Natural Hazard Mitigation: Various Mitigation Efforts Exist, but Federal Efforts Do Not Provide a Comprehensive Strategic Framework
Published: 2007-08-22T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The nation has experienced vast losses from natural hazards. The potential for future events, such as earthquakes and hurricanes, demonstrates the importance of hazard mitigation--actions that reduce the long-term risks to life and property from natural hazard events. GAO was asked to examine (1) natural hazards that present a risk to life and property in the United States, areas that are most susceptible to them, factors that may be increasing these risks, and mitigation activities that reduce losses; (2) methods for encouraging and impediments to implementing mitigation activities; and (3) collaborative efforts of federal agencies and other stakeholders to promote mitigation. To address these objectives, GAO collected and analyzed hazard data, reviewed population information, conducted site visits to locations with comprehensive mitigation programs, and collected information from relevant agencies and officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Natural hazards present risks to life and property throughout the United States. Flooding is the most widespread and destructive of these, resulting in billions of dollars in property losses each year. Hurricanes, earthquakes, and wildland fires also pose significant risks in certain regions of the country. Tornadoes, landslides, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions can also occur in some areas. Population growth in hazard-prone areas, especially coastal areas, is increasing the nation's vulnerability to losses because more people and property are at risk. Climate change may also impact the frequency and severity of future natural hazard events. A variety of natural hazard mitigation activities exist, which are primarily implemented at the state and local level, and include hazard mitigation planning; strong building codes and design standards; and hazard control structures (e.g., levees). For example, strong building codes and design standards can make structures better able to withstand a hazard event and hazard control structures help protect existing at-risk areas. Public education, financial assistance, and insurance discounts can help encourage mitigation. For example, federal, state, and local governments provide financial assistance to promote mitigation and insurance discounts can encourage the use of mitigation measures. However, significant challenges exist to implementing natural hazard mitigation activities. Some of these challenges include the desire for local economic development--often in hazard-prone areas--which may conflict with long-term mitigation goals and the cost of mitigation may limit the amount of activities that occur. FEMA, other federal agencies, and nonfederal stakeholders have collaborated on natural hazard mitigation, but the current approach is fragmented and does not provide a comprehensive national strategic framework for mitigation. Collaboration typically occurs on a hazard-specific basis, after a disaster, or through informal methods. A comprehensive framework would help define common national goals, establish joint strategies, leverage resources, and assign responsibilities among stakeholders.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The hurricane seasons of 2004 and 2005 devastated portions of the United  States resulting in extensive loss of life and damage to property. Hurricane  Katrina alone caused over 1,500 deaths and an estimated $81 billion in  property damages. Obligations from the Federal Emergency Management  Agency’s (FEMA) disaster relief fund in fiscal year 2004 and 2005 totaled  over $43 billion—more than the approximately $37 billion spent during the  previous 10 years. Experts predict that future natural hazard events in the  United States could be even more damaging and costly. For example, one  expert on Atlantic hurricanes predicts a category 3 hurricane hitting the  New York City area could produce a storm surge of over 20 feet in some  areas, flood local airports and lower Manhattan, and result in extensive  economic disruption. Similarly, experts have estimated that an earthquake  in San Francisco of the same magnitude as the 1906 earthquake could  cause as many as 3,400 deaths, displace up to 250,000 households, and  cause as much as $120 billion in property damage.
The losses to life and property from past natural hazard events and the  potential for similar or worse events in the future show the importance of  taking steps to reduce the impact such events can have on the nation.  Hazard mitigation—actions taken before or after a natural hazard event to  reduce or eliminate the long-term risks to life and property from natural  hazards—can save lives and reduce property damage, potentially reducing  the economic and social costs of natural hazard events. The potential for  large-scale damage, particularly in densely populated and economically  important areas, makes hazard mitigation an important national issue. A  recent cost-benefit analysis of a sample of hazard mitigation grants  awarded by FEMA—the federal agency that provides leadership in  mitigating the effects of natural hazards—found that every $1 spent on  mitigation saved society an average of $4.
Given the importance of natural hazard mitigation and its potential for  reducing future losses caused by natural hazards, this report examines   (1) natural hazards that present a risk to life and property in the United  States, areas that are most susceptible to them, and factors that may be  increasing these risks; (2) mitigation activities that reduce losses from  natural hazards; (3) methods for encouraging and impediments to  implementing mitigation activities; and (4) collaborative efforts of federal  agencies and other stakeholders to promote mitigation.
To identify the natural hazards that present a risk to life and property in  the United States, we used a comprehensive list of natural hazards  compiled by FEMA and collected and analyzed data on these hazards.  Using these data, we created graphical representations for the hazards that  represent large annual losses to the built environment and for which long- term mitigation activities exist. These hazards include floods, hurricanes,  earthquakes, wildland fires, tornadoes, and landslides. We also reviewed  population information and spoke with officials at several federal agencies  to determine natural hazard risks on a national level and factors that may  be increasing these risks. To address the remaining objectives, we  conducted site visits to four judgmentally selected states. The states  represent a variety of natural hazard risks and geographic locations, have  comprehensive mitigation programs, or were recommended to us by  mitigation experts or federal and state agency officials. We limited the  mitigation strategies we reviewed to those that reduced or eliminated the  long-term risk to people and property from the effects of natural hazards,  whether these activities occurred before or after a natural hazard event.  Programs and activities for preparing to respond in advance to natural  hazard events (e.g., emergency response and training activities), responses  to hazard events, and recovery from hazard events were outside the scope  of our report. We also reviewed previous congressional reports and our  prior reports and testimonies, policy and research documents, and reports  and publications from the federal agencies involved in mitigation  activities. Finally, we interviewed officials at five federal agencies—U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers), FEMA, U.S. Forest Service  (Forest Service), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  (NOAA), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—involved in mitigation  activities, state and local emergency management officials, industry and  professional associations, advocacy groups, building and land-use experts,  and a risk modeling firm.
We conducted our work in Baltimore, Maryland; Berkeley, Napa, San  Francisco, and Sacramento, California; Boston, Massachusetts; Boulder,  Denver, Golden, and Fort Collins, Colorado; Deerfield Beach, Miami,  Tampa, and West Palm Beach, Florida; Oklahoma City and Tulsa,  Oklahoma; and Washington, D.C., between March 2006 and June 2007 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The rising costs of natural hazard events have led many to recognize the  benefits of hazard mitigation. Obligations from FEMA’s disaster relief fund  grew from $2.8 billion in 1992 to $34.4 billion in 2005 as a result of a series  of unusually large events and the increasing federal role in assisting  communities and individuals affected by disasters. Given these increasing  costs, Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) to  establish a national hazard mitigation program to (1) reduce the loss of life  and property, human suffering, economic disruption, and resulting disaster  assistance costs from natural hazard events and (2) provide a source of  predisaster mitigation funding that would assist states and local  governments in implementing effective hazard mitigation measures. It  also established several initiatives designed to improve state and local  hazard mitigation planning—the process these governments use to identify  risks and vulnerabilities associated with natural hazards and to develop  long-term strategies for protecting people and property in future hazard  events.
FEMA, within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for  leading the country’s efforts to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and  recover from disasters. In recent years, FEMA has made hazard mitigation  a primary goal in its efforts to reduce the long-term effects of natural  hazards. For example, FEMA provides guidance for state and local  governments to use in developing their hazard mitigation plans, reviews  and approves these plans, and administers a number of hazard mitigation  grant programs to provide funds to state and local governments to  undertake mitigation activities. Table 1 describes FEMA’s hazard  mitigation grant programs and their fiscal year 2006 funding levels.
FEMA also manages the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which  was established by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The NFIP  enables property owners in participating communities to purchase flood  insurance as protection against flood losses. When a community chooses  to join the NFIP, it must adopt and enforce the minimum floodplain  management regulations established by the program, which are designed  to reduce future flood damages. Currently, over 20,300 communities  participate in the NFIP. According to FEMA, it is estimated that $1.2  billion in flood losses are avoided annually because of community  implementation of the floodplain management requirements of NFIP. In  addition to providing flood insurance and helping to reduce flood damages  through floodplain management regulations, the NFIP identifies and maps  the nation’s floodplains. These maps help communities identify their flood  risks and are used in implementing floodplain management regulations.
While FEMA’s hazard mitigation responsibilities span all natural hazards,  other federal agencies that participate in hazard mitigation primarily focus  their efforts on particular hazards. Hazard mitigation activities conducted  by other federal agencies include providing training, disseminating  information, and conducting regional assessments. Many federal agencies  have responsibilities related to natural hazard mitigation. Some of these  agencies include the following:    USGS, within the Department of the Interior, is responsible for helping to  reduce losses from hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, and volcanic  eruptions. USGS provides scientific information that communities can use  when developing plans for reducing losses associated with these hazards.  Other agencies also rely on USGS information to help them fulfill their  responsibilities regarding natural hazards. For example, NOAA’s National  Weather Service relies on USGS real-time streamflow information for  developing flood forecasts and data from USGS-supported seismic  networks as a primary input for tsunami warnings.
Five federal agencies—the Forest Service within the Department of  Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management,  Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service within the  Department of the Interior—all work to minimize losses resulting from  wildland fires. For example, these five agencies work to restore the health  of the nation’s forests and grasslands to increase resilience to the effects  of wildland fires.
NOAA, within the Department of Commerce, focuses on the condition of  the oceans and the atmosphere and conducts activities to reduce losses  associated with natural hazards such as hurricanes, tornadoes, coastal  flooding, and tsunamis. For instance, NOAA’s National Weather Service  routinely uses outreach, education, and planning to help communities  mitigate these natural hazards. NOAA also works with coastal  communities to provide financial, technical, and training support to  develop more robust hazard mitigation and land-use plans and improve  building code and design standards.
The Corps of Engineers builds flood damage reduction projects  throughout the country. Typically these projects include levees, flood  walls, channels, and small dams that help reduce losses associated with  floods. Generally, communities fund a portion of the construction costs of  the projects and agree to operate and maintain them.
