigation programs designed to minimize risk to property or individuals from natural or man-made hazards. FEMA's multihazard mitigation programs differ substantially in how they have sought to reduce the risks from hazards but each has features that the state emergency management community believes has been successful for mitigation. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), FEMA's oldest multihazard mitigation programs, is a post disaster program that has provided the bulk of mitigation assistance to states and communities. State mitigation officials view the HMGP as a highly successful means for achieving mitigation because commitment to undertake mitigation efforts is greatest in the aftermath of a disaster, and the HMGP takes advantage of this "window of opportunity." FEMA has used its more recent and smaller predisaster Project Impact program to provide funding directly to communities in every state, regardless of whether the state had recently experienced a disaster. State and local officials said that Project Impact has been successful in increasing awareness of and community support for mitigation efforts due to its funding of these types of activities. The proposed new mitigation program would fundamentally change FEMA's approach by eliminating the postdisaster HMGP and by funding mitigation activities on a nationally competitive basis. The administration believes that the new program will ensure that mitigation funding remains stable from year to year and that the most cost-beneficial projects receive funding. The heightened focus on homeland security has raised several issues related to the conduct of hazard mitigation activities. Foremost among these issues is whether the increased emphasis on preventing and preparing for terrorist events will result in less focus on natural hazard mitigation concerns.
GAO-02-1035, Hazard Mitigation: Proposed Changes to FEMA's Multihazard Mitigation Programs Present Challenges
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-1035
entitled 'Hazard Mitigation: Proposed Changes to FEMA's Multihazard
Mitigation Programs Present Challenges' which was released on October
15, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on International Security,
Proliferation, and Federal Services, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate:
September 2002:
HAZARD MITIGATION:
Proposed Changes to FEMA‘s Multihazard Mitigation Programs Present
Challenges:
GAO-02-1035:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
FEMA‘s Multihazard Mitigation Programs Differ Substantially and Both
Are Seen to Have Many Successful Attributes:
Proposed Program to Eliminate HMGP and Make Grants Nationally
Competitive Has Raised Participation and Implementation Concerns:
Heightened Homeland Security Concerns Present Challenges for Conducting
Hazard Mitigation Activities:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Sum of Federal Share
FYs 1996 through 2001:
Appendix III: Project Impact Communities:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Federal Management Agency:
Figures:
Figure 1: Disaster Relief Fund Expenditures and Number of Declared
Disasters, Fiscal Years 1978-2001:
Figure 2: Projects Undertaken With HMGP Funding:
Figure 3: Projects Undertaken with Project Impact:
Abbreviations:
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:
HMGP: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
NEMA: National Emergency Management Association:
Letter September 30, 2002:
The Honorable Daniel Akaka
Chairman, Subcommittee on International
Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Over the past 12 years, federal disaster assistance costs have totaled
more than $39 billion (in fiscal year 2001 dollars)--a nearly fivefold
increase over the previous 12-year period--as a result of a series of
unusually large and frequent disasters and an increasing federal role
in assisting communities and individuals affected by disasters. This
commitment to federal disaster assistance is continuing, as $4 billion
in disaster assistance costs are expected for fiscal year 2002, in part
due to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and their impact. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the lead agency for
providing federal disaster relief, has provided the bulk of the
assistance to help those in need respond to and recover from disasters.
As the costs for disaster assistance have risen, FEMA has made disaster
mitigation a primary goal in its efforts to reduce the long-term cost
of disasters and has developed mitigation programs designed to minimize
risk to property or individuals from natural or man-made hazards. The
most significant of these mitigation programs are the postdisaster
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the predisaster Project
Impact program.[Footnote 1] These are FEMA‘s sole multihazard programs
aimed at helping states and communities identify and address natural
hazard risks they deem most significant. From fiscal year 1996 through
2001, FEMA obligated about $2.3 billion for these programs.
Some criticism has emerged in recent years about the impact of these
FEMA programs. In response, the administration--in FEMA‘s 2003 fiscal
year budget request--has proposed changes to the multihazard mitigation
programs that are intended to improve the effectiveness of mitigation
efforts. These changes would combine the programs into a single
predisaster mitigation program that awards grants for mitigation
activities on a nationwide, competitive basis. In addition, the recent
proposals to expand federal programs and funding to enhance national
preparedness and to create the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
and move FEMA into the department may also affect the overall conduct
and content of disaster mitigation programs.
As agreed with your office, this report addresses the following
objectives:
* What are the characteristics of FEMA‘s current multihazard mitigation
programs, and what do states perceive as these programs‘ most
successful features?
* How would the proposed program change FEMA‘s current approach to
mitigation, and what are some of the concerns that have been raised
about this proposal?
* What are the issues resulting from the increased federal focus on
homeland security on conducting hazard mitigation efforts?
To address these issues, we analyzed national HMGP and Project Impact
data, program guidance, and available studies that evaluated these
programs. Additionally, we discussed the current programs, as well as
the new mitigation program outlined in the fiscal year 2003 budget
proposal, with emergency management officials in FEMA‘s headquarters
and three FEMA regional offices (Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois;
and Denver, Colorado). In addition, we interviewed state hazard
mitigation officials from 24 states within 4 FEMA regions (Regions IV,
V, VII, and VIII) to obtain their perspectives on the current FEMA
mitigation programs and on the administration‘s proposal for a new
mitigation program. These states have experienced a varied range of
disasters; consequently, the state mitigation officials represent a
wide range of experience with federal hazard mitigation programs. We
also conducted site visits in Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina
because these states have a wide variety of pre-and postdisaster
mitigation projects and are very active in both the HMGP and Project
Impact program. Further, we examined and assessed information on state
and local preparedness, intergovernmental relations, and issues
associated with the establishment of DHS that was available through
other work we have recently conducted. See appendix I for more details
on our scope and methodology.
Results in Brief:
FEMA‘s multihazard mitigation programs differ substantially in how they
have sought to reduce the risks from hazards but each has features that
the state emergency management community believes have been successful
for mitigation. The HMGP, FEMA‘s oldest and largest multihazard
mitigation program, is a postdisaster program that has provided the
bulk of mitigation assistance to states and communities. Through the
HMGP, states and communities that have experienced a presidentially
declared disaster receive funds primarily to implement ’brick and
mortar“ projects such as retrofitting structures or acquiring and
relocating structures from hazard-prone areas. State mitigation
officials view the HMGP as a highly successful means for achieving
mitigation because commitment to undertake mitigation efforts is
greatest in the aftermath of a disaster, and the HMGP takes advantage
of this ’window of opportunity.“ FEMA has used its more recent and
smaller predisaster Project Impact program to provide funding directly
to communities in every state, regardless of whether the state had
recently experienced a disaster. Communities have used Project Impact
in large measure on planning and outreach activities designed to (1)
help educate the public and promote mitigation, (2) assess risks and
identify potential mitigation projects, and (3) build partnerships and
leverage resources. State and local officials also said that Project
Impact has been successful in increasing awareness of and community
support for mitigation efforts due to its funding of these types of
activities.
The proposed new mitigation program would fundamentally change FEMA‘s
approach by eliminating the postdisaster HMGP and by funding mitigation
activities on a nationally competitive basis. The administration
believes that the new program will ensure that mitigation funding
remains stable from year to year and that the most cost-beneficial
projects receive funding. The proposal has raised concerns about
whether participation in mitigation activities might decrease and about
how FEMA might implement the program. Specifically, there are concerns
that (1) FEMA might not be able to take advantage of interest in
participating in mitigation activities that often emerges after a
disaster has struck, (2) some states might be entirely excluded from
mitigation funding, (3) outreach and planning activities that help
increase participation in mitigation might be curtailed, and (4) FEMA
might face challenges, such as establishing a process for comparing the
costs and benefits of projects, in implementing the new program. FEMA
officials have stated that they would attempt to address these concerns
if legislation authorizing the new program is enacted.
The heightened focus on homeland security has raised several issues
related to the conduct of hazard mitigation activities. Foremost among
these issues is whether the increased emphasis on preventing and
preparing for terrorism events will result in less focus on natural
hazard mitigation concerns. Some are concerned that nonsecurity
functions, such as hazard mitigation, will receive decreased emphasis.
Additionally, the role and relationship of predisaster mitigation
programs to proposed new preparedness efforts are uncertain and
potentially overlapping. Finally, if the HMGP program is continued, it
is not clear how its mitigation funds can be effectively used to reduce
the risk of terrorism damage and associated hardship, loss, and
suffering.
