Hazard Mitigation: Proposed Changes to FEMA's Multihazard
Mitigation Programs Present Challenges (30-SEP-02, GAO-02-1035).
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. 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.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-02-1035
ACCNO: A05202
TITLE: Hazard Mitigation: Proposed Changes to FEMA's Multihazard
Mitigation Programs Present Challenges
DATE: 09/30/2002
SUBJECT: Disaster relief aid
Emergency preparedness
Federal funds
Funds management
National preparedness
Intergovernmental relations
Locally administered programs
Program evaluation
State-administered programs
Atlanta (GA)
Chicago (IL)
Denver (CO)
FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
FEMA Project Impact
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-1035
A
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
Lett er
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
manmade
hazards. The most significant of these mitigation programs are the
postdisaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the predisaster
Project Impact program. 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 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.
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
hazardprone 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
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.
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 FEMA*s multihazard mitigation programs differ
substantially and have Mitigation Programs
many successful attributes according to state and local officials. The
HMGP, FEMA*s oldest and largest multihazard mitigation program, is a
Differ Substantially postdisaster program that has provided the bulk of
mitigation assistance and Both Are Seen to provided to states and
communities. Through the HMGP, states and Have Many Successful communities
that have experienced a presidentially declared disaster
receive funds to implement cost- effective mitigation projects. States and
Attributes
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 The HMGP was created in 1988 to assist states and
communities in
Implementing *Brick and implementing long- term hazard mitigation measures
following a major
disaster declaration. 2 The purpose of the program is to enable mitigation
Mortar* Projects in the measures to be implemented during the immediate
recovery period
Aftermath of a Disaster 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. 3 Further, while states are
responsible for selecting projects, FEMA conducts the final eligibility
review of projects to ensure they meet all program requirements.
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.
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; 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. 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.
Figure 2: Projects Undertaken With HMGP Funding
Source: FEMA.
State Officials Believe that Hazard mitigation officials from the 24
states we contacted said that the HMGP Successfully Takes
HMGP has been effective in stimulating action to mitigate the impacts of
Advantage of Mitigation
natural hazards, primarily because it takes advantage of a *window of
Opportunities in a opportunity* that exists in the postdisaster
environment. The state hazard mitigation officials said that the states*
and localities* commitment to fund
Postdisaster Environment 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, 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
5 These funds included both HMGP funds and additional mitigation funding
contained in supplemental disaster assistance appropriations.
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. 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. 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
Whereas the HMGP has focused on implementing projects in a postdisaster on
Developing Broad
environment, the Project Impact program focused on developing broad
Community Support for community support for mitigation activities before a
disaster strikes. To Mitigation Activities before
accomplish this end, the Project Impact program provided small, one- time
grants directly to communities, which, among other things, were designed a
Disaster Strikes
to develop mitigation plans, build effective partnerships, and encourage
private sector financial participation.
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.
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. 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. 8 The local match
may be comprised of cash, in- kind services, or third- party goods and
services.
Figure 3: Projects Undertaken with Project Impact
Sources: FEMA (upper left), Seattle Emergency Management (upper right),
Morgan County, CO (lower left), and New Hanover County, NC (lower right).
State Officials Identify The state emergency management officials from the
24 states, as well as
Project Impact*s Focus on the Project Impact communities we visited,
believe Project Impact has also Planning and Partnerships
been successful in improving mitigation efforts throughout the country. As
Successful Features That
They stated that the program*s focus on planning and developing broad
community support for mitigation in a predisaster environment has been
Help Communities
very beneficial in building grass root support for mitigation. The state
Implement Mitigation
officials identified four specific features of the Project Impact program
as Measures 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
FEMA*s fiscal year 2003 budget request proposes eliminating the HMGP and
Eliminate HMGP and establishing a new $300 million program for predisaster
mitigation. This
proposed program would award mitigation grants on a competitive basis*
Make Grants
instead of the current formula- based awards* to better ensure that
funding Nationally Competitive goes to the most cost- beneficial projects.
The proposal has raised
Has Raised concerns, however, about whether participation in mitigation
activities
might decrease and about how FEMA might implement the program.