Although FEMA provides leadership for reducing the country’s losses  caused by natural hazards, it routinely collaborates with other federal  agencies as well as state and local governments, among others.  Collaboration is a tool that federal agencies use to work with one another  and with various stakeholders, generally through partnerships with state  and local governments and communities. In previous work, we identified  key practices that could help enhance and sustain federal agency  collaboration. These activities include (1) defining and articulating a  common outcome; (2) establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies;  (3) identifying and addressing needs by leveraging resources; (4) agreeing  on roles and responsibilities; (5) establishing compatible policies,  procedures, and other means of operating across agency boundaries;   (6) developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results;  (7) reinforcing agency accountability for collaborative efforts; and   (8) reinforcing individual accountability for collaborative efforts.
section_title: The United States Is at Risk from a Number of Natural Hazards, and Our Vulnerability Is Increasing
paragraphs: Flooding is the most common and destructive hazard facing the nation,  but earthquakes, hurricanes, wildland fires, tornadoes, and landslides are  also significant risks in certain regions. For example, while floods are  potential hazards in most parts of the country, hurricanes are most likely  to occur on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, and large wildland fires have  mostly affected the western United States. The risks caused by natural  hazards are exacerbated by the fact that one natural hazard can lead to  another. Earthquakes, for instance, can cause tsunamis, landslides, and  flooding due to levee failures. In recent years, however, the risk posed by  natural hazards has been increasing, fueled by factors that include  population trends and the potential effects of climate change. Many  hazard-prone regions are experiencing significant population growth,  among them the coast of Florida—the most hurricane-prone state in the  country—where the population increased by 75 percent between 1980 and  2003. Finally, climate change is potentially increasing the risks faced by  some areas by altering the frequency and severity of hurricanes,  tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, and wildland fires, and other weather- related events.
subsections: section_title: Flooding Is the Most Widespread Hazard in the United States, but Other Hazards Affect Specific Regions
paragraphs: Several natural hazards such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and wildland  fires pose risks to certain areas of the United States. Floods, however, are  the most common and destructive hazard in the United States, and all  states are likely to experience some degree of flooding. There are many  different kinds of floods, including, regional floods, flash floods, floods  resulting from dam and levee failures, and storm surge floods. Floods can  result in the loss of lives, extensive damage to property and agriculture,  and large-scale disruptions to business and infrastructure, such as  transportation and water and sewer services. According to our analysis of  FEMA data, counties in the Gulf Coast states experienced the greatest  concentration of major flood disaster declarations from 1980 through 2005  (fig. 1). Additionally, because flooding is so widespread, it presents risks  to a large segment of the population. For example, we found that between  1980 and 2005, approximately 97 percent of the U.S. population lived in a  county that experienced at least one declared flood disaster; about 93  percent lived in counties that had experienced two or more flood disaster  declarations; and 45 percent lived in counties that had experienced six or  more flood disaster declarations. NOAA estimates that floods cause  about 140 deaths each year, and the Corps of Engineers estimates floods  cost $6 billion in average annual losses. Economic losses continue to rise,  in part, due to increased urbanization and coastal development.
Hurricanes typically produce violent winds, heavy rains, and storm surges  and can result in flooding, coastal erosion, and ecological damage. While  Florida has the greatest chance of experiencing a major hurricane   (category 3 or higher), our analysis of NOAA data shows that states along  the entire Atlantic coast, particularly North Carolina, the Gulf Coast states,  and occasionally Hawaii are also at significant risk for hurricanes.  Additionally, we found that approximately 29 percent of the U.S.  population lived in a county that experienced at least one hurricane from  1980 through 2005. During this same time, counties in eight states— Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,  Texas, and Virginia—experienced five or more hurricanes (fig. 2). Before  2005, Hurricane Andrew, which occurred in 1992, was the single most  costly hurricane in terms of private insurer losses, causing $22.3 billion in  losses (in 2006 dollars). Comparatively, Hurricane Katrina caused $39.3  billion in private insurer losses (in 2006 dollars).
Earthquakes are a sudden slipping or movement of a portion of the earth’s  crust that releases energy in the form of seismic waves, which can cause  shaking and damage over large distances. USGS has estimated that 39  states face significant earthquake risk. Our analysis showed that  approximately 41 percent of the U.S. population resided in counties that  face medium to high seismic risk. While the risk is concentrated on the  West Coast, USGS states that Alaska is the most earthquake-prone state  and one of the most seismically active regions in the world, experiencing a  magnitude 7 earthquake almost every year and a magnitude 8 or greater  earthquake every 14 years (on average). In addition to these areas, the  New Madrid seismic zone (which is located in parts of Arkansas, Illinois,  Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee) also faces medium to high seismic  risk (fig. 3). Historically, some of the largest earthquakes in United States  have been recorded along the New Madrid fault, and USGS predicts that  the region has a 25 to 40 percent chance of experiencing a magnitude 6 or  greater earthquake in the area in the next 50 years. Although earthquakes  occur with less frequency in the eastern and central United States,  according to USGS, a smaller magnitude earthquake in these regions  would be just as damaging as a higher magnitude earthquake in the  western United States. For example, according to USGS, because of  geologic conditions, an earthquake in the east or central part of the  country would be felt over a much larger area, and infrastructure in these  regions is older and has not been built to withstand earthquake shaking.  Similar to a hurricane, a single earthquake can cause great losses. For  example, the 1994 earthquake in Northridge, California, caused  approximately $59.8 billion in direct losses (in 2006 dollars). FEMA  estimates future average annual earthquake losses in the United States at  $5.6 billion a year.
Wildland fires, which can be triggered by lightning strikes or human  activity, play an important ecological role in wildland areas. On average,  100,000 wildland fires are reported each year, but 95 percent are quickly  extinguished. Fires that escape initial suppression can grow into large,  high-intensity fires that burn quickly and can threaten structures in the  wildland-urban interface—the area where structures and other  development meet or intermingle with wildlands. According to our  analysis, nearly 24 percent of the U.S. population lived in a county where a  wildland fire burned over 1,000 acres from 1980 through 2005. Figure 4,  which shows the number of these large wildland fires, also shows that  they are most likely to occur in western states and Florida. In eight  western states—Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New  Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming—over 80 percent of the population lived in a  county that experienced a wildland fire of over 1,000 acres during the 25- year period we analyzed. According to Forest Service officials, fires less  than 1,000 acres can be equally damaging to structures in other parts of the  United States, especially in the eastern and southern regions of the  country. Additionally, the officials noted that in some western regions of  the country, some of the large wildland fires that occur play an important  ecological role and may pose less of a threat to life and property because  they occur in less populated areas. As we previously reported, wildland  fires burned an average of 6.1 million acres per year between 2000 and  2004 and burned an average of about 850 homes each year since 1984.
A tornado is a violently rotating column of air extending from a  thunderstorm to the ground. The most violent tornadoes are capable of  tremendous destruction, with damage paths as wide as a mile and as long  as 50 miles. In an average year, about 1,000 tornadoes are reported across  the United States. While tornadoes have been documented in every state,  NOAA data show that the central states are most likely to experience the  most severe tornadoes—those with wind speeds of 158 miles per hour or  greater. “Tornado Alley,” an area covering a stretch of land from central  Texas to northern Iowa and from central Kansas and Nebraska to western  Ohio, has the highest tornado activity in the nation (fig. 5). Another  significant zone of tornado frequency is the central southeast United  States, including Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee. From  1980 through 2004, five states—Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma,  and Texas—each had one county that experienced five or more severe  tornadoes. Tornadoes pose a significant risk to life, causing an average of  80 deaths and over 1,500 injuries a year. Tornadoes can also be costly. For  example, NOAA estimates that approximately once per decade, a  devastating tornado in the United States has caused $1 billion or more in  damages.
Landslides are the movement of a mass of rock, debris, or earth down a  slope and can range from a rapidly moving rock avalanche to a more  slowly moving earth slide and ground failure. The greatest landslide  damage occurs in the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains, as well as the  Pacific Coast regions, but USGS data show that all 50 states can  experience landslides and other ground-failure problems (fig. 6). We found  that from 1980 through 2005, approximately 66 percent of the U.S.  population lived in an area where the landslide risk was moderate to high.  Landslides can have a significant adverse effect on infrastructure and  threaten transportation corridors, fuel and energy conduits, and  communications linkages. USGS estimates that landslides cause, on  average, $3.5 billion in damage repair and between 25 and 50 deaths a  year.
Other hazards also present risk to portions of the United States. Some of  these hazards, including thunderstorms, extreme heat, and winter storms  can occur in most areas of the country. Tsunamis—a series of long waves  generated by any large-scale disturbance of the sea—can occur in all U.S.  coastal regions, but according to NOAA, the west coast, Alaska, and  Hawaii are the most vulnerable. Although less frequent than other  hazards in the United States, tsunamis are a significant natural hazard with  great destructive potential. For example a 1964 Alaska tsunami led to 110  deaths, some as far away as Crescent City, California. In addition,  according to USGS, in the past few hundred years volcanoes have erupted  in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. Since 1980, 45  eruptions and 15 cases of notable volcanic unrest have occurred at 33 U.S.  volcanoes.
In addition to the risk that an individual hazard poses, some hazards  present multiple risks because they can cause another hazard to occur.  For example, hurricanes often produce torrential rain that, in addition to  causing floods, can trigger landslides or breach levees. Hurricanes can  also damage trees in wildland areas, increasing wildland fire risk in these  areas by creating fuel accumulation. Earthquakes can cause tsunamis,  landslides, and flooding (e.g., due to levee failures). For example, the  devastating December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was triggered by an  earthquake. In addition, drought can contribute to wildland fires, which  can induce other hazards, including floods and landslides. The degradation  of soil in an area burned by a wildland fire prevents vegetation from  growing back, including features that would hold the soil in place during  heavy rains. Consequently, landslides are more likely to occur in burned  areas.
section_title: Population Trends and Climate Change Are Increasing the Nation’s Vulnerability
paragraphs: Population growth in hazard-prone areas and the resulting increase in  development in these areas are increasing the vulnerability of the nation to  losses resulting from natural hazards. According to a study conducted by  NOAA, coastal areas are among the most rapidly growing and developed  areas in the nation, with a large percentage of the U.S. population living in  coastal counties. These areas are susceptible to hurricanes, earthquakes,  flooding, and other natural hazards. For example, the coastal population in  Florida grew by 7.1 million people, a 75 percent increase, from 1980 to  2003. According to the study, Florida led all coastal states in issuing  building permits for single- and multifamily housing units in coastal  counties from 1999 to 2003.