We provided a draft copy of this report to FEMA for its review. The
FEMA Director, in commenting on the report, generally agreed with the
information presented and noted that the report supports his belief
that both pre-and postdisaster mitigation programs are critical to
FEMA‘s success in reducing disaster losses. Additionally, the Director
stated that the expertise the agency has developed in natural hazard
mitigation is clearly applicable to the homeland security mission, and
FEMA looked forward to addressing the opportunities presented by the
proposal to include it in the new Department of Homeland Security. FEMA
also provided some technical comments that we considered and
incorporated in the report where appropriate.
Background:
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. Under the provisions of the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the federal
government will assist disaster-stricken states and communities in
their efforts to help those in need, remove debris, and rebuild damaged
structures, among other things. The costs for this federal disaster
assistance have grown significantly since the late 1980s. During the
12-year period ending in 1989, the expenditures from FEMA‘s disaster
relief fund totaled about $7 billion (in fiscal year 2001 dollars).
However, during the following 12-year period ending in 2001, as the
number of large, costly disasters has grown and the activities eligible
for federal assistance have increased, expenditures from the disaster
relief fund increased nearly fivefold to over $39 billion (in fiscal
year 2001 dollars). Figure 1 shows the annual amounts spent for
disaster relief and the number of disasters from fiscal years 1978 to
2001.
Figure 1: Disaster Relief Fund Expenditures and Number of Declared
Disasters, Fiscal Years 1978-2001:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Annual amounts are expressed in terms of expenditures for
disaster relief activities, not in terms of amounts appropriated by the
Congress for disaster assistance. There is generally a period of time
between when funds are appropriated and when actual disaster relief
costs are incurred and funds expended. Disaster relief fund
expenditures are in fiscal year 2001 dollars.
Source: FEMA.
[End of figure]
Disaster assistance costs are expected to remain high in 2002, in part
as a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. According to
FEMA‘s projections, disaster assistance expenditures from the disaster
relief fund in fiscal year 2002 will total more than $4 billion.
FEMA has been designated the lead agency for the nation‘s emergency
management system, and traditionally the agency has directed its
efforts towards disaster response and recovery. It also helps state and
local governments prepare for possible disaster events. However, as
costs for disaster assistance have increased, the agency has placed
increasing emphasis on disaster mitigation, defined by FEMA as
sustained action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people
and property from hazards and their effects. In fact, FEMA has made
disaster mitigation a primary goal in its efforts to reduce the long-
term cost of disasters. Among the most significant of these programs
are the HMGP and the Project Impact program. These programs are FEMA‘s
sole multihazard mitigation programs, helping states and communities
address the natural hazards and risks--such as earthquakes, floods,
tornadoes, and hurricanes--they deem most significant. Together, these
programs represent FEMA‘s most substantial mitigation efforts in terms
of expenditures, state and community involvement, and scope of
activities funded. Other mitigation programs FEMA conducts, although
not insignificant, address specific concerns, such as dam safety,
fires, and flooding, and are funded at relatively low levels.
The Congress has also recognized the benefits of mitigation, and as
recently as 2000 passed legislation to establish a national mitigation
program. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 sought to (1) reduce the
loss of life and property, economic disruption, and disaster assistance
cost resulting from natural disaster and (2) provide a source of
predisaster mitigation funding that will assist states and local
governments in implementing effective hazard mitigation measures. The
act provided authorization legislation for Project Impact‘s predisaster
mitigation activities, and established a funding formula under which
communities in all states would participate and receive funding. The
act also placed an emphasis on mitigation planning: it authorized the
use of HMGP funds for planning purposes and increased by one-third the
HMGP funding for states that meet enhanced planning criteria.
Recently, however, proposals have been made that may significantly
affect the mitigation programs conducted by FEMA. The administration
has proposed a substantial change to FEMA‘s multihazard mitigation
programs. The proposal, as contained in FEMA‘s fiscal year 2003 budget
request, would eliminate the HMGP and establish a new $300 million
program for predisaster mitigation. The program would also award grants
on a nationwide, competitive basis that is significantly different from
the formula-based grant process in the existing programs. The House and
Senate have both proposed creating a Department of Homeland Security
that would subsume FEMA as a part of the department. If enacted as
currently proposed, all the activities of FEMA--both those that are
security related and those, such as natural hazard mitigation programs,
which are nonsecurity related--would transfer to the department.
Further, the federal government is taking a more expanded role in state
and local government disaster prevention and preparedness efforts, and
it is initiating more activities--and providing more funding--for
predisaster assistance, with a substantial focus on terrorism. In this
regard, numerous legislative proposals are being considered that
increase planning requirements and funding to prepare for and prevent
future terrorist attacks.
FEMA‘s Multihazard Mitigation Programs Differ Substantially and Both
Are Seen to Have Many Successful Attributes:
FEMA‘s multihazard mitigation programs differ substantially and have
many successful attributes according to state and local officials. The
HMGP, FEMA‘s oldest and largest multihazard mitigation program, is a
postdisaster program that has provided the bulk of mitigation
assistance provided to states and communities. Through the HMGP, states
and communities that have experienced a presidentially declared
disaster receive funds to implement cost-effective mitigation projects.
States and communities have used these funds primarily to implement
’brick and mortar“ projects such as retrofitting structures or
acquiring and relocating structures from hazard-prone areas. The HMGP
is viewed as highly effective because it provides funding in the
aftermath of a disaster--when state and local governments as well as
individuals have a heightened interest in participating in mitigation
activities. As a result, states and local communities have been able to
fund critical mitigation projects in these periods. FEMA has used its
more recent and smaller predisaster Project Impact program to provide
mitigation assistance directly to communities in every state,
regardless of whether the state had recently experienced a disaster.
Communities have used Project Impact in large measure on planning and
outreach activities designed to (1) help educate the public and promote
mitigation, (2) assess risks and identify potential mitigation
projects, and (3) build partnerships and leverage resources. State and
local officials also said that Project Impact has been successful in
increasing awareness of and community support for mitigation efforts
due to its funding of these types of activities.
HMGP Has Focused on Implementing ’Brick and Mortar“ Projects in the
Aftermath of a Disaster:
The HMGP was created in 1988 to assist states and communities in
implementing long-term hazard mitigation measures following a major
disaster declaration.[Footnote 2] The purpose of the program is to
enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate
recovery period following a disaster so that future risk to lives and
property from severe natural hazards can be significantly reduced or
permanently eliminated. To accomplish this objective, the HMGP provides
funding to states affected by presidentially declared disasters to
undertake mitigation activities identified in state or local hazard
mitigation plans.
FEMA has provided a significant amount of funds for mitigation
activities through the HMGP. During fiscal years 1996 through 2001,
over $2.2 billion from FEMA‘s disaster relief fund was obligated to
states for this program. The maximum amount of HMGP funding available
to any state following a presidential disaster declaration had been up
to 15 percent of the total estimated amount of federal assistance
provided on a declared disaster; however, the Disaster Mitigation Act
of 2000 increased this amount to 20 percent for states that meet
enhanced planning criteria. Appendix II contains a listing of HMGP
obligations by year and state.
While FEMA provides the funding for the program, the responsibility for
administering the HMGP rests with states. To this end, states review,
prioritize, and select projects based upon state mitigation priorities
and available funds. State and local governments, Native American
tribes, and certain nonprofit organizations are eligible to develop
project applications. To be considered for selection by states,
projects must meet minimum eligibility requirements. For example,
projects must conform to the state hazard mitigation plan, comply with
environmental laws and regulations, and be cost-effective. FEMA will
provide up to 75 percent of the cost of mitigation projects selected
under HMGP; applicants must provide the remaining project
costs.[Footnote 3] Further, while states are responsible for selecting
projects, FEMA conducts the final eligibility review of projects to
ensure they meet all program requirements.
HMGP funds have primarily been used by states and communities to
implement ’brick and mortar“ projects. These types of projects include
the following:
* acquiring properties in hazard-prone areas and either demolishing the
associated structure or relocating the structure to a site outside the
hazard-prone area;[Footnote 4]
* performing modifications to structures, such as reinforcing roofs,
walls, and foundations, to protect them from floods, high winds, or
other natural hazards;
* constructing new storm water drainage systems and other flood control
projects; and:
* building protective structures, such as safe rooms inside schools in
tornado-prone areas, to better ensure the safety of individuals.
Figure 2 shows projects undertaken with HMGP funding.
Figure 2: Projects Undertaken With HMGP Funding:
[See PDF for image]
Source: FEMA.
[End of figure]
State Officials Believe that HMGP Successfully Takes Advantage of
Mitigation Opportunities in a Postdisaster Environment:
Hazard mitigation officials from the 24 states we contacted said that
the HMGP has been effective in stimulating action to mitigate the
impacts of natural hazards, primarily because it takes advantage of a
’window of opportunity“ that exists in the postdisaster environment.