Participation and Implementation Concerns Proposed Program Would
Concerns have been raised about demonstrating the cost- effectiveness of
Eliminate HMGP and Award
some mitigation projects. For example, in August 1999, we reported that
Predisaster Mitigation although established procedures existed for
selecting HMGP projects,
Grants on a Nationally FEMA exempted four categories of projects from
benefit- cost analysis,
including the purchase of substantially damaged properties in 100- year
Competitive Basis
floodplains. 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 benefitcost 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
9 U. S. General Accounting Office, Disaster Assistance: Opportunities to
Improve CostEffectiveness Determinations for Mitigation Grants, GAO/ RCED-
99- 236 (Washington, D. C.: Aug. 4, 1999).
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 From our analysis of the proposed program and
discussions with FEMA
Raised Participation and and state hazard mitigation officials, concerns
have been raised about
Implementation Concerns 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
The proposed program may limit the ability of emergency management
Advantage of Mitigation
officials to take advantage of mitigation opportunities. State officials
with Opportunities 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) 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 All states might not
participate in mitigation activities under the new From Mitigation Funding
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
The public outreach and planning activities that were widely conducted May
Be Curtailed
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
10 The National Emergency Management Association is the professional
association of state, Pacific, and Caribbean insular state emergency
management directors.
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 FEMA may face
challenges in designing and implementing the proposed Implementing Program
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
benefitcost
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
costeffectiveness 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
costeffectiveness. 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 The events of September 11, 2001, demonstrated the
vulnerability of our Security Concerns nation to terrorist attack, and
subsequent efforts have been initiated to
strengthen the nation*s homeland security. These events, as well as the
Present Challenges for proposal to establish a Department of Homeland
Security, represent a
Conducting Hazard substantially changed environment under which FEMA and
its hazard Mitigation Activities
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 The proposed placement of FEMA within the DHS
places functions that Result in Less Focus on have traditionally not been
security related, such as hazard mitigation, into
Natural Hazards 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 11 th , 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
As a result of the terrorist attacks, many new initiatives have been
Predisaster Mitigation to
undertaken to begin addressing security concerns; however, many of them
New Preparedness Efforts
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. 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.
12 Usefulness of HMGP As discussed earlier, HMGP funds have been typically
made available to Funding for Terrorism states following presidentially
declared disasters in amounts totaling as
Disasters Is Unclear much as 15 percent of the federal grant funds spent
on the disaster. HMGP
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).
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
terrorismrelated hazard mitigation measures, such as physical protection
and security- related projects that can meet cost- effectiveness criteria.
Concluding FEMA*s current multihazard mitigation programs are viewed
positively by Observations 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
costeffectiveness 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,
JayEtta Z. Hecker, Director, Physical Infrastructure
Appendi Appendi xes x 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. 13 We sel ected
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 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.
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.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Sum of
Appendi x II
Federal Share FYs 1996 through 2001 Sum of federal share * obligated State
(FY 1996 thru 2001)
Alabama $28, 388, 389 Alaska $4, 427, 222 American Samoa $4, 439, 989
Arizona $5,846, 952 Arkansas $28, 863, 818 California $842, 164, 071
Colorado $2, 240, 270 Connecticut $228, 030 Delaware $1, 458, 432 District
of Columbia $333, 194 Federated States of Micronesia $1, 714, 614 Florida
$113,767, 617 Georgia $68, 576, 382 Guam $15,405, 037 Hawaii $5, 516, 732
Idaho $7, 900, 582 Illinois $48, 121, 513 Indiana $4,377, 889 Iowa
$19,791, 384 Kansas $8, 999, 484 Kentucky $23, 895, 191 Louisiana $27,
395, 780 Maine $8, 621, 478 Marshall Islands $1, 660, 762 Maryland $3,
954, 401 Massachusetts $14,250, 969 Michigan $13,908, 460 Minnesota $52,
155, 805 Mississippi $20, 251, 013 Missouri $7, 028, 575 Montana $1, 323,
473 Nebraska $19,154, 960 Nevada $4, 497, 474 New Hampshire $3, 081, 072
(Continued From Previous Page)
Sum of federal share * obligated State (FY 1996 thru 2001)
New Jersey $7, 900, 902 New Mexico $516, 529 New York $32,909, 514 North
Carolina $109, 273, 418 North Dakota $61,174, 509 Northern Mariana Islands
$1, 888, 603 Ohio $19,964, 660 Oklahoma $2, 434, 709 Oregon $14, 305, 475
Pennsylvania $41,808, 975 Puerto Rico $251, 740, 124 Republic of Palau
$238, 864 Rhode Island $52, 250 South Carolina $6, 344, 480 South Dakota
$17, 201, 876 Tennessee $16, 505, 454 Texas $77, 265, 725 Utah $0 Vermont
$4,873, 516 Virgin Islands $63, 739, 358 Virginia $16,906, 846 Washington
$35,603, 443 West Virginia $16,678, 378 Wisconsin $15, 977, 313 Wyoming
$41, 178
Total $2,229, 087, 113
Source: FEMA.