Additionally, the number of people living on the California coast grew by  almost 10 million between 1980 and 2003, putting more people and  property at risk from earthquake damage. Los Angeles County  experienced the greatest increase in population of all coastal counties  from 1980 to 2003. A study on the potential damage that an earthquake  could cause in downtown Los Angeles found that damages from such an  event would likely fall between $82 billion and $252 billion. Other areas  prone to natural hazards are also experiencing significant population  growth and development. For example, many of the fastest-growing areas  in the United States are in the wildland-urban interface, and development  in these areas increases the threat of wildland fires. Experts estimate that  between 1990 and 2000, 60 percent of all new housing units in the United  States were built in the wildland-urban interface, and that in by 2000 about  38 percent of housing units overall were located in these areas.  Additionally, urban growth in tornado-prone areas, which in many cases  were previously sparsely populated, is increasing the chances that a  tornado will hit a heavily developed area. For example, in February 2007, a  series of tornadoes damaged over 1,500 homes in 4 central Florida  counties, 2 of which have been among the 100 fastest-growing counties in  the nation in recent years.
Further, as we have previously reported, key scientific assessments  indicate that climate change is expected to alter the frequency or severity  of weather-related natural hazards themselves, increasing the nation’s  vulnerability to such hazards. Global temperatures have increased in the  last 100 years and are projected to continue to rise over the next century.  Scientific assessments suggest that the potential effects of climate change  on weather-related events could be significant. For example, increasing  temperatures may impact communities by altering the frequency or  severity of hurricanes, tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, and wildland  fires. For example, Forest Service officials told us that effects of climate  change, such as drought, can increase the risk of wildland fires, especially  east of the Mississippi River because of the high density of vegetation and  population. We also reported that experts found that global sea levels rose  several centimeters during the past century, potentially increasing the  magnitude of hurricane storm surges in some areas. Rising sea levels can  also increase coastal inundation and erosion in low-lying areas, resulting  in property losses.
section_title: Communities’ Planning and Mitigation Activities Can Help Reduce the Risk of Losses from Natural Hazards
paragraphs: Hazard mitigation planning activities help communities identify risks from  natural hazards and develop mitigation strategies to reduce these risks.  The strategies can be implemented through land-use planning tools such  as the acquisition of hazard-prone land and development regulations that  provide a way to reduce vulnerability over the long term. Building codes  and design standards also can be used to help reduce losses from natural  hazards by creating structures that are better able to withstand a hazard  event. State and local building codes can be designed to reflect  communities’ hazard risks and can specify more rigorous requirements to  address these hazards. Additionally, design, construction, and landscaping  features can be included in structures built in hazard-prone areas. For  example, construction features such as hurricane straps, which provide  extra support in connecting the roof to a building, can help reduce  damages during hurricanes. Finally, hazard control structures such as  levees, dams, and floodwalls can help protect existing at-risk  developments from flood losses.
subsections: section_title: Planning Efforts Can Help Reduce Losses from Natural Hazards
paragraphs: The best time for communities to take steps to address their natural  hazard risks is before a disaster occurs. Hazard mitigation planning, which  occurs at the state and local level, helps communities assess their natural  hazards risks and develop mitigation strategies. The process typically  involves a range of stakeholders, including neighborhood and  environmental groups, local businesses, and others. The involvement of  stakeholders is an important component to the planning process because  it assists in identifying the most vulnerable populations and facilities in the  community and in creating community support to implement the plan. The  assessment can include gathering information on the types, locations, and  potential extent of natural hazards and the types and numbers of  buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in hazard areas.  Finally, based on a community’s assessment of its risks, stakeholders can  identify mitigation goals and objectives.
As a condition for receiving hazard mitigation assistance, states and local  communities must develop hazard mitigation plans and have FEMA  approve them. According to FEMA, all 50 states have approved plans, and  approximately 60 percent of the U.S population lives in communities with  approved local mitigation plans. One county emergency management  official with whom we spoke said that a local mitigation plan is an  important component of a community’s mitigation program. He noted that  developing such a plan requires examining other local plans (e.g.,  community development and capital improvement plans) to ensure that  mitigation goals and objectives are consistent with other community goals.  Incorporating elements of communities’ hazard mitigation plans into  community development plans can facilitate the implementation of hazard  mitigation goals. A land-use planning expert told us that incorporating  mitigation plans into other long-term strategies not only helps with  implementation but also can prevent long-term mitigation objectives from  being overlooked when communities develop other short-term objectives.  Additionally, a state emergency management department official told us  that local mitigation plans are particularly important because they  establish a consistent long-term hazard mitigation approach for local  governments to take that survives the high staff turnover rates local  governments often face.
Communities’ development and other plans can be implemented through  land-use planning tools and development regulations that provide a way to  reduce vulnerability to natural hazards over the long-term. For example,  communities can acquire hazard-prone land and retain it as open space in  order to limit development in the most at-risk areas, particularly in  floodplains and coastal zones. Acquiring flood-prone properties  permanently eliminates losses from properties that flood repeatedly.  Communities can also use zoning to designate how land will be used,  control such features as building density and lot sizes, and restrict building  in hazardous areas through the use of setbacks—minimum distances  between development and hazardous areas. For example, coastal zone  management regulations can impose setbacks to control construction near  the coast. Another method of limiting development in hazard-prone areas  is the process of subdivision that divides a large lot into any number of  smaller lots as a means of facilitating development. “Clustering,” for  instance, allows developers to build the same number of units on their  land by placing more buildings on the less hazardous areas and limiting  development in the more hazardous areas.
Communities also use other types of planning, such as capital  improvement planning, which guides decisions on investing in new  infrastructure and repairing and replacing existing infrastructure. Capital  improvement planning can prevent damage to infrastructure by making  sure it is not built in hazard-prone areas and requiring that existing  infrastructure located in such areas be strengthened to provide additional  resilience during natural hazards. Capital improvement plans can include  activities such as raising bridge heights in flood-prone areas and improving  the seismic strength of buildings at risk from earthquakes. Additionally,  these plans can be used to guide development away from hazard-prone  areas by, for example, not extending water and sewer lines and other  utility services into these areas.
California’s history of earthquakes has focused attention on the need to  strengthen the state’s infrastructure against seismic risks. A seismic safety  expert estimated that between 1989 and 2006, approximately $15 billion  was spent on seismic improvements for utilities and transportation  systems in the San Francisco Bay area. Some of these capital improvement  examples include the following:    The California Department of Transportation has rebuilt or retrofitted  most of the major roadway bridges in the San Francisco Bay area.
The Bay Area Rapid Transit system is currently undergoing a major  seismic retrofit of its entire system.
Seismic improvements have also been made for gas, electric, and water  systems.
section_title: Building Codes and Design Standards Can Lead to More Durable Structures That Provide Protection from Natural Hazards
paragraphs: Building codes, the minimum acceptable standards that are used to  regulate the design and construction of the built environment, play an  important role in improving the resilience of structures to natural hazards.  Because states and localities have the authority to adopt building codes,  these codes vary throughout the country. Some states choose to adopt  statewide building codes that can help ensure a minimum level of building  quality. However, statewide building codes do not necessarily apply to all  structures—for example, they may apply only to state-owned buildings,  schools, or other public buildings. In Iowa, statewide building codes apply  only to structures built with state funds or owned or leased by the state.  Additionally, states may give local communities the right to opt out of a  statewide code and adopt a local building code.
Many states and localities base their codes on model building codes that  are developed on a national level by groups made up of building industry  and other professionals. These codes reflect a consensus among building  experts on the appropriate level of protection that codes should provide.  Model codes incorporate disaster-resistant standards for hazards such as  wind, earthquakes, floods, and wildland fires and are specific to the type  of structure being built (e.g., new commercial and residential buildings,  existing buildings that undergo renovation or alteration, and structures  built in wildland-urban interface areas). As of January 2007, the majority of  states had adopted some version of a model building code for commercial  and residential structures. Additionally, some local jurisdictions within  states that have not adopted a statewide model code have adopted model  codes on their own. However, according to an insurance services company  that assesses the effectiveness of communities’ building code enforcement  throughout the country, there are about 5,000 communities throughout the  United States that have not adopted building codes.
Model building codes can be modified by state and local authorities to  reflect local hazard risks and can require more rigorous requirements to  address these hazards. For example, in the hurricane-prone state of  Florida, the Florida Building Code requires that structures built in areas  vulnerable to high winds have windows and glass doors that are designed  to withstand the impact of wind-borne debris or mandates the use of  shatter-resistant glass or shutters. The California Building Code  incorporates, among other things, specific seismic requirements to make  structures more resilient to earthquakes and requirements for fire-resistant  roofing, windows, and building exteriors for structures in wildland-urban  interface areas.
Building officials, mitigation experts, and industry groups all commented  that enforcing building codes is critical in order to effectively mitigate  natural hazard losses. Studies revealed that damage from the 1994  Northridge earthquake would have been reduced if the seismic provisions  of building codes had been properly enforced. Reports following  Hurricane Andrew in 1992 also found that inadequate code enforcement  resulted in significant losses from the hurricane. Enforcement of building  codes generally occurs at the local building department level and ensures  that builders comply with the standards specified in the codes so that  structures provide the level of protection for which they were designed.  Enforcement includes activities such as approving permits for new  structures or structures undergoing renovation, reviewing construction  plans for compliance with the building code, and inspecting construction  sites to ensure that construction is proceeding according to the reviewed  plan.
When a community adopts and enforces revised building codes designed  to improve structural integrity, losses from natural hazard events can be  reduced. State and local building code and other local government officials  told us that structures built to newer building code standards performed  better during natural hazard events than those built to earlier standards.  For example, building code officials in California explained that when  reviewing the damage from the Northridge Earthquake, they found that  older buildings suffered substantially more damage than newer buildings  built using seismic mitigation measures. Figure 7 shows the damage  resulting from Hurricane Charley in 2004 to two structures in Florida that  are located across the street from one another. The structure on the left,  which is an older building, was completely destroyed, while the structure  on the right, whose construction was subject to a recent building code,  performed well during the storm.
Specific construction, design, and landscaping features can be  incorporated into structures built in hazard-prone areas to improve their  ability to withstand a natural hazard event. For example, specific  construction features such as hurricane straps, which provide extra  support in connecting the roof to a building, in areas subject to hurricane- level winds, can help reduce damages during hurricanes (fig. 8).