The state hazard mitigation officials said that the states‘ and
localities‘ commitment to fund and implement mitigation measures is
most likely to occur soon after they have experienced the devastation
caused by a major disaster. These officials emphasized that states,
local communities, and citizens affected by a disaster recognize the
need for effective mitigation and are willing to share costs and take
the steps necessary to remove themselves from harm‘s way in the
immediate postdisaster environment; but as time passes they are less
willing to do so. Even officials from states that have traditionally
received little funding under this program, such as Wyoming and Utah,
expressed support for the program‘s postdisaster approach to funding
mitigation activities.
Below are some examples of significant mitigation projects that states
told us they were able to undertake with HMGP funds because of the
state, local, and citizen support for mitigation that existed in the
immediate postdisaster environment.
* Following the devastation of Hurricane Floyd in 1999, North Carolina
undertook a program to remove homes from flood-prone areas. In the
immediate aftermath of Floyd, the state legislature passed a disaster
recovery bill that not only provided $73.4 million in matching funds
but also an additional $160 million to buy out flood-prone properties.
The state used these funds, along with nearly $228 million in HMGP and
other federal postdisaster mitigation funds,[Footnote 5] to target
4,500 properties whose owners were willing to accept buyouts. As of
June 2002, the state had completed 70 percent of these buyouts.
* In the aftermath of the May 1999 tornadoes that damaged nearly 3,350
structures and left 6 people dead in the Wichita area, Kansas utilized
HMGP funding to make schools more tornado-resistant, a critical need
identified by the event. Inspections of damaged schools revealed that
some designated refuge areas had suffered significant damage and that
if children had been present, injuries would have likely occurred.
According to state officials, the event and the immediate availability
of HMGP funds were key in convincing local citizens and school district
officials to approve a school district bond that included funds to
construct tornado shelters inside schools. Funding from this bond
provided the local match needed to use HMGP funds to construct 24
shelters to protect approximately 7,800 students and staff.
* In response to a 2000 tornado that left 1 dead, injured more than
100, and damaged nearly 200 homes and businesses in the city of Xenia,
the state of Ohio utilized HMGP funding for the construction of safe
rooms in this tornado-prone community. Since 1900, Xenia has been hit
by 6 tornadoes including a 1974 tornado that killed 26 people. In the
wake of the 2000 tornado‘s devastation, the state and the community
provided 3 times the required HMGP match to undertake the construction
of residential safe rooms in the homes of 50 families.
According to mitigation officials from these states, it is unlikely
that these mitigation projects would have been undertaken without the
infusion of HMGP funding in the postdisaster environment.
Studies that have examined community action after a disaster support
state officials‘ claims that a window of opportunity exists and is
critical for accomplishing mitigation activities. For example, a 1997
university study that examined public response after hurricanes and
earthquakes found that communities and local decision makers were more
willing to undertake mitigation soon after a disaster than at other
times.[Footnote 6] Similarly, a FEMA sponsored case study of natural
disasters in South Florida noted that the focus on mitigation
dissipates after cleanup and recovery are completed as public attention
moves elsewhere.[Footnote 7] Further, according to the director of the
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center located at
the University of Colorado, research generally suggests that local
political support for mitigation is strongest in the approximately 6
months following a disaster, after which funding becomes more difficult
to obtain as other state and local issues take precedent. He added that
research suggests that public support for mitigation lasts for about 1
year, during which time citizens are more willing to participate in
mitigation activities.
Project Impact Has Focused on Developing Broad Community Support for
Mitigation Activities before a Disaster Strikes:
Whereas the HMGP has focused on implementing projects in a postdisaster
environment, the Project Impact program focused on developing broad
community support for mitigation activities before a disaster strikes.
To accomplish this end, the Project Impact program provided small, one-
time grants directly to communities, which, among other things, were
designed to develop mitigation plans, build effective partnerships, and
encourage private sector financial participation.
During fiscal years 1997 through 2001, Project Impact provided a total
of $77 million to communities within every state and certain U.S.
territories. Unlike the HMGP, the amount of Project Impact funding
available to communities within a state was not predicated upon the
occurrence of a disaster; in fact, the program was structured so that
under its funding formula, communities in every state participated in
the program. By 2001, there were nearly 250 communities participating
in the program, with Project Impact communities receiving grants
between $60,000 and $1,000,000. Appendix III lists Project Impact
grants by year and community. While states selected which communities
received Project Impact grants, communities were responsible for
selecting the mitigation measures to fund with these grants. Similar to
the HMGP, however, communities were required to provide 25 percent of
the costs for the mitigation measures.[Footnote 8]
While the mitigation measures could be ’brick and mortar“ projects,
they could also fund other activities such as establishing community
partnerships, supporting public awareness of mitigation, identifying
hazards, and conducting risk assessments. Additionally, Project Impact
funds could be used to promote the concept of personal and community
responsibility for mitigation measures. For example, FEMA encouraged
communities to establish committees composed of local officials,
business professionals, and other stakeholders to develop and implement
mitigation activities of importance to the community.
Figure 3 shows projects undertaken with Project Impact.
Figure 3: Projects Undertaken with Project Impact:
[See PDF for image]
Sources: FEMA (upper left), Seattle Emergency Management (upper right),
Morgan County, CO (lower left), and New Hanover County, NC (lower
right).
[End of figure]
State Officials Identify Project Impact‘s Focus on Planning and
Partnerships As Successful Features That Help Communities Implement
Mitigation Measures:
The state emergency management officials from the 24 states, as well as
the Project Impact communities we visited, believe Project Impact has
also been successful in improving mitigation efforts throughout the
country. They stated that the program‘s focus on planning and
developing broad community support for mitigation in a predisaster
environment has been very beneficial in building grass root support for
mitigation. The state officials identified four specific features of
the Project Impact program as being most beneficial, namely the
program‘s funding of mitigation planning activities, development of
partnerships to address mitigation needs, providing ’seed money“ to
attract additional funding, and heightening of mitigation awareness
resulting from education and outreach activities.
A primary benefit of Project Impact was its emphasis on developing
private and public sector partnerships as a means for communities to
address their mitigation needs. According to state and community
officials, effective hazard mitigation requires the involvement of not
only governments but also of the private sector--both business and
individuals--to fully identify and address concerns. They stated that
Project Impact had been very successful in creating partnerships that
identify, and in most cases fund, mitigation activities. For example, a
major corporation in Deerfield Beach, Florida, became a Project Impact
partner and, at its own expense, installed impact resistance glass and
concrete roofs in all of its structures to make them more disaster
resistant. This corporation also donated shutters for the homes of some
low-income, elderly residents. Similarly, in Wilmington, North
Carolina, a local home improvement store used its facilities to
distribute hurricane preparedness and mitigation brochures and was a
major financial contributor to the local Hurricane Preparedness Expo
that featured speakers and demonstrations to assist residents with
their mitigation efforts.
A second benefit of Project Impact was its focus on planning as a
critical phase in implementing mitigation projects. According to state
and local mitigation officials, Project Impact assisted communities in
identifying vulnerabilities, assessing risks, and developing and
prioritizing mitigation projects to address their needs. Some states
and communities pointed out that the development of the mitigation plan
would not have been done without Project Impact funding. For example,
Chattooga County, Georgia, hazard mitigation officials stated that the
Project Impact program provided funding and technical assistance that
enabled them to assess their risks and develop a local mitigation plan
that prioritized projects to address these risks. As a result, the
community is developing a project to connect six separate water systems
within the county to address their drought risk.
Third, Project Impact was important for obtaining additional funding
from the private sector to promote and implement mitigation. State and
community officials pointed out that they utilized their Project Impact
grant as ’seed money“ to attract additional funding from businesses,
nonprofits and other government agencies. For example, Centerville,
Utah, received $500,000 in Project Impact funds in 1998 that it
utilized in part to host several meetings and outreach sessions with
local businesses and government officials to solicit additional
funding. The outreach effort allowed them to leverage an additional
$2,134,447 through partnerships with the private and public sector.
This additional funding enabled the city to address many of its
mitigation needs such as upgrading the city‘s storm drainage system,
constructing a debris basin to eliminate the downstream flood hazard,
and retrofitting buildings to better stabilize them against
earthquakes.
Lastly, the state and community mitigation officials also stated that
the education and outreach aspects of the program were instrumental in
prompting the public and private sector to undertake mitigation
activities. They told us that this was one of the strongest points of
the program, as it increased the public‘s awareness and concern about
mitigation and in the view of some officials, became an impetus for
achieving mitigation efforts without requiring government funding. For
instance, according to information provided by Deerfield Beach,
Florida, one citizen credited the outreach efforts of the local Project
Impact program for motivating him to utilize his own funds to construct
Marina One, a disaster-resistant structure for housing boats.