Appendi x II I Project Impact Communities Community Year Grant Alabama:
Baldwin County 1998 $500, 000 Mobile County with Town of Dauphin Island &
City of Bayou La Batre 1999 $150, 000 Jefferson County 1999 $150, 000 City
of Fort Payne 2000 $300, 000 City of Prattville/ Autauga County 2001 $300,
000
Alaska:
Municipality of Anchorage 1998 $500, 000 Kenai Peninsula Borough 1999
$300, 000 Matanuska- Susitna Borough 2000 $300, 000 Valdez Borough 2001
$300, 000
Arizona:
City of Tempe 1998 $500, 000 City of Yuma 1999 $300, 000 City of Glendale
2000 $300, 000 City of Scottsdale 2001 $300, 000
Arkansas:
Clay County/ City of Piggott/ City of Corning/ City of Rector 1998 $500,
000 City of Arkadelphia 1999 $300, 000 City of Tuckerman 2000 $300, 000
City of West Memphis; South Arkansas Community Development 2001 $150, 000
California: City of Oakland 1997 $1, 000, 000 County of Santa Barbara/
City of Santa Barbara 1998 $500, 000 San Bernadino County 1999 $300, 000
Napa County a 1999 $0 City of Berkeley 2000 $300, 000 County of Colusa
2001 $150, 000 City of San Leandro 2001 $150, 000 Las Virgenes Malibu
Council of Governments (includes the cities of Agoura Hills, Calabassas,
Hidden Hills, Malibu & Westlake Village) 2001 $100, 000
Colorado:
City of Ft. Collins 1998 $500, 000 Clear Creek County 1999 $150, 000
Morgan County 1999 $150, 000
(Continued From Previous Page)
Community Year Grant
City of Delta 2000 $150, 000 Region of San Luis Valley (Counties of
Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Mineral, Rio Grande, & Saguache) 2000 $150,
000
El Paso County 2001 $300, 000
Connecticut:
Town of Westport 1998 $500, 000 City of Milford 1999 $300, 000 Town of
East Haven 2000 $300, 000 City of Norwich 2001 $300, 000
Delaware: City of Lewes 1998 $500, 000 City of Milford 1999 $300, 000 Town
of Bethany Beach 2000 $300, 000 City of Wilmington 2001 $300, 000
District of Columbia:
City of Washington, D. C. 1998 $500, 000
Florida:
City of Deerfield Beach/ Broward County 1997 $1, 000, 000 City of
Pensacola/ Escambia County 1999 $300, 000 Tampa Bay Region (Counties of
Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, and Pinellas & 38 incorporated
municipalities) 2000 $300, 000
Jacksonville/ Duval County 2001 $75, 000 Volusia County 2001 $75, 000
Brevard County 2001 $75, 000 Miami- Dade County 2001 $75, 000
Georgia: Counties of Camden, Glynn, and Macintosh 1998 $500, 000 Chatham,
Bryan, & Liberty Counties 1999 $300, 000 Chatooga County and incorporated
cities 2000 $300, 000 City of Macon/ Bibb County 2001 $300, 000
Hawaii: County of Hawaii 1998 $500, 000 County of Maui 1999 $300, 000
County of Kauai 2000 $300, 000 City and County of Honolulu 2001 $300, 000
Idaho: City of Boise 1998 $500, 000 City of Kamiah and Lewis County 1999
$300, 000
(Continued From Previous Page)
Community Year Grant
Blaine County 2000 $300, 000 Clearwater County 2001 $300, 000
Illinois:
City of Carbondale 1998 $500, 000 City of Urbana 1999 $300, 000 Cities of
Charleston & Mattoon 2000 $300, 000 City of Peoria 2001 $300, 000
Indiana:
City of Evansville/ County of Vanderburgh 1998 $500, 000 City of South
Bend and St. Joseph County 1999 $300, 000 Tippecanoe County 2000 $300, 000
Lake County 2001 $300, 000
Iowa:
City of Denison 1998 $500, 000 City of Des Moines 1999 $300, 000 City of
Cherokee a 1999 $0 City of LeMars 2000 $300, 000 Linn County/ Cities of
Cedar Rapids, Marion, Hiawatha, & Robins a 2000 $0 City of Council Bluffs
2001 $300, 000
Kansas:
Riley County/ City of Manhattan 1998 $500, 000 Johnson County 1999 $300,
000 City of Kinsley a 1999 $0 Butler County 2000 $300, 000 Butler County
Cities of Andover, Augusta, Benton, Cassoday, Douglass, Elbing, El Dorado,
Latham, Leon, Potwin, Rose Hill,
Towanda, & Whitewater a 2000 $0 Sedgwick County/ City of Wichita 2001
$300, 000 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 2001 $0
Kentucky:
City of Louisville/ Jefferson County 1998 $500, 000 City of Lexington/
Fayette County 1999 $300, 000 City of Bowling Green/ Warren County 2000
$300, 000 City of Henderson/ Henderson County 2001 $300, 000 Ballard
County a 2001 $0
(Continued From Previous Page)