For homes built in wildland-urban interface areas, landscaping techniques  can be applied around the perimeter of a structure. By managing the  vegetation and reducing or eliminating flammable materials within 30 to  100 feet of a structure, property owners and developers can create a  defensible space that substantially reduces the likelihood that a wildland  fire will damage or destroy the structure (fig. 9).
Existing structures can also be made more resistant to natural hazards  through retrofitting, or modifying a structure to improve its resistance to  hazards. While retrofitting may not bring a structure up to the most recent  building code standards, it will help existing structures better withstand  natural hazard events. Retrofitting techniques exist for a number of natural  hazards, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and wildland fires. For  example, garage doors are vulnerable to hurricane winds because of their  size and the strength of the materials used to construct them. If a garage  door fails during a storm, it can lead to more severe damages to a home,  especially to the roof. However, these doors can be reinforced with  horizontal or vertical bracing. Additionally, homes can be retrofitted by  anchoring the structure to its foundation, reducing the possibility that the  house will move off its foundation during an earthquake or hurricane.
section_title: Hazard Control Structures and Natural Protective Features Can Protect At- Risk Areas
paragraphs: Hazard control structures such as levees, dams, and floodwalls provide  protection in flood-prone areas and can reduce associated losses. These  structures are typically used to protect existing at-risk developments, such  as buildings located in floodplains, and provide a certain level of flood  protection. They may not provide absolute flood protection, however,  because a flood could exceed the intended level of protection, as  Hurricane Katrina’s storm surge did, allowing floodwater to breach the  levees and floodwalls in New Orleans. However, flood control structures  can prevent extensive damage in many cases. For example, the city of   Napa developed a flood protection project that incorporates several flood  mitigation activities and a combination of hazard control structures,  including levees, floodwalls, and other structures, to achieve a 100-year  flood protection level. The project is expected to save $26 million  annually in flood damage costs when it is completed. According to a city  of Napa official, had the project been completed it would have prevented  all flood damage that occurred from the flood on New Year’s Eve in 2005.
Protecting, restoring, and enhancing natural protective features such as  floodplains, wetlands, beaches, dunes, and natural drainage ways can also  help mitigate a community’s vulnerability to damage from storms and  associated flooding. Floodplains and wetlands, for instance, serve as  natural buffers, absorbing excess rainfall and limiting the effects of floods  on the built environment. Coastal wetlands can absorb storm surge, while  beaches and dunes provide physical protection from storm surge. Over  time, some of these natural storm protection features have suffered  damages and losses as a result of development pressures. A number of  communities have adopted policies designed to protect these natural  protective features. For example, federal, state, and local government  resources have been spent in Florida to restore and enhance these natural  protective features, including beach and dune restoration.
section_title: While Various Approaches Are Used to Encourage Natural Hazard Mitigation, Significant Challenges Remain
paragraphs: Federal, state, and local governments provide a variety of financial and  other assistance to encourage natural hazard mitigation activities. For  example, at the federal level, FEMA offers assistance to states and local  communities through grant programs such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant  Program (HMGP). At the local level, communities can use economic  incentives such as tax benefits to encourage mitigation activities.  Insurance discounts can also encourage communities and individuals to  undertake mitigation measures. However, despite these methods of  encouraging mitigation, several impediments exist to implementing  mitigation activities. For example, mitigation efforts are often constrained  by conflicting local interests, cost concerns, and a lack of public  awareness of the risks of natural hazards and the importance of mitigation.
subsections: section_title: Financial and Other Assistance Can Help Encourage Some Communities and Individuals to Take Action
paragraphs: Federal, state, and local agencies are taking steps to provide direct  assistance to some communities to reduce losses from natural hazards  although not all communities have the means to take full advantage of this  assistance. This assistance can help communities overcome some of the  impediments they face in undertaking mitigation activities by, for example,  providing funding to assist in implementing mitigation activities and  offering incentives to encourage mitigation activities. At the federal level,  FEMA provides funding and technical assistance to help communities  reduce losses from natural hazards. To provide states with an incentive to  undertake more proactive mitigation activities, DMA 2000 authorized the  grant of additional HMGP funds to states where a disaster area is declared  if the state has prepared a more advanced hazard mitigation plan. States  that demonstrate that they have integrated their hazard mitigation plans  with other state or regional planning (e.g., comprehensive and capital  improvement plans); effectively administer, implement, and assess  existing mitigation programs; and are committed to a comprehensive state  mitigation program receive additional funding to conduct mitigation  activities. According to FEMA officials, as of May 2007, only 11 states had  completed advanced mitigation plans and were eligible for this additional  funding.
With the exception of the flood mitigation grant programs, FEMA’s grant  programs generally do not specify the hazards that communities must  mitigate or the types of activities they must undertake but instead leave  these decisions to local communities. For example, in Oklahoma, state  officials decided to focus their attention on saving lives during tornado  events and developed the Safe Room Program. Using FEMA HMGP funds  from a tornado event in 1999, the state offered refunds of up to $2,000 for  home owners who built safe rooms in their homes. Some local community  hazard mitigation officials with whom we met, however, said that the  HMGP application process is complex and time and resource intensive,  and that long delays can occur in receiving mitigation funds. Delays in  receiving grant funds can lead to additional obstacles for local  communities. One local mitigation official told us that delays in receiving  grant funds prevents the city from being more cost-effective in terms of  mitigation. She stated that it would be most effective to conduct mitigation  activities immediately after a storm event, when damages are being  repaired, rather than waiting for HMGP funds to become available.  According to FEMA, while states have up to 1 year from the date of a  disaster declaration to apply for HMGP funds, the approval process can  begin much earlier following a disaster if state and local officials have  previously identified viable mitigation projects that are consistent with  state and local mitigation plans.
Although mitigation grant funds may be available to communities, not all  communities are able to capitalize on these opportunities. For example,  most of FEMA’s grant programs fund up to 75 percent of the mitigation  project costs and require local communities to produce the remainder of  the funds needed for mitigation projects. Oklahoma state emergency  management officials with whom we met noted that although local  communities might have several mitigation programs available to them,  often, communities do not have the resources needed to provide their  share of the cost. The officials further commented that this problem tends  to affect many of the smaller communities in the state and that these  communities should be careful not to commit themselves to too many  mitigation projects.
FEMA also offers support to communities by providing technical  assistance on hazard mitigation, offering guidance on how communities  can develop hazard mitigation plans and identify the areas most at risk  from hazards. For example, FEMA developed and provides training on a  loss estimation software program (i.e., HAZUS-MH) that analyzes potential  losses caused by floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes that communities  use to determine where to focus their mitigation efforts. FEMA also  provides information directly to help residents and business owners  choose the type of flood insurance policy that best suits their needs  through its FloodSmart Web site and marketing program aimed at  increasing flood insurance coverage nationwide. In addition, FEMA  provides multihazard design, construction, and retrofit guidance at no cost  for various stakeholders, including design professionals, local officials,  homebuilders, home owners, and other building owners.
A number of other federal agencies assist communities in reducing their  risk to natural hazards. These agencies generally focus their programs on a  specific hazard or hazardous area and work with communities to reduce  their natural hazard risks. For example, at the federal level, five wildland  fire management agencies work to manage losses resulting from wildland  fires by providing grants or other kinds of assistance to help reduce fuels  on private land. Through grant programs, these agencies provide funding  to state forestry agencies and local fire departments for equipment,  training, risk assessment, fire prevention work, and public information and  education activities. Similarly, NOAA assists U.S. coastal states through  financial and other types of assistance to protect the nation’s coastal  communities. By partnering with states and local authorities, NOAA helps  communities conduct coastal hazards planning and administer state or  local land-use programs that guide more prudent development in  hazardous coastal areas. Other federal agencies offer a number of  programs that can be used to address communities’ natural hazard  mitigation needs. For example, the Secretary of the Department of  Housing and Urban Development has flexibility to use Community  Development Block Grant program funds when available to assist  communities recovering in presidentially declared disaster areas. These  activities can include the acquisition and reconstruction of properties  damaged by a natural hazard event.
State and local governments often have their own programs to promote  mitigation that can operate alongside federal programs, including direct  subsidies for mitigation activities and services that promote mitigation.  Because state and local governments determine the types of programs  they implement, the programs can be tailored to focus on a specific local  hazard. Examples from communities we visited include the following:    The Florida Department of Financial Services operates the My Safe Florida  Home Program to help Florida residents identify ways to strengthen their  homes to reduce damages from hurricanes. The program offers a free  home inspection to home owners that meet income and other eligibility  requirements to help them identify appropriate mitigation techniques and  provides matching grants of up to $5,000 to make the recommended  mitigation improvements.
The city of Berkeley, California, encourages private property owners to  conduct seismic retrofit activities by allowing property owners to use a  portion of the transfer tax on the sale of a property to fund seismic retrofit  work. If owners choose not to use this portion of the tax to fund retrofit  activities for their property, this portion goes to the city. The city also  subsidizes mitigation by waiving building permit fees on seismic retrofit  projects.
The Boulder County Land Use Department assists home owners’  associations by providing grants to conduct fuel management in  neighborhoods that are at high risk from wildland fires. The grant  recipients reduce their wildland fire risk by cutting tree limbs and clearing  other debris from their properties, and the waste is chipped and used to  heat county office buildings.
section_title: Insurance Premium Discounts Can Encourage Some Communities and Home Owners to Undertake Mitigation Efforts
paragraphs: Insurance premium discounts can promote mitigation by rewarding  property owners for actions they take to reduce the effects of natural  hazards. At the federal level, the NFIP Community Rating System (CRS)  encourages communities to reduce their flood risks by engaging in  floodplain management activities. CRS provides discounts on flood  insurance for individuals in communities that establish floodplain  management programs that go beyond the minimum requirements of  NFIP. Depending on the level of activities that communities undertake in  four areas—public information, mapping and regulatory activities, flood  damage reduction, and flood preparedness—communities are categorized  into 1 of 10 CRS classes. A Class 1 rating provides the largest flood  insurance premium reduction (45 percent) to communities, while a  community with a Class 10 rating receives no insurance premium  reduction.