Proposed Program to Eliminate HMGP and Make Grants Nationally
Competitive Has Raised Participation and Implementation Concerns:
FEMA‘s fiscal year 2003 budget request proposes eliminating the HMGP
and establishing a new $300 million program for predisaster mitigation.
This proposed program would award mitigation grants on a competitive
basis--instead of the current formula-based awards--to better ensure
that funding goes to the most cost-beneficial projects. The proposal
has raised concerns, however, about whether participation in mitigation
activities might decrease and about how FEMA might implement the
program.
Proposed Program Would Eliminate HMGP and Award Predisaster Mitigation
Grants on a Nationally Competitive Basis:
Concerns have been raised about demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of
some mitigation projects. For example, in August 1999, we reported that
although established procedures existed for selecting HMGP projects,
FEMA exempted four categories of projects from benefit-cost analysis,
including the purchase of substantially damaged properties in 100-year:
floodplains.[Footnote 9] These projects were exempt because program
officials believe that, in the case of damaged properties in the
floodplains, they were being consistent with the policies of the
National Flood Insurance Program that allows the purchase of damaged
properties in floodplains without benefit-cost analysis, or in the
other cases because determination of benefits was difficult.
Nevertheless, for these categories of projects--the number of which
FEMA could not identify--the cost-effectiveness was unknown. Similarly,
FEMA‘s Office of Inspector General reported in March 1998 and again in
February 2001 concerns about the cost-effectiveness of mitigation
projects. The office pointed out that analyses had often not been done
and techniques for conducting them were poorly understood. The
Inspector General‘s office also reported that many projects had been
exempted from analysis.
The administration has also had concerns about the cost-effectiveness
of mitigation projects, and in FEMA‘s fiscal year 2003 budget request,
proposes eliminating the HMGP and establishing a $300 million
predisaster mitigation program that would award grants on a nationally
competitive basis. According to the budget request, the administration
has concluded that 45 percent of HMGP projects undertaken from 1993 to
2000 were either minimally cost effective or not cost effective at all.
Consequently, the administration proposed substantial changes to FEMA‘s
multihazard mitigation programs. Under the proposed new program,
mitigation grants would be awarded on a nationally competitive basis--
instead of the current formula-based awards--to better ensure that
funding goes to the most cost-beneficial projects. According to Office
of Management and Budget officials, future mitigation efforts funded by
the federal government need to be those that provide the most benefit
from a nationwide perspective and to not be limited primarily to states
affected by disasters. The officials said that only through a program
that does not allocate funds in any formula--but is instead based on
objective criteria such as
cost-effectiveness--can the government be best assured that it
maximizes the value of its mitigation program funding.
The administration stated that the program would ensure more stability
to disaster mitigation efforts since a consistent level of mitigation
assistance would be available to states and communities, and they would
no longer be dependent on disaster declarations to obtain mitigation
grants. Further, according to the administration, a consistent level of
funding would allow states and communities to develop more
comprehensive proposals and projects to reduce their overall risks,
consistent with state and local mitigation plans and would also
strengthen states‘ capability to pursue their mitigation priorities.
Proposed Program Has Raised Participation and Implementation Concerns:
From our analysis of the proposed program and discussions with FEMA and
state hazard mitigation officials, concerns have been raised about
whether participation in mitigation activities might decrease and about
how FEMA might implement the program. Specifically, there are concerns
that (1) FEMA and states may not be able to take advantage of interest
in participating in mitigation activities that often emerges after a
disaster has struck; (2) some states might be entirely excluded from
mitigation funding; (3) outreach and planning activities that help
increase participation in mitigation might be curtailed; and (4) FEMA
might face challenges, such as establishing a process for comparing the
costs and benefits of projects, in implementing the new program.
Lessened Ability to Take Advantage of Mitigation Opportunities:
The proposed program may limit the ability of emergency management
officials to take advantage of mitigation opportunities. State
officials with whom we spoke maintained that the postdisaster
environment is the most conducive for implementing mitigation efforts,
and that it can be difficult to maintain public or private sector
support for mitigation in a predisaster environment. To illustrate this
point, officials from Ohio noted how the public interest in
constructing safe rooms has diminished since a tornado struck the
community of Xenia in 2000. Despite the current availability of
predisaster funds, businesses that expressed interest in constructing
public safe rooms in the immediate aftermath of the disaster have now,
2 years later, shown little interest in doing so. Similarly, North
Carolina officials noted how state support for mitigation has
diminished since the devastation of Hurricane Floyd in 1999. In June
2002, in an attempt to address serious budgetary issues, the state
legislature began an effort to reallocate some of the funds that had
already been obligated to mitigation after Floyd. As a result, the
remaining 30 percent of the planned buyouts are in jeopardy, according
to state officials. The National Emergency:
Management Association (NEMA)[Footnote 10] has expressed similar views.
Its official position paper on the budget proposal notes, ’in the tight
fiscal environment that states and communities are facing, the
commitment of funding is most likely to occur only shortly after they
have experienced devastation.“:
Some States Might Be Excluded From Mitigation Funding:
All states might not participate in mitigation activities under the new
proposal. Many states rely on federal funding to support their
mitigation programs, and without the current formula-based programs to
provide a minimal level of funding support, their mitigation programs
may not continue. According to NEMA, at least 10 states derive all
funding for managing the state‘s hazard mitigation program from the
current federal mitigation programs, and officials from other states
told us that state legislatures that currently provide mitigation
program funding often require a track record of federal funding for a
program before they will provide additional or continual funding for
staff working on such programs. State officials said that without a
base level of support from the federal government, a number of state
mitigation programs will no longer exist, because the states will no
longer employ the staff needed to implement and support a competitive
program. Several state officials said that such diminished funding will
not achieve the new program‘s objectives of developing better projects
or strengthening their ability to pursue mitigation priorities.
Moreover, they added that this deviates from the manner in which the
Congress recently mandated that predisaster funds be allocated, as the
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 directed a program for predisaster
mitigation that involved all states.
Outreach and Planning Activities May Be Curtailed:
The public outreach and planning activities that were widely conducted
under the Project Impact program may be jeopardized under a competitive
predisaster mitigation program. Both FEMA and state officials said that
such activities are essential to creating a positive environment for
mitigation, because these activities create grassroot support and
interest in conducting mitigation. However, both groups stated that
establishing the financial benefit of these activities is difficult.
For example, North Carolina officials pointed to the Project Impact
efforts in Wilmington that involved distributing hurricane maps to all
schoolchildren showing flood and storm surge areas, hurricane
preparedness actions, and possible mitigation measures. The officials
said this activity is very beneficial in building support for
mitigation--and ultimately persuading communities and individuals to
give high priority to mitigation and to make their own investments in
mitigation measures--but that it would be extremely difficult to
demonstrate a financial benefit commensurate with the cost. Concerns
also exist about whether mitigation planning might decrease under the
proposed program. According to state and local mitigation officials,
Project Impact‘s emphasis on planning assisted communities in
identifying vulnerabilities, assessing risks, and developing and
prioritizing mitigation projects to address their needs. Some state and
community officials pointed out that the development of the mitigation
plan would not have been done without Project Impact funding. FEMA had
permitted Project Impact to be used to develop and update plans; state
and local officials are concerned that with the new nationally
competitive program, such support may diminish.
FEMA May Face Difficulties in Implementing Program:
FEMA may face challenges in designing and implementing the proposed
program, particularly in selecting projects on a competitive,
nationwide basis. Most significantly, FEMA has not yet established a
viable process for comparing the relative costs and benefits of
competing mitigation projects. The current benefit-cost analysis model
does not fully measure the indirect benefits associated with projects.
FEMA has acknowledged that its current benefit-cost analysis model does
not capture all the indirect benefits of projects, such as
environmental and social benefits, or mitigation activities such as
outreach and planning. In this regard, FEMA is funding a study that
examines the benefits of mitigation and which will, in part, address
the issue of measuring the benefits of outreach, planning, and other
activities that have benefits that are hard to quantify. However, FEMA
does not expect this study to be completed and possibly used to improve
benefit-cost analyses until 2004 at the earliest.
State mitigation officials agreed that FEMA would have difficulty in
applying benefit-cost analyses to mitigation projects in a competitive
program. They said that not only is it difficult to demonstrate the
benefits of certain projects and the indirect benefits of others, but
that the current analyses are difficult to do and are used primarily
for determining project eligibility rather than on determining the full
project benefits. In this regard, they said that in doing these
analyses under the HMGP, they frequently discontinued additional
analysis of the benefit of a project once the ratio of benefits to cost
were equal--which meets the minimum program requirements. The officials
said that this is the primary reason why the administration views many
projects as only minimally cost effective.