Community Year Grant Louisiana: City of Baton Rouge 1998 $500, 000
City of Mandeville 1999 $300, 000 Ouachita Parish 2000 $300, 000 Calcasieu
Parish 2001 $300, 000
Maine: City of Saco 1998 $500, 000 City of Portland 1999 $300, 000 Cities
of Lewiston & Auburn 2000 $300, 000 Fort Fairfield 2001 $300, 000 York
County a 2001 $0
Maryland: Allegany County 1997 $1, 000, 000 Tri- County Council of
Southern Maryland: Calvert, Charles, & St. 1999 $300, 000 Mary*s Counties
Prince George*s County 2000 $300, 000
Cecil County 2001 $300, 000
Massachusetts: Town o f Mar s hf i el d 1998 $500, 000 City of Quincy 1999
$300, 000 Upper Mystic River Basin Watershed (in Middlesex County;
includes communities of Arlington, Burlington, Lexington, Medford,
Reading, Stoneham, Wilmington, Winchester, & Woburn) 2000 $300, 000
Cape Cod Commission (includes 15 Towns that comprise Barnstable 2001 $300,
000 County) City of Worcester 2001 $100, 000
Michigan: City of Midland 1998 $500, 000 Ottawa County 1999 $300, 000 City
of Dearborn 2000 $300, 000 Ingham County 2001 $300, 000
Minnesota:
Steele County 1998 $500, 000 City of Burnsville 1999 $300, 000 City of
Fridley, Washington County 2000 $300, 000 Stearns County/ Benton County
Partnership 2001 $300, 000
Mississippi: City of Pascagoula 1997 $1, 000, 000
(Continued From Previous Page)
Community Year Grant
City of Madison 1999 $300, 000 Harrison County 2000 $300, 000 Hancock
County/ City of Bay St. Louis 2001 $300, 000
Missouri:
City of Cape Girardeau 1998 $500, 000 City of St. Joseph 1999 $300, 000
City of Maryville a 1999 $0 City of Neosho 2000 $180, 000 City of Piedmont
2000 $120, 000 City of Hannibal 2001 $100, 000 City of Bolivar 2001 $200,
000 City of Branson a 2001 $0
Montana:
City of Libby/ County of Lincoln 1998 $500, 000 Lewis and Clark County
1999 $300, 000 Yellowstone County 2000 $300, 000 Gallatin County 2001
$300, 000
Nebraska:
City of Beatrice 1998 $500, 000 City of Superior 1999 $300, 000 Cities of
Scottsbluff & Gering/ Scotts Bluff County 2000 $300, 000 City of Grand
Island 2001 $300, 000
Nevada: City of Sparks 1998 $500, 000 City of Las Vegas 1999 $300, 000
City of Reno a 1999 $0 City of Carson City 2000 $300, 000 Douglas County
2001 $300, 000
New Hampshire: Town of Peterborough 1998 $500, 000 Towns of Plymouth &
Holderness 1999 $100, 000 Town o f S al em 1999 $200, 000 Town of
Lancaster 2000 $150, 000 Town o f Gor ham 2000 $150, 000 Town of Hampton
2001 $150, 000 Town of Winchester 2001 $150, 000
(Continued From Previous Page)
Community Year Grant New Jersey: City of Trenton 1998 $500, 000
City of Rahway 1999 $300, 000 Stafford Township 2000 $150, 000 Ocean City
2000 $150, 000 Avalon Borough a 2000 $0 Atlantic City 2001 $300, 000
New Mexico: City of Hobbs 1998 $500, 000 City of Carlsbad 1999 $300, 000
Village of Ruidoso 2000 $300, 000 Dona Ana County/ City of Las Cruces 2001
$300, 000
New York:
City of Rye 1998 $300, 000 Village of Freeport 1998 $300, 000 City of
Buffalo 1999 $300, 000 Village of East Rockaway 2000 $60, 000 Village of
Waverly 2000 $60, 000 Town of Dryden 2000 $60, 000 Town o f E den 2000
$60, 000 Town of Erwin 2000 $60, 000 City of New Rochelle 2001 $150, 000
Town of Amherst 2001 $150, 000
North Carolina: City of Charlotte & Mecklenburg County 1999 $150, 000 City
of Wilmington & New Hanover County 1997 $1, 000, 000 Town of Boone 1999
$150, 000 Buncombe County & all incorporated municipalities 2000 $100, 000
Lenoir County & all incorporated municipalities 2000 $100, 000 The Eastern
Band of Cherokee Indians 2000 $100, 000 Research Triangle Region (includes
Wake, Durham, & Orange 2001 $300, 000 Counties with Research Triangle
Park) New River 2001 $100, 000
North Dakota:
City of Fargo 1998 $500, 000 City of Valley City 1999 $300, 000 City of
Jamestown 2000 $300, 000
(Continued From Previous Page)
Community Year Grant
Pembina County 2001 $300, 000
Ohio:
Licking County 1998 $500, 000 Colerain Township in Hamilton County 1999
$300, 000 Clermont County 2000 $300, 000 City of Westerville 2001 $150,
000 Medina County 2001 $150, 000 City of Xenia 2001 $200, 000
Oklahoma:
City of Tulsa 1998 $500, 000 City of Miami 1999 $300, 000 City of Durant