Mitigation officials with whom we spoke said they believe that the CRS  insurance discounts are an effective means of encouraging communities  that participate in NFIP to undertake more aggressive flood mitigation.  For example, an official from the Palm Beach County Division of  Emergency Management noted that the county’s CRS rating of 6 entitles  flood insurance policyholders in all 37 jurisdictions in the county to a 25  percent reduction in their flood insurance premiums. A city of Napa  official said that one of the goals of the Napa River Flood Protection  Project is to improve the city of Napa’s CRS rating from a Class 7 to a  Class 5—a change that would increase the flood insurance policyholder  discount by an additional 10 percent. Although these discounts are  available, less than 5 percent of the communities participating in NFIP  participate in the CRS program. Furthermore, CRS classes 1 through 4  each contain only one community. Of these four communities, Roseville,  California has a Class 1 rating and is the only community in the United  States eligible for the maximum flood insurance premium discounts of 45  percent. According to FEMA, approximately 1,055 communities will have  flood insurance discounts beginning October 1, 2007, which represents  about two-thirds of NFIP flood insurance policies.
States and communities can also provide opportunities for property  owners to receive insurance premium discounts by participating in the  Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS™) program,  which was developed by ISO. Through the program, communities are  assessed according to the building codes adopted in a community,  amendments to the code, and how well the codes are enforced. The  BCEGS™ program places particular emphasis on reducing losses caused  by natural hazards, especially losses caused by hurricanes, tornadoes, and  earthquakes. Once assessed, communities receive a BCEGS™  classification, which is provided to insurers to use as an underwriting tool.  Insurance companies can voluntarily opt to use this information to offer  rate discounts to property owners that live in these communities.  According to the officials who developed the program, however, data are  not available on the extent to which it is being used as an underwriting  tool. The officials also commented that they do not believe many  insurance companies are using it for this purpose.
Some states also use insurance discounts to promote mitigation. In  Florida, private insurance companies are required by law to offer a  discount for structures that incorporate wind mitigation components. In  California, state law requires the California Earthquake Authority (CEA)— a privately financed but publicly managed state agency—to offer a 5- percent discount on retrofitted homes that were built before 1979 and that  meet other specifications. However, according to information provided  by CEA, only about 12 percent of California residents have earthquake  insurance. In addition, the CEA Mitigation Program Coordinator stated  that it is unclear to what extent insurance premium discounts are an  incentive to encourage individual homeowners to undertake earthquake  mitigation activities. Also, city officials whom we met with in Florida said  that discounts are not very effective for creating incentives for home  owners because of the increasing insurance premiums in that state. For  example, according to the Florida Financial Services Commission, the  largest private insurer in Florida increased its rates by 66 percent in 2006.
section_title: Public Education and Outreach Can Help Raise Awareness of Natural Hazards and Mitigation
paragraphs: Individuals and communities must understand the hazards that pose a risk  to them and the options for reducing those risks in order to make  informed decisions not only about mitigation but also about where to live,  purchase property, or locate a business or critical facility. Several state  and local officials told us that individuals are often unaware of the risks  they face. For example, one county mitigation official in Florida explained  that the state’s population continues to grow and that most of the new  residents were unfamiliar with the state’s hazard risks and mitigation  options because they come from out of state. Public education and  training campaigns help to ensure that communities and individuals  receive adequate information on the hazards they face as well as the  options for reducing their risk. Education and outreach programs are  valuable components of mitigation programs and can take many forms,  including distributing educational materials to individuals, organizing  community events that discuss mitigation options, and incorporating  hazard information into school curriculums.
A number of entities conduct education campaigns on natural hazards to a  variety of audiences—the public, home owners, business owners, builders,  and developers. For example, the Firewise Communities program, which  is made up of nongovernmental organizations and federal agencies,  educates home owners about steps they can take to protect their homes  from wildland fires and state and local officials about steps they can take  to help educate home owners. The program is also used to educate  developers who are building homes in the wildland-urban interface about  the various landscaping and other mitigation features that can be  incorporated into developments to help reduce the risk of damage due to  wildland fires. In addition to large national programs, we observed a  variety of different public education campaigns at the state and local level  during our field work. For example:    The city of Deerfield Beach, Florida, created a nonprofit organization to  educate city residents on how to mitigate hurricane risks. The nonprofit is  based in the Disaster Survival House, a home that was built by a major  insurance company and donated to the city to show how a house can be  built to withstand a catastrophic hurricane. The house serves as an  educational center for schoolchildren and the public and as a showcase of  building techniques and mitigation measures for builders and home  owners.
Tulsa, Oklahoma, conducts an annual public outreach campaign using  information displays and brochures that are placed throughout the area in  fast food restaurants. The brochures outline hazards that pose a risk to the  community, such as tornadoes, floods, and wildland fires and provide  information on how individuals can protect themselves and their property.
When communities take actions to increase public awareness of the  hazards citizens face and the options available to reduce them,  communities may be more likely to take progressive actions to solve  hazard problems. For example, when citizens in Napa, California, were  educated about the flood hazard in the community and the options being  proposed to address the risk, the community voted to increase the sales  tax to fund the local portion of a flood mitigation project. The city of  Berkeley, California—another community that has undertaken  considerable public education and outreach efforts—has the highest  percentage of seismically retrofitted buildings in the San Francisco Bay  area. The city has also passed a number of bond initiatives to fund  mitigation activities and has been successful in recruiting residents to  assist in promoting mitigation activities. However, public awareness alone  cannot always overcome some of the difficulties communities have in  promoting mitigation activities such as lacking the necessary funding to  undertake mitigation activities and the perception that individuals may  have that a disaster will not happen in their community.
section_title: Conflicting Interests Can Impede Local Mitigation Efforts
paragraphs: Hazard mitigation goals and local economic interests often conflict, and  the resulting tension can often have a profound effect on mitigation  efforts. As we have previously reported, local governments may be  reluctant to take actions to mitigate natural hazards for a number of  reasons, such as local sensitivity to such measures as building code  enforcement and land-use planning and the conflict between hazard  mitigation and development goals. For example, community goals such  as building housing and promoting economic development may be higher  priorities than formulating mitigation regulations that may include  restrictive development regulations and more stringent building codes. In  particular, local government officials we contacted commented that  developers often want to increase growth in hazard-prone areas (e.g.,  along the coast or in floodplains) to support economic development.  These areas are often desirable for residences and businesses, and such  development increases local tax revenues but is generally in conflict with  mitigation goals. For instance, during our visit to Tulsa, Oklahoma—a  community that has repeatedly experienced dangerous floods—local  officials expressed their opposition to a project proposed by developers to  construct an island in the Arkansas River. The proposed project would  create a 40-acre man-made island with residential and commercial  development in the river. According to city officials, this development  would be downstream from the Keystone Dam, which in the past has had  to release water that has resulted in flooding downstream, and the  proposed project would be located in an area that is vulnerable to such  flooding. The Tulsa officials said that this project highlights the conflict  between economic development and mitigation efforts, as developers are  promoting the project as economic development for the city, while  emergency management officials are not in favor of the project due to the  potential for damage to the proposed islands and other properties  downstream.
Land-use planning experts told us that the short-term perspective of some  local elected officials can conflict with long-term community efforts such  as limiting growth in hazard-prone areas or adopting strong building  codes. Political pressures can also play a large role in communities’ choice  of mitigation activities. National building code officials stated that in some  communities, exemptions and variances to existing building codes are  made because of political pressure. For example, mitigation experts  commented that because of political pressures in Florida, counties located  in the Panhandle were originally exempt from stricter statewide building  codes for hurricane protection. The exemption was removed from law at  the end of the 2006 Florida Legislative session, and buildings in these  counties now have to comply with the more stringent hurricane protection  requirements of the Florida Building Code. Additionally, in some  communities political support for implementing mitigation activities is  lacking. For example, during our field work in Colorado, officials told us  that while some communities in the state have adopted model building  codes, many jurisdictions are “home rule” communities that often resist  federal and state regulations, which local citizens view as government  intervention. Federal, state, and local officials all cited the importance of  political support in implementing mitigation actions and, said that without  political support, the amount of mitigation activities that occur would be  limited.
section_title: Costs Concerns May Hinder Mitigation Efforts
paragraphs: Local communities may encounter difficulties in implementing and  maintaining mitigation-related policies due to cost concerns. Local  communities can incur large expenses in implementing certain mandatory  mitigation requirements, such as hazard mapping, land-use planning, and  local ordinances to address natural hazard risks. For example, the  California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires cities and counties to use  seismic hazard zone maps in their land-use and building permit process.  However, according to a 2005 American Planning Association report on  landslide hazards and planning, local planning and building officials have  been apprehensive about the financial costs of compliance, which requires  the use of hazard maps, regional and site-specific hazard assessments, and  amendments to local regulations. Additionally, maintaining mitigation- related policies can be difficult for communities because of the costs and  resources involved. For example, the process of updating local building  codes is resource intensive, and although newer codes may provide better  protection from natural hazards, local communities may choose not to  adopt them because of the associated expenses (i.e., the adoption and  implementation process and the training of building code officials and  inspectors on the updated code). Further, information on local natural  hazard risks may need to be updated periodically, a process that can be  time consuming and expensive. The Oklahoma Water Resources Board  floodplain manager told us that updating floodplain maps to reflect  changes in local development is expensive because it could require hiring  outside engineering contractors.
Financial constraints may also limit communities’ decisions to eliminate or  limit development in hazard-prone areas. For example, an effective way  for communities to eliminate development in high-risk areas is to acquire  land and retain it for open space. However, property acquisition is  expensive and can require long-range planning, multiple funding sources,  and political support. Communities, particularly those dependent on new  development for economic growth, can also face resistance to limiting the  amount of development that is allowed to occur in hazard-prone areas and  may be hesitant to imposing strong mitigation requirements. For example,  implementing density restrictions that reduce the amount of development  that can occur in a hazard-prone area can result in a perceived or real  decrease in the value of land and make the area less attractive for  development.