Further, FEMA faces challenges in staffing and operating a nationally
competitive mitigation program. Both FEMA and state officials said that
states currently perform most of the analysis and selection of
projects, while FEMA provides final approval. However, under a
nationally competitive program, they said that FEMA will be required to
play a greater role in order to administer a fair and effective
competition, and will need additional staffing. FEMA mitigation
officials expect that a minimum of 41 permanent employees will be
needed to staff a new competitive predisaster mitigation program.
Additionally, the officials said that FEMA would need budget authority
to fund the new positions because they are prohibited from using the
disaster relief fund--currently used to fund temporary employees to
conduct the HMGP--for predisaster activities.
FEMA officials are aware of concerns about the proposed predisaster
mitigation program and plan to address these concerns if legislation
creating the new program is enacted. Moreover, FEMA has already
provided some indications of how it might implement the program.
Regarding concerns about the elimination of the HMGP, the FEMA Director
acknowledged, in response to questions raised during appropriation
hearings this year, that unique opportunities for mitigation exist in
the immediate aftermath of a disaster and agreed that the HMGP has been
effective in enabling states and communities to complete critical
mitigation work during this period. Consequently, he stated there is a
need for both pre-and postdisaster mitigation efforts and that if the
Congress adopts the proposal in its current form, FEMA would attempt to
design the program with sufficient flexibility to assist communities
with postdisaster mitigation activities.
FEMA officials also said that they agree with states that a base level
of funding for all states will better enable mitigation programs to
succeed. They told us that this funding would be essential for states
to enable them to participate in the proposed competitive program.
However, as discussed earlier, the proposal, as currently written,
would appear to prohibit FEMA from providing this guaranteed base. FEMA
officials stated that they would attempt to work with states as well as
OMB to develop a funding mechanism that would ensure that all states
maintain a mitigation program.
Regarding the challenges that FEMA might face in implementing a
competitive evaluation and selection process, FEMA has emphasized that
it will collaborate with its state partners and other stakeholders in
defining the competitive grant program and policy. This effort would
include developing a fair, reasonable, and appropriate means for
competitive review and selection of grant proposals. For example, FEMA
officials stated that they would like to base their decisions on more
than just cost-effectiveness and that they currently envision criteria
that would focus on the quality of the proposed projects and the
ability of the projects to address state and community mitigation
priorities, as well as cost-effectiveness.
FEMA recently asked for input on how to best address these challenges.
On August 6, 2002, it issued a notice in the Federal Register
soliciting comments and ideas from interested parties on the process
for implementing the mitigation grant program on a competitive basis.
FEMA requested responses on specific concerns, which among other things
included (1) how applications should be evaluated to ensure that the
most cost-beneficial projects are funded, (2) the type of activities
that should be funded, (3) whether funds should be set aside for states
to maintain a level of mitigation capability, and (4) whether funds
should be set aside for planning in addition to competitive grants.
FEMA expects to begin consideration of the comments it receives in the
fall if the proposed predisaster mitigation grant program is included
in its fiscal year 2003 appropriations.
Heightened Homeland Security Concerns Present Challenges for Conducting
Hazard Mitigation Activities:
The events of September 11, 2001, demonstrated the vulnerability of our
nation to terrorist attack, and subsequent efforts have been initiated
to strengthen the nation‘s homeland security. These events, as well as
the proposal to establish a Department of Homeland Security, represent
a substantially changed environment under which FEMA and its hazard
mitigation programs operate now and will operate in the future. As a
result, in addition to the proposal to change the multihazard
mitigation programs, a number of broader issues face hazard mitigation
efforts. These issues include the following:
* The potential that an emphasis on terrorism efforts may result in a
decrease in natural hazard mitigation activities.
* The proliferation and overlap of plans and programs that address
mitigation-related concerns that may cause duplication of effort and
confusion.
* The effective use of HMGP mitigation funds to reduce the risk of
terrorism damage and associated hardship, loss, and suffering is not
clear.
Emphasis on Terrorism May Result in Less Focus on Natural Hazards:
The proposed placement of FEMA within the DHS places functions that
have traditionally not been security related, such as hazard
mitigation, into a department whose primary mission will be to provide
a secure national environment, including actions to prevent and prepare
for possible terrorist events. Supporters of FEMA‘s transfer in its
entirety to DHS argue that dual use of funding for natural and man-made
disasters and emergencies is appropriate in an ’all hazards“ approach
to disaster assistance. For example, the Director of FEMA‘s Office of
National Preparedness said that leaving FEMA intact in DHS would
enhance the agency‘s preparedness capabilities, not detract from the
agency‘s natural disaster response and recovery functions. Further,
FEMA mitigation officials said that they are currently working to
identify terrorism mitigation activities that are also ’all hazard“ and
address natural hazard mitigation priorities.
Concerns have been raised that with the emphasis on terrorism
preparedness in the aftermath of September 11TH, the transfer of FEMA
to DHS may result in decreased emphasis on mitigation of natural
hazards. Opponents of the FEMA transfer, such as a former FEMA
director, said that activities not associated with homeland security
would suffer if relocated to a large department dedicated essentially
to issues of homeland security. They contend that the agency‘s disaster
mitigation programs and other efforts integral to FEMA‘s current
mission that have no bearing on homeland security will be compromised.
They argue that agency resources dedicated to those functions have
already been, and would continue to be, diverted to the homeland
security mission, resulting in diminished federal capabilities for
nonnational security activities.
Role and Relationship of Predisaster Mitigation to New Preparedness
Efforts:
As a result of the terrorist attacks, many new initiatives have been
undertaken to begin addressing security concerns; however, many of them
raise questions regarding the role and relationship of preparedness and
mitigation efforts. FEMA requires states and communities to develop
mitigation plans to obtain mitigation funding; however, other proposed
legislation calls for similar, but more specialized, homeland security
preparedness plans that may overlap with the required mitigation plans.
For example, proposed legislation directed at increasing port security
will require all facilities in port areas, as well as the Department of
Transportation, to develop plans for action to deter and minimize
damage:
from catastrophic emergencies.[Footnote 11] FEMA hazard mitigation
officials said that they are aware that there were numerous and related
planning requirements being placed on communities, and that they are
working toward identifying and minimizing the impact of such
requirements. The officials said they are confident that they will
become aware of all such requirements due to the plans to consolidate
preparedness efforts within FEMA. They said that planning requirements
that address mitigation-type efforts will be adequately coordinated
and, where appropriate, incorporated by reference into overlapping or
related plans to minimize the burden on all stakeholders.
The new initiatives may also result in duplication or overlap in
programs. Many programs are being initiated that address the
predisaster environment, most significantly the $3.5 billion first
responder grant program proposed by the administration to fund state
and local first responders for terrorist attacks. The first responder
grant program would provide funding to states and local governments to
prepare for terrorist events, and a portion of this preparedness may
involve activities that could be viewed as mitigation. Other programs,
such as the Emergency Preparedness Enhancement Pilot Program, which is
contained in proposed DHS legislation, may also involve the development
of and funding for mitigation related activities, because it will
provide funds for improved security measures at private entities. The
number and size of these programs could result in duplication of effort
and confusion among the state and local governments partnering in
mitigation efforts. We found such problems occurred in the past with
other assistance being provided to states and localities. We reported
in September 2001, for example, that first responder training and
assistance programs were being conducted by three federal
organizations--FEMA, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau
of Investigation--which resulted in overlapping and duplicative
activities and caused confusion on the part of state and local
officials.[Footnote 12]
Usefulness of HMGP Funding for Terrorism Disasters Is Unclear:
As discussed earlier, HMGP funds have been typically made available to
states following presidentially declared disasters in amounts totaling
as much as 15 percent of the federal grant funds spent on the disaster.
HMGP funds have historically been used for natural hazard mitigation,
although no restrictions have been made on the types of disasters for
which these funds are made available. Consequently, HMGP funds can be,
and have been, made available after disasters resulting from terrorist
attacks. In fact, according to FEMA officials, after the 1995 explosion
at the federal building in Oklahoma City, HMGP funds were made
available to Oklahoma. The amount provided was relatively small--$1
million--which FEMA officials said was due to the low amount of
disaster assistance funds spent on this disaster. According to these
officials, the mitigation funding provided to Oklahoma was used for
natural hazard mitigation because FEMA has traditionally interpreted
the HMGP authority to limit funding to only natural hazard mitigation
projects.
As shown by the disaster in New York, the HMGP funding that could be
provided in response to terrorist events may be substantial. Currently,
FEMA has been authorized to fund disaster assistance to New York
approaching $9 billion. Based on this level of assistance funding and
the current 15 percent HMGP funding formula, New York could have
received about $1.3 billion in HMGP funding for mitigation projects.