2000 $300, 000 City of Lawton 2001 $300, 000
Oregon: Benton County 1998 $300, 000 Tillamook County 1998 $300, 000
Multnomah County 1999 $300, 000 Deschutes County/ City of Bend 2000 $300,
000 Clackamas County 2001 $300, 000
Pennsylvania:
Lycoming County 1998 $500, 000 Union Township 1999 $300, 000 Luzerne
County Flood Control Authority/ Mitigation Advisory Board (Includes the
counties of Luzerene, Columbia, Montour, Northumberland, and Snyder) 2000
$300, 000
Union County 2001 $300, 000
Puerto Rico:
City of Culebra 1998 $500, 000 Municipality of Bayamon 2000 $300, 000
Municipality of Barranquitas 2001 $300, 000
Rhode Island: City of Warwick 1998 $500, 000 City of Pawtucket 1999 $300,
000 City of Providence 2000 $300, 000 City of Woonsocket 2001 $300, 000
South Carolina:
City of Florence 1998 $500, 000 Charleston County 1999 $300, 000
(Continued From Previous Page)
Community Year Grant
Orangeburg County 2000 $300, 000 Horry County 2001 $150, 000 Georgetown
County 2001 $150, 000
South Dakota:
City of Aberdeen 1998 $500, 000 City of Huron 1999 $300, 000 City of
Watertown 2000 $300, 000 City of Sioux Falls 2001 $300, 000
Tennessee:
City of Fayetteville/ Lincoln County 1998 $500, 000 City of Jackson/
Madison County 1999 $300, 000 Anderson County, including the cities of
Clinton, Lake City, Norris, Oak Ridge, & Oliver Springs 2000 $300, 000
Washington County/ Johnson City 2001 $300, 000
Texas: Harris County to include Bellaire, Webster, & Houston 1998 $500,
000 City of Arlington 1999 $300, 000 City of Lubbock 2000 $300, 000 City
of Austin 2001 $300, 000
U. S. Virgin Islands: St. Croix 1999 $300, 000
Utah:
City of Centerville 1998 $500, 000 Salt Lake City 1999 $300, 000 City of
Moab 2000 $150, 000 City of Logan 2000 $150, 000 City of Provo 2001 $300,
000
Vermont:
Lamoille County 1998 $500, 000 Two River- Ottauquechee Regional Planning
Commission (includes most of Orange & Northern Windsor Counties and the
Towns of Pittsfield, Hancock, and Granville) 1999 $300, 000
North West Regional Planning Commission (includes 23 towns in Franklin &
Grand Isle Counties) 2000 $300, 000 Addison County Regional Planning
Commission (includes Addison County and 21 Towns in the Region) 2001 $300,
000
Virginia:
Roanoke Valley District Planning Commission (Roanoke County, City of
Roanoke, City of Salem, Town of Vinton) 1998 $500, 000
(Continued From Previous Page)
Community Year Grant
City of Virginia Beach 1999 $300, 000 City of Chesapeake 2000 $300, 000
Central Shenandoah Planning District (Augusta, Bath, Highland, Rockbridge
& Rockingham Counties; Cities of Buena Vista, Harrisonburg, Lexington,
Staunton, & Waynesboro; and 11 towns) 2001 $300, 000
Washington:
City of Seattle 1997 $1, 000, 000 King and Pierce Counties 1998 $600, 000
Walla Walla County 1999 $300, 000 Kitsap County 2000 $300, 000 Clark
County 2001 $300, 000
West Virginia:
Tucker and Randolph Counties 1997 $1, 000, 000 Cabell County 1999 $300,
000 Barbour County 2000 $300, 000 Jefferson County 2001 $300, 000
Wisconsin:
City of Wauwatosa 1998 $500, 000 Racine County 1999 $300, 000 City of
Waukesha 2000 $300, 000 City of Eau Claire 2001 $300, 000
Wyoming: Fremont County 1998 $500, 000 Natrona County 1999 $300, 000 Teton
County 2000 $300, 000 Campbell County 2001 $300, 000
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.
Comments from the Federal Management
Appendi x V I Agency (544015)
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 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 fulltext GAO Reports and
files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
Testimony
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, Contact: Waste, and Abuse in
Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail: fraudnet@ gao.
gov
Federal Programs 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
a
GAO United States General Accounting Office
Page i GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Contents Letter 1
Results in Brief 3 Background 4 FEMA*s Multihazard Mitigation Programs
Differ Substantially and Both Are Seen to Have Many Successful Attributes
7
Proposed Program to Eliminate HMGP and Make Grants Nationally Competitive