Private property owners are also influenced by cost considerations when  deciding whether to implement hazard mitigation. For example, many  home owners may be reluctant to pay for the additional costs of features  that exceed local building codes, such as reinforced concrete walls, fire- resistant building materials, and flood-proofing features, all which add to  the cost of building a home. According to building experts, for most home  owners and potential home buyers cost is the primary factor in deciding  whether to include mitigation features in new or existing homes. Officials  from the National Association of Homebuilders told us that the economic  cost of mitigation measures should be considered, because every $1,000  increase in median home prices can price about 240,000 home buyers out  of the market. During our field work in Lehigh Acres, Florida, officials  from the Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) told us that not all  new home buyers were willing to spend the additional costs for  incorporating mitigation measures, especially first-time buyers. IBHS has  developed standards for building hurricane-resistant homes. According to  IBHS officials, incorporating these standards can add about 10 to 15  percent to the total cost of building a home. The officials also added that  the fact that appraisers often do not include the added costs of mitigation  features into the appraised home value is another impediment to  mitigation that needs to be addressed. FEMA officials pointed out that, in  addition to the cost of mitigation features, the benefits they provide should  be communicated to individuals when they purchase a home.
For existing buildings, the high cost of retrofitting has also been cited as  an impediment to implementing mitigation measures. In 1986, California  enacted a law that required local governments in high seismic regions to  inventory unreinforced masonry buildings, that were known to perform  poorly during earthquakes and to establish a program for reducing losses  from these buildings. According to an estimate prepared by a California  Seismic Safety Commission structural engineer, about two-thirds of over  25,000 unreinforced masonry buildings that have been inventoried in  California have been retrofitted or demolished. However, about 8,000  buildings in high seismic regions have not been retrofitted, primarily  because of the high cost of retrofitting. For example, the cost to retrofit an  average-size 10,000-square-foot building is about $400,000. As a result,  some buildings that do not generate sufficient income to pay for the cost  of retrofitting have been left vacant. Further, a study that assessed the  risks and losses of potential earthquakes in the New York, New Jersey, and  Connecticut region determined that retrofitting thousands of buildings in  New York would be “impractical and economically unrealistic.” This  decision was made despite the fact that New York City faces moderate  seismic risk and contains a large number of unreinforced masonry  buildings used primarily as housing or for commercial purposes. In 1995,  New York City passed its first seismic building code, which will help to  ensure that new construction meets these standards. However, because  these standards do not apply to buildings built prior to 1995, even a  moderate earthquake could cause much damage to the existing building  stock.
section_title: Lack of Rigorous Building Code Enforcement Impedes Hazard Mitigation
paragraphs: Building code officials and others with whom we spoke told us that  improvements are needed to address the lack of rigorous enforcement of  building codes in the United States. According to ISO officials, of  approximately 19,000 communities assessed through the BCEGSTM  program, only 5 communities have received the highest classification that  indicates exemplary commitment to building code enforcement. The ISO  officials also commented that building departments in most of the  communities they review conduct more inspections per day than is  feasible to provide rigorous code enforcement. National building code  officials told us that many local building departments do not have the  adequate funds and staffing levels to conduct proper code enforcement.  Additionally, they commented that low funding levels can affect the  amount of training local building inspectors receive and thereby reduce  their ability to enforce the code.
section_title: Limited Public Awareness Constrains Mitigation Activities
paragraphs: Efforts to adopt new mitigation activities and strategies have been  constrained by the general public’s lack of awareness and understanding  about natural hazards and risk. Individuals often also have a  misperception that natural hazard events will not occur in their  community and are not interested in learning of the likelihood of an event  occurring. For example, in California—where public perceptions of  natural hazard risk are high—some mitigation measures have been  implemented, such as strengthening transit systems, bridges, and  highways. However, in other parts of the country, where seismic risk is  high but damaging earthquakes occur less frequently (e.g., New Madrid  seismic zone), public awareness of the risk is lower, and fewer mitigation  measures are in place. Additionally, land-use experts and mitigation  officials told us that it is often difficult for the public to perceive natural  hazard risk or believe that a natural hazard event will occur in their  community. However, public skepticism is significantly reduced  immediately following natural hazard events, and mitigation activities are  often conducted during such periods—for example, the adoption of more  stringent building codes after Hurricane Katrina and the seismic  retrofitting requirements approved after major earthquakes in California.
Limited public awareness may also be a result of the complexity of the  information that is needed for individuals to understand their hazard risks.  Local community decision makers may not fully understand the science  involved in predicting the probability of natural hazard events such as  earthquakes, making it difficult for a community to develop appropriate  mitigation plans. For example, USGS officials cited the complexity of  geologic science as a challenge to communicating information on hazards.  The officials also said that the ability of decision makers to develop  mitigation strategies for their communities depended on the availability of  appropriate and easily understandable information. As a result, programs  to improve public awareness and education are long-term and require  sustained effort.
section_title: A Number of Collaboration Efforts Exist but Do Not Provide a Comprehensive Strategic Framework for National Natural Hazard Mitigation Goals
paragraphs: Collaboration among federal, state, and local agencies as well as  nongovernmental stakeholders on natural hazard mitigation efforts tends  to occur on a hazard-specific basis, typically after a disaster, or through  informal methods. These efforts include developing national mitigation  strategies or interagency programs dedicated to reducing losses from  particular natural hazards. In addition, as a way to promote collaboration  among all mitigation stakeholders, the federal government develops  partnerships with state and local governments, professional associations,  nongovernmental groups, businesses, academia, and individual community  members—partnerships that are critical to the success of any mitigation  program. Although the current approach includes some key practices on  collaboration, it is fragmented and does not provide a comprehensive  strategic framework that combines both pre- and postdisaster mitigation  activities. Without such a framework, the federal government may not be  effectively identifying and managing all natural hazard risks nationwide.
subsections: section_title: Some Collaboration Exists among Mitigation Stakeholders
paragraphs: Mitigation efforts often involve many federal agencies that have defined  missions and different programs to achieve mitigation goals related to a  specific hazard. Successful mitigation efforts require collaboration not  only among federal agencies but also between state and local government  agencies as well as a variety of nongovernmental entities, because natural  hazard mitigation activities are primarily implemented at the state and  local level. Accordingly, participation and, ultimately buy-in from a broad  range of stakeholders—including state and local agencies, businesses,  professional associations, nonprofit organizations, academia, and  members of the community—are vital to the success of any mitigation  effort. We identified a variety of ways that federal agencies collaborate  with each other and with nonfederal stakeholders. The collaboration  efforts are often aimed at establishing approaches to working together;  clarifying priorities, roles and responsibilities; and aligning resources to  accomplish common outcomes.
First, consistent with key practices in collaboration, federal agencies  involved in mitigation create hazard-specific strategies and programs for  reducing losses from specific natural hazards. These strategies and  programs detail the roles and responsibilities for the federal agencies  involved in reducing hazard losses and show how the agencies will work  together to achieve that goal. For example    The National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy, which was developed  in 2003 by USGS, recognized that while there are many stakeholders  involved in landslide mitigation in the United States, there is little  collaboration of mitigation activities. The strategy recommends that  collaboration be improved among federal, state, and local agencies in  order to (1) establish more effective partnerships with the academic and  private sectors and (2) better leverage resources. To eliminate duplication  of efforts, the strategy names the federal agencies responsible for leading  each activity—a key practice in collaboration. The strategy addresses the  need for increased public awareness and education about landslides and  names FEMA and USGS as the agencies responsible for leading the  development of information and education programs.
The 10-year Comprehensive Strategy for reducing wildland fire risks to  communities and the environment involves many federal and nonfederal  stakeholders. This strategy provides a collaborative framework to assist  communities in implementing mitigation measures. Both the Departments  of Agriculture and the Interior worked with the other stakeholders to  develop a plan to implement the strategy. The plan identifies tasks  associated with reducing losses from wildland fires, including identifying  the level at which collaboration should occur as well as the stakeholders  responsible for leading the task. For example, one task was to compile  examples of local zoning ordinances and state planning efforts that have  successfully reduced risks associated with wildland fire. The plan also  specifies that collaboration should occur at the national, state, and local  levels and that the National Association of Counties and the National  Association of State Foresters would have leadership roles.
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) is an  interagency program created to reduce risks to life and property in the  United States that result from earthquakes. In 2004, Congress established  the Interagency Coordinating Committee to plan, manage, and coordinate  the NEHRP. This committee consists of FEMA, USGS, the National  Science Foundation, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Office of  Management and Budget, and, as the lead agency, the National Institute of  Standards and Technology. The agencies are working together to develop  a NEHRP strategic plan and a coordinated interagency budget. The  program also seeks to improve earthquake hazards identification and risk  assessment methods. Each agency’s mission, although separate and  distinct, has been integrated into a complementary program that seeks to  promote earthquake mitigation.
Second, federal agencies typically collaborate on mitigation activities after  a disaster event in the areas that have been impacted. For example, the  Department of Homeland Security issued the National Response Plan in  December 2004, intending it to be an all-discipline, all-hazards plan  establishing a single, comprehensive framework for the management of  domestic incidents when federal involvement is necessary. The plan  contains one component on postdisaster mitigation that addresses long- term community recovery and mitigation, but does not address predisaster  mitigation efforts. Specifically, the plan provides a collaborative  mechanism to assist communities that have been impacted by a disaster to  (1) identify appropriate federal programs and agencies, (2) avoid  duplication of assistance, and (3) ensure follow through of hazard  mitigation efforts. These efforts can include developing long-term recovery  plans for communities impacted by a disaster, that identify priorities in  rebuilding and improving hazard resistance in new structures. FEMA is  responsible for leading the effort to implement this component and is  supported by six primary federal agencies as well as a number of other  agencies that have a supportive role.
Third, agency officials said that they also use a variety of informal  mechanisms to collaborate on their mitigation activities. These officials  discussed frequent, informal communication such as e-mails,  teleconferences, and discussions at regional or local conferences or  workshops that occurs on specific projects or initiatives. For example,  FEMA officials said that officials from other agencies such as the  Departments of Transportation and Energy frequently consult with FEMA  staff on flood mitigation in compliance with an executive order on  floodplain management. NOAA agency officials also commented that  collaboration occurs when agency officials assist in conducting training  for other federal agencies. For example, the National Weather Service  provides guest instructors for a week-long FEMA training course for  emergency managers.