President Bush, however, has limited the amount of HMGP funds the state
can receive. In a September 18, 2001, amendment to his major disaster
declaration for New York, the President stated that because of the
unique nature and magnitude of this event, federal funds from the HMGP
would be limited to 5 percent of the aggregate amount of federal grant
assistance. FEMA officials said that at this percentage rate, HMGP
funding to New York might total about $417 million.
The key objective of the HMGP is to reduce the risk of future damage,
hardship, loss, or suffering; however, it is not clear how mitigation
funds can be effectively used to reduce the risk of terrorism damage
and associated hardship, loss, or suffering. FEMA officials said that
it would be difficult to develop a benefit-cost methodology for
terrorism mitigation, because there is little data upon which to
calculate the likelihood of an event and thereby determine the
project‘s benefit. FEMA officials said that they are undertaking a
pilot program with New York to identify terrorism-related hazard
mitigation measures, such as physical protection and security-related
projects that can meet cost-effectiveness criteria.
Concluding Observations:
FEMA‘s current multihazard mitigation programs are viewed positively by
the emergency management community, but questions about the programs‘
cost-effective projects have lead to a proposal to consolidate and
revise them. The focus of the proposed new program on obtaining the
most cost-effectiveness projects, in light of current budget concerns,
is well intended. However, the issue facing decisionmakers is whether
the proposed revision to the program will make the program more
effective in achieving disaster mitigation objectives. The structure of
the new program may not be able to capitalize on the characteristics of
the current programs that have been viewed as successful--such as
acting in the postdisaster environment to quickly take advantage of
mitigation opportunities and undertaking outreach activities to develop
grassroot support for mitigation. A balance that includes these
characteristics in the program may need to be struck, and we are
encouraged to see that FEMA is obtaining input and consensus on how to
best structure the new program if it obtains congressional approval.
Furthermore, without careful structuring of the program, FEMA‘s hazard
mitigation program may not remain consistent with the approach of
disaster mitigation legislation passed only 2 years ago by the Congress
that emphasized involvement by all states, funding for planning
activities, and increased postdisaster mitigation funding for states
willing to undertake enhanced mitigation planning efforts.
The proposed inclusion of FEMA in DHS and, in the broader context, the
heightened concern over terrorism raises more fundamental issues about
hazard mitigation efforts, such as (1) how natural hazard mitigation
activities would fare in the new department that focuses on terrorism,
(2) whether planning and program efforts in the mitigation and
preparedness area should remain separate and distinct, and (3) how the
HMGP--and the legislation authorizing it--address the role and
rationale for mitigation after a terrorism-caused disaster.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft copy of this report to FEMA for its review. The
FEMA Director, in a September 24, 2002, letter commenting on the
report, generally agreed with the information presented and noted that
the report supports his belief that both pre-and postdisaster
mitigation programs are critical to FEMA‘s success in reducing disaster
losses. Additionally, the Director stated that the expertise the agency
has developed in natural hazard mitigation is clearly applicable to the
homeland security mission, and FEMA looked forward to addressing the
opportunities presented by the proposal to include it in the new
Department of Homeland Security. FEMA also provided some technical
comments that we considered and have incorporated into this report
where appropriate. FEMA comments are contained in appendix IV.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report for 10 days. At
that time, we will send copies of this report to the appropriate
congressional committees; the Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency; and the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-2834 or at heckerj@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report
were Mark Abraham, Colin Fallon, Kirk Kiester, Aisha Cabrer, John
McGrail, and Jack Schulze.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
JayEtta Z. Hecker,
Director, Physical Infrastructure:
Signed by JayEtta Z. Hecker
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Debate has emerged in recent years about the effectiveness of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency‘s (FEMA) multihazard mitigation
programs--the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the Project
Impact program. The administration also has proposed, in FEMA‘s fiscal
year 2003 budget request, to change the multihazard mitigation programs
to improve their effectiveness. Further, the recent proposal to create
the Department of Homeland Security includes moving FEMA into that
department, which may also impact on the overall conduct and content of
these programs. The Chairman of the Subcommittee on International
Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs, asked us to determine the available viewpoints on
the effectiveness of these mitigation programs and the possible impacts
of the two proposals. We addressed the following objectives:
* What are the characteristics of FEMA‘s current multihazard mitigation
programs, and what do states perceive as these programs‘ most
successful features?
* How would the proposed program change FEMA‘s current approach to
mitigation, and what are some of the concerns that have been raised
about this proposal?
* What are the issues resulting from the increased federal focus on
homeland security on conducting hazard mitigation efforts?
To determine the characteristics of FEMA‘s multihazard mitigation
programs, we reviewed FEMA‘s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and
Project Impact program regulations, policy guidance and handbooks,
which identified and described the programs‘ purpose, goals,
eligibility criteria, cost-effective criteria and funding. We also
examined relevant legislation that described the programs‘ objectives,
funding, and the focus of its activities. We conducted a review of the
available literature on the multihazard mitigation programs, including
past GAO, FEMA Inspector General, and other reports that provided a
perspective on these programs. We also discussed these programs with
FEMA officials in Washington, D.C., as well as in its regional offices
in Atlanta, Georgia; Denver, Colorado; and Chicago, Illinois.
To determine state mitigation officials viewpoints on the successful
features of these programs, as well as their overall perspectives on
the programs, we interviewed state hazard mitigation officials from 24
states within 4 FEMA regions (IV, V, VII and VIII) to obtain their
views about their experiences administering and utilizing these
programs.[Footnote 13] We selected these regions and the states within
these regions because they provide a representation of small and large
states that contain urban and rural communities that have received both
small and larger amounts of multihazard mitigation funding. These
states also have varied experience with disasters. We examined and
synthesized documents provided by these officials detailing their
experiences with these mitigation programs. We also conducted site
visits and interviewed local hazard mitigation officials in Georgia,
Florida, and North Carolina because these states have a wide variety of
pre-and postdisaster mitigation projects and are very active in both
the HMGP and Project Impact program. We also reviewed studies available
from the Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
and from FEMA that addressed the benefits and results of both the HMGP
and the Project Impact program. In addition, we met with officials in
OMB‘s Financial Institutions Branch to obtain their perspectives on the
effectiveness of the current programs as well as on the objectives for
the proposed new mitigation program.
To determine how the current legislative proposals might change FEMA‘s
mitigation programs, we interviewed FEMA headquarters and regional
mitigation officials to gain their perspective about the proposed
changes. Specifically, with regard to the proposal to establish a new
predisaster mitigation program, we obtained their viewpoints on what
challenges they would confront in (1) developing the criterion and
processes of selecting mitigation projects; (2) addressing
administrative issues, such as staffing; and (3) addressing any
statutory issues from replacing the HMGP with a new competitive grant
program. We also gained the perspectives of state hazard mitigation
officials we interviewed on how they perceived the proposed changes
would impact their ability to pursue mitigation activities. We also
reviewed available literature that presented the viewpoints of various
organizations on either the advantages or disadvantages of the proposed
program.
To determine the issues related to conducting hazard mitigation efforts
as a result of the increased federal focus on homeland security, we
drew upon recently completed work that is examining the challenges
surrounding the establishment of that department. This work included
assessments of the administration‘s proposal to establish a Department
of Homeland Security, examinations of the relationships between
federal, state, and local governments in undertaking terrorism
preparedness efforts, a review of legislative proposals related to the
Coast Guard and port security, as well as ongoing work that assesses
port security efforts. We also discussed the effects of including
mitigation activities with FEMA mitigation officials to determine from
them the concerns that exist over the movement of mitigation activities
into the Department of Homeland Security.
We conducted our review from November 2001 through August 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Sum of Federal Share FYs
1996 through 2001:
State: Alabama; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $28,388,389.
State: Alaska; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $4,427,222.
State: American Samoa; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $4,439,989.
State: Arizona; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $5,846,952.
State: Arkansas; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $28,863,818.
State: California; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $842,164,071.
State: Colorado; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $2,240,270.
State: Connecticut; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $228,030.
State: Delaware; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $1,458,432.
State: District of Columbia; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $333,194.
State: Federated States of Micronesia; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $1,714,614.
State: Florida; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $113,767,617.
State: Georgia; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $68,576,382.
State: Guam; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $15,405,037.
State: Hawaii; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $5,516,732.
State: Idaho; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $7,900,582.
State: Illinois; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $48,121,513.
State: Indiana; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $4,377,889.
State: Iowa; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $19,791,384.
State: Kansas; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $8,999,484.
State: Kentucky; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $23,895,191.
State: Louisiana; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $27,395,780.
State: Maine; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $8,621,478.
State: Marshall Islands; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $1,660,762.
State: Maryland; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $3,954,401.
State: Massachusetts; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $14,250,969.
State: Michigan; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $13,908,460.
State: Minnesota; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $52,155,805.
State: Mississippi; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $20,251,013.
State: Missouri; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $7,028,575.