Has Raised Participation and Implementation Concerns 16 Heightened
Homeland Security Concerns Present Challenges for Conducting Hazard
Mitigation Activities 22
Concluding Observations 25 Agency Comments 26
Appendixes
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 28
Appendix II: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Sum of Federal Share FYs 1996
through 2001 31
Appendix III: Project Impact Communities 33
Appendix IV: Comments from the Federal Management Agency 42 Figures Figure
1: Disaster Relief Fund Expenditures and Number of Declared Disasters,
Fiscal Years 1978- 2001 5
Figure 2: Projects Undertaken With HMGP Funding 10 Figure 3: Projects
Undertaken with Project Impact 14
Abbreviations
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program DHS Department of Homeland Security NEMA National Emergency
Management Association
Page 1 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation United States General Accounting
Office
Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 1 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
A
Page 2 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 3 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 4 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 5 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 6 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 7 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 8 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 9 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 10 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 11 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 12 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 13 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 14 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 15 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 16 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 17 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 18 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 19 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 20 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 21 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 22 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 23 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 24 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 25 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 26 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 27 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 28 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Appendix I
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 29 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 30 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 31 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Appendix II
Appendix II Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Sum of Federal Share FYs 1996
through 2001
Page 32 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 33 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Appendix III
Appendix III Project Impact Communities
Page 34 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Appendix III Project Impact Communities
Page 35 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Appendix III Project Impact Communities
Page 36 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Appendix III Project Impact Communities
Page 37 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Appendix III Project Impact Communities
Page 38 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Appendix III Project Impact Communities
Page 39 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Appendix III Project Impact Communities
Page 40 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Appendix III Project Impact Communities
Page 41 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Page 42 GAO- 02- 1035 Hazard Mitigation
Appendix IV
United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Service Requested Presorted Standard
Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***