Finally, federal agencies collaborate through partnerships with local  government leaders, volunteer groups, the business community, and  individual citizens to implement mitigation activities. Several state and  local officials with whom we spoke cited Project Impact—one of FEMA’s  previous predisaster mitigation programs—as a model in helping to  develop broad community support for predisaster mitigation activities.  Local officials from each of the former Project Impact communities that  we visited emphasized that the strength of the original public-private  partnerships formed during Project Impact was a key reason their  communities’ mitigation efforts have been sustainable. The program  provided small, one-time grants directly to communities and empowered  leaders in those communities to build effective partnerships and  encourage private sector financial participation before disasters occurred.  For example, Deerfield Beach, Florida—the first Project Impact  community—established a program that created partnerships with FEMA,  IBHS, and four local lending institutions to provide interest free loans  from local banks to help community businesses conduct wind resistance  mitigation activities, such as installing impact-resistant glass and shutters,  to reduce the effects of high winds.
section_title: The Current Approach to Collaboration on Natural Hazard Mitigation Does Not Provide a Comprehensive Mitigation Framework for the Nation
paragraphs: While collaboration on specific hazard mitigation efforts occurs in a  variety of ways, the current approach does not provide a strategic  framework for coordinating nationwide pre- and postdisaster mitigation.  In the past, such strategic frameworks were developed by FEMA and the  Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, of which FEMA is a participant.  These frameworks shifted the focus from reacting to natural disasters to  proactive coordinated pre- and postdisaster mitigation efforts. In 1998,  we reported that FEMA had taken a strategic approach to mitigation, in  part through the development of a National Mitigation Strategy. This  strategy called for strengthening partnerships among all levels of  government and the private sector and set forth major initiatives, along  with timelines, in a number of areas, including leadership and  coordination. For example, the strategy required that within 1 year  mitigation considerations be integrated into the management and  operation of all federal programs that affect the built environment and that  a Federal Interagency Mitigation Task Force convene to more closely  coordinate federal mitigation authorities, among other things. While these  strategies helped to provide a strategic framework for natural hazard  mitigation in the past, the current approach tends to occur on a hazard- specific basis, typically after a disaster event, or through informal methods  and does not create a similar framework.
Various provisions of federal laws have stressed the importance of  national hazard mitigation. For example, recognizing that expenditures for  federal disaster assistance were increasing without the likelihood of  corresponding reductions in losses from natural disasters, DMA 2000,  provides, among other things, a framework for linking pre- and  postdisaster mitigation initiatives with public and private interests to  ensure an integrated, comprehensive approach to disaster loss reduction.
It requires establishing a federal interagency taskforce for the purpose of  “coordinating the implementation of predisaster hazard mitigation  programs administered by the Federal Government.” DMA 2000 further  requires that the Administrator of FEMA serve as the chairperson of the  taskforce, indicating the leadership role FEMA is expected to provide  nationwide for all hazards. DMA 2000 also recognizes the need for  nonfederal stakeholder involvement by including state and local  governments in the taskforce. While this taskforce has yet to be created,  the stated purpose of the taskforce, which is “coordinating the  implementation of predisaster hazard mitigation programs administered  by the Federal Government,” is consistent with the need for the creation of  a comprehensive national strategic framework for mitigation.
The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Post- Katrina Reform Act), requires major changes to FEMA that are designed to  increase the effectiveness of preparedness and response to catastrophic  disasters. The act defines emergency management as “the governmental  function that coordinates and integrates all activities necessary to build,  sustain, and improve the capability to prepare for, protect against, respond  to, recover from, or mitigate against threatened or actual natural disasters,  acts of terrorism, or other man-made disasters.” Moreover, the act  defines FEMA’s primary mission as reducing the loss of life and property  “by leading and supporting the nation in a risk-based comprehensive  emergency management system of preparedness, protection, response,  recovery, and mitigation.”
While the current approach to collaboration on natural hazard mitigation  often includes some key practices for collaboration, it tends to occur on a  hazard-specific basis, typically after a disaster event, or through informal  methods. This fragmented approach does not provide a comprehensive  strategic framework for federal agencies and other stakeholders to  collectively work toward accomplishing common national hazard  mitigation goals. For example, while federal agency officials with whom  we spoke discussed a variety of specific mitigation activities, it was  unclear how these efforts fit into a comprehensive strategic framework for  mitigation. Similar to the framework provided by the National Response  Plan for managing domestic incidents and the frameworks provided in  past national mitigation strategies, a comprehensive national framework  for pre- and postdisaster mitigation would, among other things, define  common national goals, establish joint strategies, leverage resources,  assign roles and responsibilities, and develop performance measures and  reporting requirements.
A comprehensive strategic framework focused on mitigation activities that  occur both before and after natural hazard events could strengthen  FEMA’s ability to assess whether all mitigation efforts are working  together to accomplish national hazard mitigation goals that adequately  prepare the nation for its natural hazard risks. Without such a framework,  the federal government may not be effectively identifying and managing all  natural hazard risks nationwide. Moreover, the current approach does not  ensure that collective mitigation efforts are working together in a manner  that leverages resources and develops synergies across various hazard- specific mitigation efforts.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: No state in the country is immune to the risk from a natural hazard, be it  floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, or wildland fires and large  percentages of the U.S. population live in areas susceptible to more than  one of these hazards. In particular, the coastal areas of the country, which  contain a large portion of the nation’s population and have experienced  substantial growth, are susceptible to many natural hazards. Moreover, the  implications of climate change, which may lead to more frequent storms  and sea-level rise, increase the vulnerability and risks associated with  hazard events. All of these factors present increasing risks to life and  property throughout the United States and increasing expenditures by the  federal government in the wake of a disaster. As seen in recent years, the  level of destruction that a natural hazard event can cause can be  devastating to those who experience it and pose major challenges to the  federal government, which plays a key role in disaster recovery and  assistance. As more people migrate to hazard-prone areas such as Florida  and California, the need for a comprehensive strategic framework for  natural hazard mitigation takes on new significance because these areas  are subject to multiple hazards. Additionally, according to the National  Institute of Building Sciences, hazard mitigation activities have been found  to be a sound investment with every $1 FEMA provides communities for  mitigation activities, resulting in an average of $4 in future benefits. While  the federal government plays a key role in natural hazard mitigation  efforts, measures such as hazard mitigation planning, development  regulations, and the adoption and enforcement of strong building codes  are ultimately the responsibility of local jurisdictions, which make  decisions on the extent of development and on how and where new  developments are built. Therefore, finding ways to effectively partner with  and develop buy-in from state and local governments is critical to any  federal mitigation effort.
Federal agencies, particularly FEMA, play an important role in establishing  and promoting collaboration on natural hazard mitigation and in  developing a national mitigation framework that includes nonfederal  stakeholders as active participants in efforts to reduce losses from natural  hazards. While the current approach to collaboration on natural hazard  mitigation involves a mix of methods and may be useful on a hazard- specific basis or for a particular hazard event, having a fragmented  approach does not take full advantage of synergies that may exist among  the different mitigation stakeholders. For example, given that many  natural hazards are related, such as hurricanes and flooding or wildland  fires and landslides, there may be opportunities to leverage resources and  for stakeholders responsible for specific hazards to collaborate with other  stakeholders on related hazards, such as coordinating earthquake  mitigation efforts with tsunami mitigation efforts. The creation of a  strategic framework for pre- and postdisaster mitigation among all  stakeholders nationwide could help overcome some of the challenges  faced in implementing mitigation efforts and would help define common  national goals for mitigation, identify risks, establish joint strategies across  federal and state programs, leverage resources across agencies, assign  lead roles and responsibilities, and include mechanisms to monitor,  evaluate, and report on results. FEMA’s new organizational changes and  responsibilities under the Post-Katrina Reform Act call for the agency to  provide Federal leadership in promoting such a strategic framework for  mitigation. The federal government could benefit from a comprehensive  strategic framework, which could help to effectively identify national  natural hazard risks, minimize the effects of hazards before they occur,  and reduce overall future hazard losses to the nation.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Administrator of FEMA, in consultation with  other appropriate federal agencies, develop and maintain a national  comprehensive strategic framework for mitigation that incorporates both  pre- and postdisaster mitigation efforts. The framework should include  items such as common mitigation goals; performance measures and  reporting requirements; the role of specific activities in the overall  framework; and the roles and responsibilities of federal, state, and local  agencies, and nongovernmental stakeholders.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to FEMA, NOAA, USGS, the Corps of  Engineers, and the Forest Service for review and comments. The  Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Interior  provided written comments on behalf of FEMA and USGS, respectively,  that are discussed below and presented in appendix II and III.
FEMA generally agreed with our conclusions and recommendation but  noted that we did not adequately reflect the success of the floodplain  management requirements associated with NFIP, including the community  rating system. We added language that FEMA suggested on the estimated  annual losses avoided because of NFIP floodplain management activities.  However, analyzing the overall effectiveness of floodplain management  activities was beyond the scope of this report.
FEMA also noted that it supported a national comprehensive strategic  framework and setting common mitigation goals. However, the agency  disagreed with setting performance measures and reporting requirements  on a process that takes place largely at the local level. The letter stated  that it would be inappropriate for FEMA or any other federal agency to  dictate mitigation activities, outside of ensuring that mitigation plans and  grant applications met the eligibility requirements defined in authorizing  statutes and regulations. We agree that local communities are responsible  for identifying natural hazard risks and for setting mitigation priorities. But  mitigation activities could benefit from having federal agencies set  performance measures to ensure that crosscutting agency goals are  consistent and that program efforts are mutually reinforcing. With such  practices in place, FEMA, in consultation with other federal agencies,  could partner with and develop buy-in from state and local agencies and  nongovernmental stakeholders. Trend analysis and reporting  requirements, both of which FEMA cited as a more appropriate measure,  would be consistent with our recommendation and could be effective in  measuring the success of a comprehensive strategic mitigation framework.
FEMA also commented that it participates on the Subcommittee on  Disaster Reduction, which coordinates the scientific and technical aspects  of risk identification and reduction across the federal government. The  letter states that the subcommittee accomplishes several of the objectives  identified in our recommendation. We added language clarifying that  FEMA participates on the subcommittee. We cite the subcommittee as an  example of a governmentwide group that has shifted its focus from  reacting to natural disasters to proactively coordinating pre- and  postdisaster mitigation efforts using science and technology. We see the  subcommittee as an important component of, but not a substitute for, a  national comprehensive strategic framework for mitigation.