State: Montana; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $1,323,473.
State: Nebraska; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $19,154,960.
State: Nevada; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $4,497,474.
State: New Hampshire; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $3,081,072.
State: New Jersey; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $7,900,902.
State: New Mexico; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $516,529.
State: New York; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $32,909,514.
State: North Carolina; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $109,273,418.
State: North Dakota; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $61,174,509.
State: Northern Mariana Islands; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $1,888,603.
State: Ohio; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $19,964,660.
State: Oklahoma; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $2,434,709.
State: Oregon; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $14,305,475.
State: Pennsylvania; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $41,808,975.
State: Puerto Rico; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $251,740,124.
State: Republic of Palau; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $238,864.
State: Rhode Island; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $52,250.
State: South Carolina; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $6,344,480.
State: South Dakota; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $17,201,876.
State: Tennessee; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $16,505,454.
State: Texas; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $77,265,725.
State: Utah; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $0.
State: Vermont; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $4,873,516.
State: Virgin Islands; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $63,739,358.
State: Virginia; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $16,906,846.
State: Washington; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $35,603,443.
State: West Virginia; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $16,678,378.
State: Wisconsin; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $15,977,313.
State: Wyoming; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $41,178.
State: Total; Sum of federal share - obligated
(FY 1996 thru 2001): $2,229,087,113.
Source: FEMA.
[End of Table]
[End of section]
Appendix III Project Impact Communities:
Community: Alabama:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: Baldwin County; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: Mobile County with Town of Dauphin Island & City of Bayou La
Batre; Year: 1999; Grant: $150,000.
Community: Jefferson County; Year: 1999; Grant: $150,000.
Community: City of Fort Payne; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Prattville/Autauga County; Year: 2001; Grant:
$300,000.
Community: Alaska:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: Municipality of Anchorage; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: Kenai Peninsula Borough; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Matanuska-Susitna Borough; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Valdez Borough; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Arizona:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Tempe; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Yuma; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Glendale; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Scottsdale; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Arkansas:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: Clay County/City of Piggott/City of Corning/City of Rector;
Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Arkadelphia; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Tuckerman; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of West Memphis; South Arkansas Community Development;
Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.
Community: California:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Oakland; Year: 1997; Grant: $1,000,000.
Community: County of Santa Barbara/City of Santa Barbara; Year: 1998;
Grant: $500,000.
Community: San Bernadino County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Napa County[A]; Year: 1999; Grant: $0.
Community: City of Berkeley; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: County of Colusa; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.
Community: City of San Leandro; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.
Community: Las Virgenes Malibu Council of Governments (includes the
cities of Agoura Hills, Calabassas, Hidden Hills, Malibu & Westlake
Village); Year: 2001; Grant: $100,000.
Community: Colorado:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Ft. Collins; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: Clear Creek County; Year: 1999; Grant: $150,000.
Community: Morgan County; Year: 1999; Grant: $150,000.
Community: City of Delta; Year: 2000; Grant: $150,000.
Community: Region of San Luis Valley (Counties of Alamosa, Conejos,
Costilla, Mineral, Rio Grande, & Saguache); Year: 2000; Grant:
$150,000.
Community: El Paso County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Connecticut:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: Town of Westport; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Milford; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Town of East Haven; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Norwich; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Delaware:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Lewes; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Milford; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Town of Bethany Beach; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Wilmington; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: District of Columbia:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Washington, D.C.; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: Florida:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Deerfield Beach/Broward County; Year: 1997; Grant:
$1,000,000.
Community: City of Pensacola/Escambia County; Year: 1999; Grant:
$300,000.
Community: Tampa Bay Region (Counties of Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco,
and Pinellas & 38 incorporated municipalities); Year: 2000; Grant:
$300,000.
Community: Jacksonville/Duval County; Year: 2001; Grant: $75,000.
Community: Volusia County; Year: 2001; Grant: $75,000.
Community: Brevard County; Year: 2001; Grant: $75,000.
Community: Miami-Dade County; Year: 2001; Grant: $75,000.
Community: Georgia:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: Counties of Camden, Glynn, and Macintosh; Year: 1998; Grant:
$500,000.
Community: Chatham, Bryan, & Liberty Counties; Year: 1999; Grant:
$300,000.
Community: Chatooga County and incorporated cities; Year: 2000; Grant:
$300,000.
Community: City of Macon/Bibb County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Hawaii:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: County of Hawaii; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: County of Maui; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: County of Kauai; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City and County of Honolulu; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Idaho:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Boise; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Kamiah and Lewis County; Year: 1999; Grant:
$300,000.
Community: Blaine County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Clearwater County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Illinois:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Carbondale; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Urbana; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Cities of Charleston & Mattoon; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Peoria; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Indiana:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Evansville/County of Vanderburgh; Year: 1998; Grant:
$500,000.
Community: City of South Bend and St. Joseph County; Year: 1999; Grant:
$300,000.
Community: Tippecanoe County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Lake County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Iowa:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Denison; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Des Moines; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Cherokee[A]; Year: 1999; Grant: $0.
Community: City of LeMars; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Linn County/Cities of Cedar Rapids, Marion, Hiawatha, &
Robins[A]; Year: 2000; Grant: $0.
Community: City of Council Bluffs; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Kansas:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: Riley County/City of Manhattan; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: Johnson County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Kinsley[A]; Year: 1999; Grant: $0.
Community: Butler County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Butler County Cities of Andover, Augusta, Benton, Cassoday,
Douglass, Elbing, El Dorado, Latham, Leon, Potwin, Rose Hill, Towanda,
& Whitewater[A]; Year: 2000; Grant: $0.
Community: Sedgwick County/City of Wichita; Year: 2001; Grant:
$300,000.
Community: Sedgwick County Cities of Andale, Bel Aire, Bentley, Cheney,
Clearwater, Colwick, Derby, Eastborough, Garden Plain, Goddard,
Haysville, Kechi, Maize, Mount Hope, Mulvane, Park City, Sedgwick,
Valley Center, & Viola[A]; Year: 2001; Grant: $0.
Community: Kentucky:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Louisville/Jefferson County; Year: 1998; Grant:
$500,000.
Community: City of Lexington/Fayette County; Year: 1999; Grant:
$300,000.
Community: City of Bowling Green/Warren County; Year: 2000; Grant:
$300,000.
Community: City of Henderson/Henderson County; Year: 2001; Grant:
$300,000.
Community: Ballard County[A]; Year: 2001; Grant: $0.
Community: Louisiana:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Baton Rouge; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Mandeville; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Ouachita Parish; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Calcasieu Parish; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Maine:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Saco; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Portland; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Cities of Lewiston & Auburn; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Fort Fairfield; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: York County[A]; Year: 2001; Grant: $0.
Community: Maryland:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: Allegany County; Year: 1997; Grant: $1,000,000.
Community: Tri-County Council of Southern Maryland: Calvert, Charles, &
St. Mary‘s Counties; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Prince George‘s County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Cecil County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Massachusetts:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: Town of Marshfield; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Quincy; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Upper Mystic River Basin Watershed (in Middlesex County;
includes communities of Arlington, Burlington, Lexington, Medford,
Reading, Stoneham, Wilmington, Winchester, & Woburn); Year: 2000;
Grant: $300,000.
Community: Cape Cod Commission (includes 15 Towns that comprise
Barnstable County); Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Worcester; Year: 2001; Grant: $100,000.
Community: Michigan:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Midland; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: Ottawa County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Dearborn; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Ingham County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Minnesota:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: Steele County; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Burnsville; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Fridley, Washington County; Year: 2000; Grant:
$300,000.
Community: Stearns County/Benton County Partnership; Year: 2001; Grant:
$300,000.
Community: Mississippi:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Pascagoula; Year: 1997; Grant: $1,000,000.
Community: City of Madison; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Harrison County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Hancock County/City of Bay St. Louis; Year: 2001; Grant:
$300,000.
Community: Missouri:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Cape Girardeau; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of St. Joseph; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Maryville[A]; Year: 1999; Grant: $0.
Community: City of Neosho; Year: 2000; Grant: $180,000.
Community: City of Piedmont; Year: 2000; Grant: $120,000.
Community: City of Hannibal; Year: 2001; Grant: $100,000.
Community: City of Bolivar; Year: 2001; Grant: $200,000.
Community: City of Branson[A]; Year: 2001; Grant: $0.
Community: Montana:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Libby/County of Lincoln; Year: 1998; Grant:
$500,000.
Community: Lewis and Clark County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Yellowstone County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Gallatin County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Nebraska:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Beatrice; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Superior; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Cities of Scottsbluff & Gering/Scotts Bluff County; Year:
2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Grand Island; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Nevada:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Sparks; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Las Vegas; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Reno[A]; Year: 1999; Grant: $0.