USGS wrote that the agency agreed with the need for a comprehensive  strategy and emphasized that USGS believed in the importance of  developing such a strategy together with FEMA and in equal partnership  with the other agencies. A jointly developed national strategy could play a  clear role in preparing for and dealing with natural hazards. USGS added  that it would be helpful if the report identified the challenges associated  with developing such a national framework. While identifying all the  challenges was beyond the scope of this report, we did illustrate several of  the obstacles to implementing a comprehensive strategic framework for  mitigation—including the fragmented federal approach to mitigation— which does not take full advantage of synergies that may exist among  mitigation stakeholders. Additionally, USGS stated that it would be helpful  if we identified those programs that have delivered the best value in  mitigation and the areas in which mitigation practices would be most  effective. We agree with USGS that a discussion of successful mitigation  practice is important. In this report, for example, we describe a variety of  mitigation activities that exist to reduce the risk of losses from natural  hazards, including hazard mitigation planning, the adoption and  enforcement of more rigorous building codes, and the use of hazard  control structures.
The Corps of Engineers, Forest Service, and NOAA orally commented that  they agreed with the report but did not comment specifically on the  recommendation. Technical comments provided by the agencies have  been incorporated in this report where appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the  date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Banking,  Housing and Urban Affairs; the Chairman of the House Committee on  Financial Services; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense,  Homeland Security, and Interior; and other interested parties. This report  will also be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (202) 512-8678 or williamso@gao.gov if you or your  staff have any questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix  IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to examine the (1) natural hazards that present a risk  to life and property in the United States, areas that are most susceptible to  them, and factors that may be increasing these risks; (2) mitigation  activities that reduce losses from natural hazards; (3) impediments to  implementing and methods for encouraging mitigation activities; and (4)  collaborative efforts of federal agencies and other stakeholders to  promote mitigation.
To examine the natural hazards that present a risk to life and property in  the United States, we used a comprehensive list of natural hazards  compiled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in a  guidance document for individual and community preparedness. The list  includes floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, thunderstorms and lightning,  winter storms and extreme cold, extreme heat, earthquakes, volcanoes,  landslides and debris flow (mudslides), tsunamis, fires, and wildland fires.  For the purposes of our analysis, we did not include fires because most  home and other structure fires are human induced. To identify areas that  are most susceptible to natural hazard risks, we created national, county- level maps that show the level of risk for each hazard. We limited our  analysis to the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Additionally, we did  not create maps for all natural hazards and narrowed the list of hazards we  mapped to the following: floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildland fires,  tornadoes, and landslides. These natural hazards were chosen based on  the following criteria. First, we limited the scope of the word “property” in  FEMA’s definition of hazard mitigation—actions taken to reduce or  eliminate the long-term risks to life and property from the effects of  hazards—to the built environment and, therefore, did not map hazards  that result mainly in losses to agriculture. Next, we focused on hazards for  which available mitigation activities are long-term loss reduction measures  and not those that primarily focus on monitoring, warning systems,  emergency response, and evacuations. Finally, we focused on the natural  hazards that represent large annual losses in the United States (where data  were available.)
To develop our natural hazard risk maps, we used data from a variety of  sources. We used historical hazard data from 1980 to 2005 as a  representation of current hazard risk for floods, hurricanes, and wildland  fires. For tornadoes, we limited our analysis of historical data from 1980 to  2004. Earthquake and landslide risk were mapped based on the level of  future risk for an event occurring. The data used for each of the maps are  explained below. We determined these data sources to be sufficiently  reliable for our purposes.
Floods – As a proxy for flood risk, we used FEMA data on counties that  experienced a major disaster declarations for flooding.
Hurricanes – We obtained data on historical hurricane tracks from the  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Coastal  Service Center, which show the track for the eye of a hurricane, to develop  the hurricane hazard map. In order to identify counties affected by a  hurricane, we used a buffer of 50 miles around the data representing the  eye of a hurricane. The 50-mile estimate was based on 29 miles for the eye  of the storm and an additional 21 miles for the outer area of high winds.  This is roughly equivalent to NOAA’s terminology of a hurricane “strike” or  “near strike.”
Earthquakes – We obtained data representing seismic risk from the U.S.
Geological Survey’s (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project.  Risk is depicted as acceleration value. Areas with a value of less than 5  were considered low risk, 5 to 15 as medium risk, and over 15 as high risk.
Wildland fires – We used the Federal Wildland Fire Occurrence Data  maintained by the Desert Research Institute to represent wildland fire risk.  These data are based on information compiled by the U.S. Forest Service  (Forest Service), Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs,  National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Some records in  the database were missing latitudinal and longitudinal information.  Therefore, our map only includes fires for which this information was  available.
Tornadoes – We obtained historical tornado data from the NOAA’s  National Weather Service that are available for download from  www.NationalAtlas.gov. We limited our analysis to tornado events with an  F3 (severe) or higher level as measured on the Fujita Scale, because F3 or  higher tornadoes cause significant property damage. Not all records in the  database included latitude and longitude information; therefore, our map  only includes those tornadoes for which latitude and longitude data were  available. Additionally, data were only available through 2004.
Landslides – We obtained data representing the susceptibility and  incidence of landslides from USGS. We used USGS’ classification of areas  of high and moderate risk and overlaid it with county data. Counties that  contained areas of both high and moderate risk were reclassified as  “combination of high and moderate risk.”
We also reviewed the annual losses associated with some of these natural  hazards, when data were available, and factors that may be increasing  natural hazard risk. As there is no comprehensive source of loss  information for natural hazards, we used estimates developed by the  federal agencies responsible for overseeing each natural hazard. We  adjusted the loss estimates from some historical hazard events to 2006  dollars using the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers. To  identify factors that may be increasing natural hazard risks, we reviewed  2000 U.S. Census data, population information, and studies on climatology.  We also reviewed previous congressional reports and our reports and  spoke with officials at several federal, state, and local agencies.
To examine the mitigation activities that exist to reduce losses from  natural hazards and the performance of these activities, we conducted site  visits to four judgmentally selected states including—California, Colorado,  Florida, and Oklahoma. We selected the locations based on the following  criteria: (1) the locations represent a variety of natural hazard risks and  geographic locations; (2) Florida and Oklahoma have Enhanced State  Hazard Mitigation Plans and, therefore, comprehensive mitigation  programs, and California has an Enhanced State Hazard Mitigation Plan  that is pending FEMA approval; and (3) mitigation experts and federal  agency officials recommended locations to visit within these states. In  each of these states, we met with state and local officials to discuss  mitigation activities that had been undertaken or are planned, and  examples of the performance of some of the activities. Many of the local  communities we visited were part of FEMA’s former Project Impact  program. We also visited the Natural Hazards Research Center in Boulder,  Colorado to review an extensive collection of research on natural hazards.  Additionally, we reviewed FEMA’s Best Practices and Case Studies  Portfolio; prior GAO reports; state and local hazard mitigation plans  submitted to FEMA under DMA 2000; and numerous other reports,  summaries, and studies on natural hazard mitigation activities. We also  discussed the types of existing mitigation activities with officials from  federal agencies that oversee natural hazard mitigation programs, and with  mitigation and planning experts. In addition, we met with industry,  nonprofit, and professional organizations; model building code  organizations; an insurance services company; and a risk modeling firm to  discuss the variety of mitigation methods that exist.
To examine impediments that exist to the implementation of mitigation  activities and methods used to promote mitigation, we reviewed  congressional reports, our previous reports and testimonies, and  background documents related to each of the natural hazards within the  scope of our review. These included policy and research documents on  floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, tornadoes, and landslides, as  well as documents on other natural hazards. We also gathered and  analyzed information, documents, reports, and publications from each of  the federal agencies we contacted, including FEMA, USGS, NOAA, the  Corps of Engineers, and the Forest Service. In addition, we reviewed  information provided by professional associations, advocacy groups,  nonprofit organizations, and knowledgeable individuals from the academic  and research communities, such as the American Society of Civil  Engineers, the American Planning Association, Wildlife Federation, and  the University of Colorado at Boulder. To examine the various approaches  used to encourage mitigation, we conducted interviews, conference calls,  and site visits with federal, state, and local officials and members of the  academic community to obtain detailed information and specific examples  of methods used to promote mitigation.
To examine collaborative efforts of federal agencies and other  stakeholders to promote mitigation, we conducted literature reviews of  prior reports on natural hazard mitigation, land-use, research, and policy  documents from federal, state, and local government agencies, and  documentation from nongovernmental stakeholders. We also reviewed our  previous reports on federal agency collaboration and summarized the  results of these reports to identify elements for effective collaboration  among federal agencies and between federal agencies and nonfederal  participants. In addition, we consulted with individuals knowledgeable  about natural hazards, mitigation, and the role of federal agencies in  promoting collaboration on natural hazard mitigation activities. To  examine ways federal agencies and nonfederal participants collaborate on  mitigation we interviewed federal officials involved in mitigation-related  activities, state and local officials, and industry association  representatives. To identify the federal agencies that play key roles in  natural hazard mitigation, we considered federal agencies that promote  mitigation through (1) hazard mitigation grant programs; (2) technical  assistance; (3) regional risk assessments, including mapping of hazard  risk; (4) information dissemination; and (5) programs that specifically  target the reduction of risks caused by natural hazards. We also  determined that it was not feasible to include all federal agencies that play  a role in mitigation within the scope of this review and excluded agencies  that play supplementary, support, and/or secondary roles in natural hazard  mitigation. Based on these considerations, we subsequently contacted five  federal agencies as part of this review, including FEMA, NOAA, USGS, the  Corps of Engineers, and the Forest Service.
We conducted our work in Baltimore, Maryland; Berkeley, Napa, San  Francisco, and Sacramento, California; Boston, Massachusetts; Boulder,  Denver, Golden, and Fort Collins, Colorado; Deerfield Beach, Miami,  Tampa, and West Palm Beach, Florida; Oklahoma City and Tulsa,  Oklahoma; and Washington, D.C., between March 2006 and June 2007 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the person named above, Andy Finkel, Assistant Director;  Nicholas Alexander; Emily Chalmers; Leo Chyi; Isidro Gomez; Eileen  Harrity; Christine Houle; Kai-Yan Lee; John Mingus; Marc Molino; Omyra  Ramsingh, and William Sparling made key contributions to this report.