Community: City of Carson City; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Douglas County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: New Hampshire:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: Town of Peterborough; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: Towns of Plymouth & Holderness; Year: 1999; Grant: $100,000.
Community: Town of Salem; Year: 1999; Grant: $200,000.
Community: Town of Lancaster; Year: 2000; Grant: $150,000.
Community: Town of Gorham; Year: 2000; Grant: $150,000.
Community: Town of Hampton; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.
Community: Town of Winchester; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.
Community: New Jersey:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Trenton; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Rahway; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Stafford Township; Year: 2000; Grant: $150,000.
Community: Ocean City; Year: 2000; Grant: $150,000.
Community: Avalon Borough[A]; Year: 2000; Grant: $0.
Community: Atlantic City; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: New Mexico:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Hobbs; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Carlsbad; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Village of Ruidoso; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Dona Ana County/City of Las Cruces; Year: 2001; Grant:
$300,000.
Community: New York:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Rye; Year: 1998; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Village of Freeport; Year: 1998; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Buffalo; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Village of East Rockaway; Year: 2000; Grant: $60,000.
Community: Village of Waverly; Year: 2000; Grant: $60,000.
Community: Town of Dryden; Year: 2000; Grant: $60,000.
Community: Town of Eden; Year: 2000; Grant: $60,000.
Community: Town of Erwin; Year: 2000; Grant: $60,000.
Community: City of New Rochelle; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.
Community: Town of Amherst; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.
Community: North Carolina:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Charlotte & Mecklenburg County; Year: 1999; Grant:
$150,000.
Community: City of Wilmington & New Hanover County; Year: 1997; Grant:
$1,000,000.
Community: Town of Boone; Year: 1999; Grant: $150,000.
Community: Buncombe County & all incorporated municipalities; Year:
2000; Grant: $100,000.
Community: Lenoir County & all incorporated municipalities; Year: 2000;
Grant: $100,000.
Community: The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Year: 2000; Grant:
$100,000.
Community: Research Triangle Region (includes Wake, Durham, & Orange
Counties with Research Triangle Park); Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: New River; Year: 2001; Grant: $100,000.
Community: North Dakota:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Fargo; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Valley City; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Jamestown; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Pembina County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Ohio:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: Licking County; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: Colerain Township in Hamilton County; Year: 1999; Grant:
$300,000.
Community: Clermont County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Westerville; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.
Community: Medina County; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.
Community: City of Xenia; Year: 2001; Grant: $200,000.
Community: Oklahoma:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Tulsa; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Miami; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Durant; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Lawton; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Oregon:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: Benton County; Year: 1998; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Tillamook County; Year: 1998; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Multnomah County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Deschutes County/City of Bend; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Clackamas County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Pennsylvania:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: Lycoming County; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: Union Township; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Luzerne County Flood Control Authority/Mitigation Advisory
Board (Includes the counties of Luzerene, Columbia, Montour,
Northumberland, and Snyder); Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Union County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Puerto Rico:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Culebra; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: Municipality of Bayamon; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Municipality of Barranquitas; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Rhode Island:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Warwick; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Pawtucket; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Providence; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Woonsocket; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: South Carolina:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Florence; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: Charleston County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Orangeburg County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Horry County; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.
Community: Georgetown County; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.
Community: South Dakota:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Aberdeen; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Huron; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Watertown; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Sioux Falls; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Tennessee:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Fayetteville/Lincoln County; Year: 1998; Grant:
$500,000.
Community: City of Jackson/Madison County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Anderson County, including the cities of Clinton, Lake City,
Norris, Oak Ridge, & Oliver Springs; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Washington County/Johnson City; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Texas:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: Harris County to include Bellaire, Webster, & Houston; Year:
1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: City of Arlington; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Lubbock; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Austin; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: U.S. Virgin Islands:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: St. Croix; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Utah:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Centerville; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: Salt Lake City; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Moab; Year: 2000; Grant: $150,000.
Community: City of Logan; Year: 2000; Grant: $150,000.
Community: City of Provo; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Vermont:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: Lamoille County; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: Two River-Ottauquechee Regional Planning Commission
(includes most of Orange & Northern Windsor Counties and the Towns of
Pittsfield, Hancock, and Granville); Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: North West Regional Planning Commission (includes 23 towns
in Franklin & Grand Isle Counties); Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Addison County Regional Planning Commission (includes
Addison County and 21 Towns in the Region); Year: 2001; Grant:
$300,000.
Community: Virginia:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: Roanoke Valley District Planning Commission (Roanoke County,
City of Roanoke, City of Salem, Town of Vinton); Year: ; 1998; Grant: ;
$500,000.
Community: City of Virginia Beach; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Chesapeake; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Central Shenandoah Planning District (Augusta, Bath,
Highland, Rockbridge & Rockingham Counties; Cities of Buena Vista,
Harrisonburg, Lexington, Staunton, & Waynesboro; and 11 towns); Year:
2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Washington:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Seattle; Year: 1997; Grant: $1,000,000.
Community: King and Pierce Counties; Year: 1998; Grant: $600,000.
Community: Walla Walla County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Kitsap County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Clark County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: West Virginia:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: Tucker and Randolph Counties; Year: 1997; Grant: $1,000,000.
Community: Cabell County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Barbour County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Jefferson County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Wisconsin:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: City of Wauwatosa; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: Racine County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Waukesha; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: City of Eau Claire; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Wyoming:; Year: ; Grant: .
Community: Fremont County; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.
Community: Natrona County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Teton County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.
Community: Campbell County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.
[End of table]
[A] Communities listed that received no Project Impact grant funds were
those that used the Project Impact name for hazard mitigation efforts
they were conducting without federal funding.
Source: FEMA.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Federal Management Agency:
Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472:
SEP 24 2002:
JayEtta Z. Hecker:
Director, Physical Infrastructure:
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Hecker:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the
General Accounting Office‘s (GAO) draft report entitled Hazard
Mitigation: Proposed Changes to FEMA‘s Multihazard Mitigation Programs
Present Challenges (GAO-02-1035). My staff and I appreciate the
cooperative manner in which the GAO proceeded with the draft report and
provided us with opportunities for input and submission of editorial
comments.
The report recognizes the overall increased federal costs of disaster
assistance as a result of the recent series of unusually large and
frequent disasters, as well as the increasing federal role in assisting
communities and individuals affected by disasters. Specifically, the
report discusses changes in the post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. I appreciate your
support of my strongly held belief that funding and support of both
pre-and post-disaster mitigation programs are critical to FEMA‘s
success in leading the nation to reduce disaster losses. As you may be
aware, FEMA and State officials face significant challenges to
accomplish effective hazard mitigation with the limited financial and
staff resources available.
In addition, we look forward to addressing the opportunities presented
by the proposal to include FEMA in the new Department of Homeland
Security. Homeland security concerns make it necessary to balance
mitigation activities between natural and manmade hazards. This is an
appropriate approach to all-hazards disaster resistance. The expertise
we have developed in natural hazard mitigation areas, such as risk
assessment, is clearly applicable to the homeland security mission.
Please contact Anthony S. Lowe, Administrator, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration for questions or follow up.
Sincerely,
Joe M. Albaugh:
Director:
Signed by Joe M. Albaugh:
[End of Section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] For fiscal year 2002, the Project Impact program ended and was
replaced with the Predisaster Mitigation Program. The Predisaster
Mitigation Program has not been fully implemented, as FEMA has
suspended the development of implementing regulations pending the
outcome of the fiscal year 2003 budget.
[2] Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act as amended.
[3] Many states provide a portion of the local match out of state
budgeted funds. The local match may be comprised of cash, in-kind
services, or third-party goods and services.
[4] Properties acquired with HMGP funds may not be built upon, but can
be used for parks or other public purposes or else returned to their
natural state.
[5] These funds included both HMGP funds and additional mitigation
funding contained in supplemental disaster assistance appropriations.
[6] Thomas A. Birkland, After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy,
and Focusing Events (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press,
1997).
[7] Mitigation Resources for Success, FEMA, October 2001.
[8] The local match may be comprised of cash, in-kind services, or
third-party goods and services.
[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, Disaster Assistance: Opportunities
to Improve Cost-Effectiveness Determinations for Mitigation Grants,
GAO/RCED-99-236 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 4, 1999).
[10] The National Emergency Management Association is the professional
association of state, Pacific, and Caribbean insular state emergency
management directors.
[11] S. 1214, Maritime Transportation Antiterrorism Act of 2002.
[12] U.S. General Accounting Office, Combating Terrorism: Selected
Challenges and Related Recommendations, GAO-01-822 (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 20, 2001).
[13] These 24 states included region IV: Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee;
region V: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin;
region VII: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska; region VIII:
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
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. General Accounting 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: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
